IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cbor] CBOR tags for IPv4 and IPv6 addresses and prefixes

Christian Amsüss <christian@amsuess.com> Fri, 29 January 2021 09:49 UTC

Return-Path: <christian@amsuess.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 ED7613A07FC for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 01:49:13 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 I0SFMKhNWhr3 for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 01:49:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from prometheus.amsuess.com (alt.prometheus.amsuess.com [IPv6:2a01:4f8:190:3064::3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 982483A07F7 for <cbor@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 01:49:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from poseidon-mailhub.amsuess.com (095129206250.cust.akis.net [95.129.206.250]) by prometheus.amsuess.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C717A405E2; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 10:49:07 +0100 (CET)
Received: from poseidon-mailbox.amsuess.com (poseidon-mailbox.amsuess.com [IPv6:2a02:b18:c13b:8010:a800:ff:fede:b1bf]) by poseidon-mailhub.amsuess.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9E9D106; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 10:49:06 +0100 (CET)
Received: from hephaistos.amsuess.com (unknown [IPv6:2a02:b18:c13b:8010:4f12:4282:3180:75d3]) by poseidon-mailbox.amsuess.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8E7BD44; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 10:49:06 +0100 (CET)
Received: (nullmailer pid 3586256 invoked by uid 1000); Fri, 29 Jan 2021 09:49:06 -0000
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 10:49:06 +0100
From: Christian Amsüss <christian@amsuess.com>
To: cbor@ietf.org
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Message-ID: <YBPaEj1Bty+x5gjU@hephaistos.amsuess.com>
References: <161160506696.8820.4814310513726926040@ietfa.amsl.com> <13114.1611606075@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="eTTZDMTXMdpKG/J6"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <13114.1611606075@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/vjesA2xiwuo-0FrFerTE8hqxIYY>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] CBOR tags for IPv4 and IPv6 addresses and prefixes
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: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 09:49:14 -0000

Hello CBOR group,

> I was not satisfied with the semantics of tag 260 and 261.

Have there been positive experiences in the group with tag 260?

In particular, I'm thinking of draft-ietf-core-href which, for the
payload of its host.ip production, uses the same length dispatch between
IPv4 and IPv6 (in an untagged form).

Or with tag 261? (which sounds a bit odder for its use of a map).

BR
Christian

-- 
To use raw power is to make yourself infinitely vulnerable to greater powers.
  -- Bene Gesserit axiom

v2.14.0 | Report a Bug | By Email