Re: [Cbor] Supporting IPv6 Link-Local with scope (was Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT))

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 06 October 2021 21:54 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75A343A0962; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 14:54:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ksnLAbUo76mV; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 14:54:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC3DE3A095F; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 14:54:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 257E918097; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 18:02:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id xUoB0Sd-DK47; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 18:02:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C851C18050; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 18:02:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B74002C1; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 17:53:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
cc: =?us-ascii?Q?=3D=3FUTF-8=3FQ=3F=3Dc3=3D89ric=5FVyncke=3F=3D?= <evyncke@cisco.com>, cbor@ietf.org, draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, d3e3e3@gmail.com, barryleiba@computer.org, cbor-chairs@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <76d0264b-276e-56a4-1cf4-a7566229766c@gmail.com>
References: <163344085669.17315.998599560097016034@ietfa.amsl.com> <24367.1633460118@localhost> <1fcf3889-57d1-83f5-2913-51ae9155130b@gmail.com> <6442.1633537138@localhost> <76d0264b-276e-56a4-1cf4-a7566229766c@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2021 17:53:57 -0400
Message-ID: <8484.1633557237@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/oQSXL7noNtP1HsxLjR9ZVwhSo1w>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] =?utf-8?q?Supporting_IPv6_Link-Local_with_scope_=28was_Re?= =?utf-8?q?=3A_=C3=89ric_Vyncke=27s_Discuss_on_draft-ietf-cbor-network-add?= =?utf-8?q?resses-09=3A_=28with_DISCUSS_and_COMMENT=29=29?=
X-BeenThere: cbor@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Concise Binary Object Representation \(CBOR\)" <cbor.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/cbor>, <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cbor/>
List-Post: <mailto:cbor@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor>, <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2021 21:54:12 -0000

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
    > (I'd be inclined to add a note that the interface id/index has no
    > significance outside the host where it is defined and cite RFC4007, but
    > it's not

I was struggling to find the right RFC that defines zone/scope, and 4007 is a
good choice.

https://github.com/cbor-wg/cbor-network-address/commit/922fc54e6684d6d691c9dd3fd88a77ec16cf1126#diff-ebc4094e1911b5707c22b5f72c92c35363efd187de5e27c426d9a3cf37d64288

 > As explained in {{RFC4007}} the zone identifiers are strictly local to the
 > node. They are useful for communications within a node about connected
 > addresses (for instance, where a link-local peer is discovered by one
 > daemon, and another daemon needs to be informed).
 > They may also have utility in some management protocols.

(I decided to be vague about which management protocols, because I don't
know, and RESTCONF and SNMP already have solutions. )

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide