From nobody Sun Aug 1 13:41:18 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 0E54F3A0E95; Sun, 1 Aug 2021 13:41:11 -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 0nzWPen3phwd; Sun, 1 Aug 2021 13:41:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4EAA3A0E92; Sun, 1 Aug 2021 13:41:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7821838A1E; Sun, 1 Aug 2021 16:45:10 -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 Wa3NKzjHtyT6; Sun, 1 Aug 2021 16:45:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F23938A1B; Sun, 1 Aug 2021 16:45:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB3AFB24; Sun, 1 Aug 2021 16:41:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: Brian E Carpenter , "cbor\@ietf.org" , 6MAN <6man@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Cbor] changes in draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-05.txt In-Reply-To: References: <162608928922.11086.12172415971165753394@ietfa.amsl.com> <29067.1626090045@localhost> <20210727210706.buavt5nwairrjblf@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> 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 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: Sun, 01 Aug 2021 20:41:11 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> The few zones that I have seen have been alphanumeric and not numeric >> so making the numeric form canonical has always puzzled me. > You should widen your horizons and look at Windows. The index is more > fundamental than the identifier, exactly as RFC4007 says. Portable co= de > needs to dig out the index (an integer). Under the hood, they are pretty much all an integer. I'm happy to add something to the Interface format for a zone, but I think that to get this past reviews, it will need a clearly articulated use case. I also think that we could add this easily to the Interface format if we ne= eded to in a revision. (WGLC closed on Friday, I am just posting the revised version now) =2D- Michael Richardson . o O ( IPv6 I=C3=B8T consulti= ng ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEbsyLEzg/qUTA43uogItw+93Q3WUFAmEHBt0ACgkQgItw+93Q 3WUeyQgAhjTOy3ppke2hp0fyY99NBGhB0Jk2F+flLdvIjLSm7cw6tFe4OwiYVhbs jZ7UKMR5L3H1gF6beA4cJcWiDo5m+vdvZ9utwdQ44uzipTl0lUrgE4YZZv43hII7 liSowOiZw3keAuLgOVkzeG6JLf7trTg0r1+vd6lbKD41EFSPHbtSlsFPssBn11fr ulwAdw0iVdDuDN5oOu2Z8Rxsv8I3Wq4qRyAXnqcLxIGU+f0tinQB9DDDH8DGf4UO M6lMYhA5muMsRQzu5vS+oe6OwyD8ANMzZHdRYmP0fwmpwoc3MTgT58566iJCWVDk tRTOZDb496A0DEDHWZnQb2vp7s33oA== =v+eL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--