Re: [Cbor] Deprecating tags and Ethernet address in draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 05 October 2021 22:57 UTC

Return-Path: <ek.ietf@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 076F03A0C5A; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 15:57:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.097 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, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 yBbkVQxodyj7; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 15:57:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi1-x22e.google.com (mail-oi1-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22e]) (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 D19583A0B0C; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 15:57:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi1-x22e.google.com with SMTP id s24so1397459oij.8; Tue, 05 Oct 2021 15:57:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=CKFwauVWB/U3Ua88nvxDleTfSFW2ak2tPnTdK0XOaGo=; b=qeajYH//Q2xRIqEfcSjYC8NnMXdKaO3w+Qk1IDfEPmC1ZtK8W4ZpJ3hvF0FcU91wXn 6WvqhUi9GdJboBjV+vLYvrcxjEejkTOegtM1HSoKrgJEb44F6Arfj8UjQ6cUGUjUVYJ3 wCT7atd90SKDNyGby2znyvb5WXnz7zrrNtRzz00LbHZuzE5Ge7s1GQGq1ij+047ZjT0g 1gzG0fw1M+26hSLyHk9fsPzRSrx6QWoLnYfDphQGsBbqF9xUcn6Jx/Ni6/URFy/v3Jjc kRMdeHgsMR96fvlPxZ8FWJtD/YpWS2jyLK/2e6bqO+/8TOG1binA3oyVw9BeYkZvw3GO cMyg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=CKFwauVWB/U3Ua88nvxDleTfSFW2ak2tPnTdK0XOaGo=; b=omsU2stYZqt/2MmjI/EFxEECKxMas7FBw1BamUXJ5WMIbG5+402vJBKv9ReWWkzmKt uay9/RlgB4S8RzmVPY4xqHjg3ml6VxiqezmRo3w+stpurnBe0QIfYpef3yIMdZf1xI36 F/wAbCMQtMvyTJkoe91HgXJH7z29wy3/hVMN79ct4fP373znfiQ01Wtv66Ua2irN6/hX gogMiEw0mBV1IDh0ynNmLmDEH7GX8MtgJ7Rhf7M+gSA8l1qb1iuem8jj9feu32Ym0/EG lgfbYCg3xjCl3PVqIRR+A9W/jSmF6kGvyDV5Vn2yEfilMfTcNid1I38wpeAufl+tGR8I unvw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5318OujXn+ekP4zMTp4UzngbIiAeXOjxr/f4ORbjVBDOBTx6SkQK ba8VSKYAfom0vGfwE4FbacDwNNQlz3ZIN98wplM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw0hd10z6ZHLpekqohAGH36mYGVwXds+71y//Kjhp+NczMy1X6qPcHeUAjyOv5X9XZo+zjtjl6EgcWMNMS/l8s=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:1441:: with SMTP id x1mr4581489oiv.77.1633474647814; Tue, 05 Oct 2021 15:57:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <163344085669.17315.998599560097016034@ietfa.amsl.com> <26566.1633453159@localhost> <CAF4+nEEF3Rv=KoiS9DZZUVeXnLPdhT=1qa-CNwJR-CHtk9BhEg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAF4+nEEF3Rv=KoiS9DZZUVeXnLPdhT=1qa-CNwJR-CHtk9BhEg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2021 15:57:17 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMGpriU2W8oagNocLz50p=qX2rE8tcb2OZ98UUfyZprdmrOdMw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses@ietf.org, cbor@ietf.org, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, cbor-chairs@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000021f3e605cda2f44c"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/yWgSxitH-pxYtEkISYBc2hOH6hQ>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] Deprecating tags and Ethernet address in draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: Tue, 05 Oct 2021 22:57:33 -0000

Will there be cleverness like reusing the RFC 7043 DNS RR values
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7043#section-7> for the new
tags?  ;-)

On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 3:02 PM Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am in the process of revising RFC 7042. See
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-eastlake-rfc7042bis/
>
> Perhaps rfc7042bis should specify a CBOR tag for MAC addresses. I'd be
> happy to add that.
>
> Thanks,
> Donald
> ===============================
>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
>  2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
>  d3e3e3@gmail.com
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 12:59 PM Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> {another area review, this one from Donald, which never made it to my
>> inbox. This seems to happen on and off for me. I know it's a local issue.
>> sigh}
>>
>> Opened as issue: https://github.com/cbor-wg/cbor-network-address/issues/9
>>
>> I guess that I'd like to thank the IESG, ADs and Donald Eastlake for
>> confirming for me, why I didn't want to say ANYTHING about tags 260 and
>> 261 :-)
>>
>> I think that there was a fourth comment which I've misplaced, maybe from
>> Barry, about what if you did want to tag an ethernet address.
>> I don't need to do that, if there is someone who does, maybe they could
>> speak up?
>> Tag 260 still works, but maybe you want another tag.
>>
>> First, since some previous review a week ago, the text now says
>>
>>   ## Tags 260 and 261
>>
>>   IANA is requested to add the note "DEPRECATED in favor of 52 and 54 for
>> IP
>>   addresses" to registrations 260 and 261
>>
>>
>> ... the document does not deal with Ethernet Addresses.
>>
>>
>>   According to this document, there currently exists a method for
>>   encoding 48- and 64-bit MAC addresses using CBOR tag 260 but that
>>   method will be deprecated. Shouldn't the draft preserve some
>>   non-deprecated way of encoding MAC addresses?
>> ** Section 8.3.  Recommend making the text clearer on what’s getting
>> deprecated
>>
>> OLD
>>    IANA is requested to add the note "DEPRECATED in favor of 52 and 54
>>    for IP addresses" to registrations 260 and 261
>>
>> NEW
>> IANA is requested to add the note "DEPRECATED for use with IP addresses in
>> favor of 52 and 54" to registrations 260 and 261
>> In light of the genart reviewer's comment, I think we should say
>> something like "this specification does not deal with Ethernet
>> addresses, and tag 260 remains available for that usage" to clarify that
>> we are not deprecating use of that tag for Ethernet addresses.
>>
>> --
>> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting
>> )
>>            Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>