Re: [Cbor] Interface names (Re: changes in draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-05.txt)

Brian E Carpenter <> Tue, 27 July 2021 20:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F4013A1038; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 13:01:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XZDmTOcglqgO; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 13:01:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83BF73A1031; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 13:01:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id n10so17593244plf.4; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 13:01:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Dxti4k821vv0/Ka70r4sapy64woJHN4/FMeckpz7It0=; b=qt/aY1BPraGLhxOxNUPptj61GXCSrgLJtBkcnLDeuA1LH7ysySrQt2ZTLPu4TjWTFd pAWgSLSZLgcW1A81shZGE9AGGKBIJBdsH0OdAjKxzgj9EBae5Ex4TL0ZnwVRq6HdMlKT 7xAgAAA/JziI2vJdhXtxj37epGjHxQF/jBbHHnxlUU28AtxIos/Rk0v0vZqjIMs157wF ijt/95Q5M5og2DJIrss1J0319d60pW7wIVUpMErqUR3GU3xGYEMRGtzy1OipXNk9lilC TIWkA8B2Db+dhBvPNBHXVu0INCnVF/Qgq3p5BAEmABcF7wlmLeOJFChSWdt8r3XZxIri fZBQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Dxti4k821vv0/Ka70r4sapy64woJHN4/FMeckpz7It0=; b=A8hzvBmDKAvJz6HAYRpYM52dJRnzTHm3seLsDfGEuVenAeB+0llvEKjCJuXA0PoCFu 6Msc9LBm40KUuZbUfkBAZPDzjD4r3OKP6qEPRQMBDAOxkxCUn1dOEpJV1eoKTKVjhZC5 M0Yaf5n1LL4kpwgW+3xMMuYYgphomCAvyJu2nG16YHdlFgdsLJTWXOFAuzTegGzmVKsJ j7aHx6gnbloWyuK3Nw9eT5B/rfZBrsqiyF9fS6YzkOM+n/bnYJOJJJYrC7PMX5k8cz1l YIHty9N3VRUAAQhwocheCw1sQqIKtkJ/pXVm2V7gJ0tF8sOy2GPFmkpBqqzoG1W8Yj0Y jYoA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533fAKzQ1VWwSxLrOe6SeArcZXwMCwdcyfycFRg6q6/YCsbWm0fU b77rgyN6+QoWsug11h7+JOVDiSe5S1lC+w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzVoTrUTe5gkeem/6nYmRH0Xc5ZNUB5bWOwiLk6Nnw8X/YBI7aJARkn3IFIywjUGQZXLnT48Q==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:ead4:: with SMTP id ev20mr5887771pjb.65.1627416106488; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 13:01:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e003:1188:5b01:80b2:5c79:2266:e431? ([2406:e003:1188:5b01:80b2:5c79:2266:e431]) by with ESMTPSA id n11sm226604pfj.158.2021. (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 27 Jul 2021 13:01:46 -0700 (PDT)
To: Christian Amsüss <>, Carsten Bormann <>
Cc: Erik Kline <>,, 6MAN <>,
References: <> <29067.1626090045@localhost> <> <> <YP/>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2021 08:01:41 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <YP/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] Interface names (Re: changes in draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-05.txt)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Concise Binary Object Representation \(CBOR\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 20:01:55 -0000

On 27-Jul-21 21:55, Christian Amsüss wrote:
> Hello Carsten, groups,
>> Interface names are local, so it doesn’t make a lot of sense to carry
>> them around between systems, which is where CBOR is mostly used these
>> days.
> two applications come to mind:
> * RD introspection[1] uses zone identifiers in what may be described as
>   debug output: Usually an RD won't show you a resource on a fe80::
>   address not on your link, but as an administrator you may need the
>   birds-eye view.

Yes, that is an operational use case, as also considered in RFC6874(bis)
> * Many network devices offer a remote way to run a ping; when the
>   process is started via CBOR, it'd be useful to give an interface
>   identifier.

How does host A know the Zone IDs (interface names) used on
host B?

(Answer: only if B has previously told A. So the use case is quite
> I'm not particularly advocating that we add zone identifiers to the new
> tags (as I can use URIs or even work around completely in the former,
> and don't have a pressing need for the latter) -- but with those
> examples, a statement like "we don't specify interface identifiers
> because they shouldn't be serialized anyway" would be overreaching.

They shouldn't be on the wire except in rather special use cases.


> BR
> c
> [1]:
> _______________________________________________
> CBOR mailing list