IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: New Version Notification for draft-troan-6man-universal-ra-option-03.txt

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 08 October 2020 18:09 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2D243A0BB2 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 11:09:54 -0700 (PDT)
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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 0HzvkzRPxTwh for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 11:09:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 800743A0BB1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 11:09:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8DE5389C6; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 14:15:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id eUSSN48i2C9q; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 14:15:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DFA338984; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 14:15:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAC4C18B; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 14:09:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-troan-6man-universal-ra-option-03.txt
In-Reply-To: <ACF262A8-82BC-43DB-8B07-449D829E70FC@fugue.com>
References: <160201571921.22183.2288394613501535041@ietfa.amsl.com> <FAA42031-FAF9-4F1E-A702-3B4F27375F4F@employees.org> <m1kQ8qM-0000FiC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <066A5931-E009-4610-B679-86A8F495A131@employees.org> <m1kQ9tr-0000KEC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <9FB26236-5D9F-433C-8B79-B17F6D337664@employees.org> <818fb13b-5ddd-be02-40f4-e7f395c0bcca@gmail.com> <ACF262A8-82BC-43DB-8B07-449D829E70FC@fugue.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2020 14:09:50 -0400
Message-ID: <7086.1602180590@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/9F4S6dVM3bQH2lGmD7DcLW_vPHY>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2020 18:09:55 -0000

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:
    > The reason you want a JSON-like encapsulation for data is that you want
    > to be able to send arbitrary data. If your protocol does not need the
    > ability to send arbitrary data, a JSON-like encapsulation is always
    > going to be more work, and more prone to security issues when the
    > validator isn’t quite right.

Assuming you only write one TLV parser, and one JSON parser, and you use them
both once, then your comparison is valid.

How many TLV formats does the IETF have?  Seven? Ten?

How many are written with the same care as the CBOR (apples to apples here), parser?
The goal here is not to enable embedded systems to parse RA option in
python[%], but to enable new RA options to be passed through to
*applications* (not kernels) that need them.


[%] - but, micropython on all the Adafruit line of things.
      It's the Napster-like toolkit of IoT.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email