IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cbor] Iotdir early review of draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-05

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Mon, 26 July 2021 14:38 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
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 8819D3A1679; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 07:38:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 mb9SAldp3CsX; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 07:38:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-f49.google.com (mail-lf1-f49.google.com [209.85.167.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F2473A1678; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 07:38:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-f49.google.com with SMTP id h2so15900865lfu.4; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 07:38:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=FW+GcyWersqvzvRkB/Agip46Eg/D52IylXO+80kgEAA=; b=oXUiKdjGCUIK1uz/i9MjlPnk/G3aiPOAcbNJbN3d5BfgmRC8dkRZXjhY1ITbsi0bjz 8Bxk9+lN15wCS6/el9/9+Z6WctZB/gVgdcMvuEL2QDmpGfmEzrHz5JqG1KHz5JyT1Owy Sucme7nyusyby9QJOM8I0TmP/6BBvjTJiBXkSSm5ZUsvTVLei5Tu17uWMzCfr7JcCPd2 UroRy7528Y3aNM/zXeZozE+B774qfTXvyRJhoV5394utnaxwhOFpvQIDaWS5u+z7SU1L 5uxFbN1weSiCsLkBMlbUecysXLkWVol3V2EPJkI604N5e9vEwdbs0bu0YMKheRzlDBzt UfrQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531NH5flT3Yp/UYLVruOP0eioHbMYogzLrra5YyF9hWkSsMGGJe5 Q+6ULeFtYDHrfwnUnmESnBSwCpKQXnXVHFhCZZc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw/Th60jxiKHbulmvjpkBmnSrm2P6jM8ZA4TvB6jGItwzQ6vChbDSRUrvcZ2mznTj+jeurDATXgv3tlwyuNGMc=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:4845:: with SMTP id 5mr13471576lfy.313.1627310311460; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 07:38:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <162729343263.13734.5774247416866337222@ietfa.amsl.com> <ECE0152F-121F-4EC4-94C3-EC7DB4A115D0@tzi.org> <CALaySJ+Xf0B2EUFJJ3h19BMKZBcTQaiR4uk+LdoaM5MG_+R1-Q@mail.gmail.com> <0F643A58-126F-4DAA-B5CF-485C092369F5@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <0F643A58-126F-4DAA-B5CF-485C092369F5@tzi.org>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 10:38:20 -0400
Message-ID: <CALaySJ+bBm-vc35Zj-rUCKq8A0AL+tBDcc0u612Qhmz23qPCHw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses.all@ietf.org, IETF IoT Directorate <iot-directorate@ietf.org>, Mohit Sethi <mohit.m.sethi@ericsson.com>, cbor@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/qTuprR-AeyZLPbypZy7om5EVPTE>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] Iotdir early review of draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-05
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: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 14:38:39 -0000

> We could expand that a bit more.

Maybe just a sentence, like, "These new tags should be used in
preference to tags 260 and 261."  Or some such.

b

On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 10:19 AM Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
>
> On 2021-07-26, at 15:42, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:
> >
> > But if the working
> > group would rather see such new implementors use 52/54, it would be
> > useful to have a few words about that in this document, however brief
> > and however non-normative.
>
> Right.  The intro says about our motivation:
>
>    [RFC8949] defines a number of CBOR Tags for common items.  Tags 260
>    and 261 were later defined through IANA.  These tags cover addresses
>    (260), and prefixes (261).  Tag 260 distinguishes between IPv4, IPv6
>    and Ethernet through the length of the byte string only.  Tag 261 was
>    not documented well enough to be used.
>
>    This specification provides a format for IPv6 and IPv4 addresses,
>    prefixes, and addresses with prefixes, achieving an explicit
>    indication of IPv4 or IPv6.  Prefixes omit trailing zeroes in the
>    address.  […]
>
> We could expand that a bit more.
>
> Grüße, Carsten
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email