Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-rfc7042bis-11.txt

[Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>]

Hi Carsten,

I have no objection to the assignment of 1048 for OUIs (and CIDs).

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
 [e-mail]

On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 6:49 AM Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi Donald,
>
> The designated experts for CBOR tags have looked at this document.
>
> The document is proposing to assign tags 48 and 49 for MAC addresses and OUIs, resp.
> These tags come out of a relatively small “efficient” space (*).
> A tag for MAC addresses will be widely used and therefore this is an efficient way to utilize tag 48.
> With the length information in the tag content, this also has all the extensibility we are likely to need.
>
> For OUIs, I think there are fewer use cases where saving a byte would make a difference.
> So we will propose using tag 1048 instead of 49 for this (adding decimal 1000 to a tag number to present a related tag is something of a convention now).
> Please indicate whether this different assignment is acceptable for this specification.
>
> We note that the document does not give a representation of MA-S, MA-M prefixes (we understand the OUI/CID representation could be used in a pinch for MA-L), or MAC address prefixes in general (compare RFC 9164, where representation for IP address prefixes are defined, due to some widely applicable use cases). Representations for such prefixes, when needed, can of course be added in a separate registration later.
>
> Grüße, Carsten
>
> (*): 48 is in the “1+1” space, of which there are 161 left:
> range  used     %                 free                total
> 0 1+0    13 54.17                   11                   24
> 1 1+1    71 30.60                  161                  232
> 2 1+2   952  1.46                64328                65280
> 3 1+4 65385  0.00           4294836375           4294901760
> 4 1+8     2  0.00 18446744069414584318 18446744069414584320
> These 161 tags have to serve us the next few decades...
> 1048 is from the “1+2” space, which is not likely to run out.
>
> > On 2023-11-06, at 10:59, Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > This minor revision resolves IESG COMMENTs.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Donald
> > ===============================
> >  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
> >  2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
> >  [e-mail]
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 4:58 AM <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Internet-Draft draft-ietf-intarea-rfc7042bis-11.txt is now available. It is a
> > work item of the Internet Area Working Group (INTAREA) WG of the IETF.
> >
> >    Title:   IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol and Documentation Usage for IEEE 802 Parameters
> >    Authors: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
> >             Joe Abley
> >             Yizhou Li
> >    Name:    draft-ietf-intarea-rfc7042bis-11.txt
> >    Pages:   37
> >    Dates:   2023-11-06
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> >    Some IETF protocols make use of Ethernet frame formats and IEEE 802
> >    parameters.  This document discusses several aspects of such
> >    parameters and their use in IETF protocols, specifies IANA
> >    considerations for assignment of points under the IANA OUI
> >    (Organizationally Unique Identifier), and provides some values for
> >    use in documentation.  This document obsoletes RFC 7042.
> >
> > The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-intarea-rfc7042bis/
> >
> > There is also an HTML version available at:
> > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-intarea-rfc7042bis-11.html
> >
> > A diff from the previous version is available at:
> > https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-intarea-rfc7042bis-11
> >
> > Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at:
> > rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts
> > _______________________________________________
> > Int-area mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
>