Re: [Cbor] I-D Action: draft-richardson-cbor-network-addresses-01.txt
Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Sun, 07 February 2021 02:49 UTC
Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
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 965A33A2EC2 for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Feb 2021 18:49:50 -0800 (PST)
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 wgAOFitMkFs6 for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Feb 2021 18:49:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E68CD3A2EC1 for <cbor@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 Feb 2021 18:49:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.217.118] (p5089a828.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.168.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4DYDCD1KqLz1060; Sun, 7 Feb 2021 03:49:44 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <161266446471.542.2418789735601546566@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2021 03:49:43 +0100
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 634358983.4810129-6823cd91ebcf1dd8a767e7ccf4b13cdc
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8145641F-60C3-437D-93EA-1ACFC6ED2B89@tzi.org>
References: <161266446471.542.2418789735601546566@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: cbor@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/s-Z1h0KeMJNI6cPjQV2N6bt6vMM>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] I-D Action: draft-richardson-cbor-network-addresses-01.txt
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: Sun, 07 Feb 2021 02:49:51 -0000
Nice and sweet (although I liked the sequence in -00 of describing current IP before legacy 32-bit IP better). Need to update the IANA considerations with the new array order. There needs to be some text about padding in the prefix byte strings. (Ultimately, a prefix is a bit string, which we decided NOT to have as a basic type in RFC 7049; that would be two bytes shorter if we want that.) We use the term “byte string”, not “bytestring” or “byte-string”. I don’t think the current security considerations are worth it — this security consideration applies to any self-describing representation. (And inversely, in a signed object you do want to minimize semantic dependencies from context.) I think it would be useful to have some discussion about the pre-existing tags in this space, but that could be done separately (such as in the notable-tags document, for which I need to find time to update it…). Grüße, Carsten > On 2021-02-07, at 03:21, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > > > Title : CBOR tags for IPv4 and IPv6 addresses and prefixes > Author : Michael Richardson > Filename : draft-richardson-cbor-network-addresses-01.txt > Pages : 4 > Date : 2021-02-06 > > Abstract: > This document describes two CBOR Tags to be used with IPv4 and IPv6 > addresses and prefixes. > > RFC-EDITOR-please remove: This work is tracked at > https://github.com/mcr/cbor-network-address.git > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-richardson-cbor-network-addresses/ > > There is also an HTML version available at: > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-richardson-cbor-network-addresses-01.html > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-richardson-cbor-network-addresses-01 > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > > _______________________________________________ > I-D-Announce mailing list > I-D-Announce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce > Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
- Re: [Cbor] I-D Action: draft-richardson-cbor-netw… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Cbor] I-D Action: draft-richardson-cbor-netw… Michael Richardson
- Re: [Cbor] I-D Action: draft-richardson-cbor-netw… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Cbor] I-D Action: draft-richardson-cbor-netw… Michael Richardson
- Re: [Cbor] I-D Action: draft-richardson-cbor-netw… Christian Amsüss