Re: [Cbor] 🔔 WGLC with request for reviews on cbor-network-addresses-05

Brian E Carpenter <> Sat, 17 July 2021 03:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE5CF3A0A64 for <>; Fri, 16 Jul 2021 20:24:40 -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 bNQFGCFH1VmU for <>; Fri, 16 Jul 2021 20:24:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A92A03A0A63 for <>; Fri, 16 Jul 2021 20:24:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id s18so11888653pgg.8 for <>; Fri, 16 Jul 2021 20:24:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ud100s1TH681LK/nlI8Y3QJvbBzUqVprVZvFgj5kWc8=; b=Chz6r8hfSZi0T+y85wb0OqsVP0k1q4ILICfFrQcQdwg+C0HAlds8WvUNWRgfVWSp3t /eBJ11KlCmXPLw0DLZU0IeoOthrRTrQ1A2wx7fzjbyUi/ELQj1bI3EYxLrdyRYxcUcQP L31Tgaix8/C2J/K2QHbKtHmz3KEjGGaRbKjhqTkFi6M/Tv7Jm+YkyDlVJesZceiNKSIb AbFbQC4RECoqiyYEdOvz1KY6O/ZiQE+fCB+MmaCVHub+MSRAsEnwS/IcUiUdMYosZvxQ lyrpawYfHJntFd84JGqFx90y/Ez1Zjm4bb2xPq+3Y4ScZS9p5X/ISTMFau11G+T82UB+ wUHg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ud100s1TH681LK/nlI8Y3QJvbBzUqVprVZvFgj5kWc8=; b=in4y0IICgNRmLOxOI14b7XMgrFVn2RYO5C7kv04ko/R4nWio9rQpiyhm8/guEwGBq8 /WUszgv6ieJ2NP0tf/8/7ClhdEEcvqoOzxfOeF3kSRGR7Ewy1C6NEZwXJoXLMRAkl5er cRv0AKGp2MaTv/0chUTq9dbG6xyubDck+p62HY5UmJSzGu4ohGGDZX/xFo9Q0yhTesUR bjgScwK8X2CcwNUTPW4xO7l8SORnLmnEtJlV6TIUWfGM2HQEoaR0MY1ZFF4FcGzGcQZX RkYT2uOl3oTiGoZU1QQoKBYxPt/aqUpmbpro1SSte4R9Q2VQ1nOYGsCqqOZt6BDhfhEO XsPw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531F3c695Ufd6BtMr2JiIp2yay8xfGgirAogfXGqAIa5LTcU+Kv9 dU2tvGvC1z4QBnwrhLB2DeZt7uStaF5vwQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx9BxpaCTIqgGBjC/uBLlXwbd979CDTn4trekEyzw2oYm8go1FaQPSBqIAhLHF/Qu2Ny6VTJA==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:f750:: with SMTP id f16mr13259311pgk.292.1626492274938; Fri, 16 Jul 2021 20:24:34 -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 c5sm11894960pfn.144.2021. (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 16 Jul 2021 20:24:34 -0700 (PDT)
To: Barry Leiba <>,
References: <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2021 15:24:30 +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: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] =?utf-8?q?=F0=9F=94=94_WGLC_with_request_for_reviews_on_c?= =?utf-8?q?bor-network-addresses-05?=
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: Sat, 17 Jul 2021 03:24:41 -0000


This is by way of an implementation report. I have a demo implementation
of RFC8992 (Autonomic IPv6 Edge Prefix Management in Large-Scale Networks) and I just made a version of it that uses Tags 52 and 54 instead of the format defined in the RFC.
Up and running on this machine as I type. It only uses the 3rd format for each tag (address followed by prefix length) so it isn't a complete implementation, but anyway it works.**

Code at

So, I've reviewed the draft and it's ready to go.

   Brian Carpenter

** It says things like:
_MainThread 3532 IPv6 pool size 6 /64s 
_MainThread 3532 IPv4 pool size 10 /24s 
delegator 4948 1190 prefixes were delegated 
_MainThread 3532 IPv6 prefix pool is low, will ask for /61 
delegator 4948 1200 prefixes were delegated 
_MainThread 3532 Trying the only peer 
_MainThread 3532 Obtained 2001:db8:ffff:fde8::/61 
_MainThread 3532 IPv4 prefix pool is low, will ask for /20 
_MainThread 3532 Trying the only peer 
_MainThread 3532 Obtained 
_MainThread 3532 IPv6 pool size 7 /64s 
_MainThread 3532 IPv4 pool size 23 /24s 
delegator 4948 1220 prefixes were delegated 

On 17-Jul-21 03:23, Barry Leiba wrote:
> Hello CBOR group,
> This mail marks the start of a two week working group last call on
> cbor-network-addresses[1], which will end at the CBOR meeting of
> IETF111.
> While this document has been discussed during interims and on the
> list, the number of participants discussing it so far is small.  I'd
> appreciate a few more reviews on this before we proceed with it.
> Everyone, please have a look at the latest version  -- it's small,
> just a few pages of actual content -- and post a review to the list.
> Even, "I've reviewed it and it's ready to go," is useful.
> Thanks,
> Barry
> [1]:
> _______________________________________________
> CBOR mailing list