From nobody Tue Jul 27 13:01:56 2021 Return-Path: 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 6F4013A1038; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 13:01:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: 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: 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 XZDmTOcglqgO; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 13:01:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pl1-x62b.google.com (mail-pl1-x62b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62b]) (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 83BF73A1031; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 13:01:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pl1-x62b.google.com with SMTP id n10so17593244plf.4; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 13:01:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Dxti4k821vv0/Ka70r4sapy64woJHN4/FMeckpz7It0=; b=qt/aY1BPraGLhxOxNUPptj61GXCSrgLJtBkcnLDeuA1LH7ysySrQt2ZTLPu4TjWTFd pAWgSLSZLgcW1A81shZGE9AGGKBIJBdsH0OdAjKxzgj9EBae5Ex4TL0ZnwVRq6HdMlKT 7xAgAAA/JziI2vJdhXtxj37epGjHxQF/jBbHHnxlUU28AtxIos/Rk0v0vZqjIMs157wF ijt/95Q5M5og2DJIrss1J0319d60pW7wIVUpMErqUR3GU3xGYEMRGtzy1OipXNk9lilC TIWkA8B2Db+dhBvPNBHXVu0INCnVF/Qgq3p5BAEmABcF7wlmLeOJFChSWdt8r3XZxIri fZBQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Dxti4k821vv0/Ka70r4sapy64woJHN4/FMeckpz7It0=; b=A8hzvBmDKAvJz6HAYRpYM52dJRnzTHm3seLsDfGEuVenAeB+0llvEKjCJuXA0PoCFu 6Msc9LBm40KUuZbUfkBAZPDzjD4r3OKP6qEPRQMBDAOxkxCUn1dOEpJV1eoKTKVjhZC5 M0Yaf5n1LL4kpwgW+3xMMuYYgphomCAvyJu2nG16YHdlFgdsLJTWXOFAuzTegGzmVKsJ j7aHx6gnbloWyuK3Nw9eT5B/rfZBrsqiyF9fS6YzkOM+n/bnYJOJJJYrC7PMX5k8cz1l YIHty9N3VRUAAQhwocheCw1sQqIKtkJ/pXVm2V7gJ0tF8sOy2GPFmkpBqqzoG1W8Yj0Y jYoA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533fAKzQ1VWwSxLrOe6SeArcZXwMCwdcyfycFRg6q6/YCsbWm0fU b77rgyN6+QoWsug11h7+JOVDiSe5S1lC+w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzVoTrUTe5gkeem/6nYmRH0Xc5ZNUB5bWOwiLk6Nnw8X/YBI7aJARkn3IFIywjUGQZXLnT48Q== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:ead4:: with SMTP id ev20mr5887771pjb.65.1627416106488; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 13:01:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e003:1188:5b01:80b2:5c79:2266:e431? ([2406:e003:1188:5b01:80b2:5c79:2266:e431]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n11sm226604pfj.158.2021.07.27.13.01.43 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 27 Jul 2021 13:01:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [Cbor] Interface names (Re: changes in draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-05.txt) To: =?UTF-8?Q?Christian_Ams=c3=bcss?= , Carsten Bormann Cc: Erik Kline , cbor@ietf.org, 6MAN <6man@ietf.org>, core@ietf.org References: <162608928922.11086.12172415971165753394@ietfa.amsl.com> <29067.1626090045@localhost> From: Brian E Carpenter Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2021 08:01:41 +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: quoted-printable Archived-At: X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 20:01:55 -0000 On 27-Jul-21 21:55, Christian Ams=C3=BCss wrote: > Hello Carsten, groups, >=20 >> Interface names are local, so it doesn=E2=80=99t make a lot of sense t= o carry >> them around between systems, which is where CBOR is mostly used these >> days. >=20 > two applications come to mind: >=20 > * RD introspection[1] uses zone identifiers in what may be described as= > debug output: Usually an RD won't show you a resource on a fe80:: > address not on your link, but as an administrator you may need the > birds-eye view. Yes, that is an operational use case, as also considered in RFC6874(bis) =20 > * Many network devices offer a remote way to run a ping; when the > process is started via CBOR, it'd be useful to give an interface > identifier. How does host A know the Zone IDs (interface names) used on host B? (Answer: only if B has previously told A. So the use case is quite complex.) =20 > I'm not particularly advocating that we add zone identifiers to the new= > tags (as I can use URIs or even work around completely in the former, > and don't have a pressing need for the latter) -- but with those > examples, a statement like "we don't specify interface identifiers > because they shouldn't be serialized anyway" would be overreaching. They shouldn't be on the wire except in rather special use cases. Brian >=20 > BR > c >=20 > [1]: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-amsuess-core-resource-direct= ory-extensions-05.html#name-zone-identifier-introspecti >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > CBOR mailing list > CBOR@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor >=20