Re: [Cbor] changes in draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-05.txt

One one point:

> how long will it be for the dust on RFC6874bis to settle?

That's out of our hands because it includes consulting with the browser community.

There's also the question of whether the name or the number is "canonical". As you'll have noticed, I don't like ambiguity on this point.

Regards
   Brian

On 02-Aug-21 10:12, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> <#secure method=pgpmime mode=sign>
> 
> Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
>     > More like 1981/1982...
>     > https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/2021-January/006916.html
> 
>     > Back to the subject: I’m happy with the tags in this specification
>     > being the equivalent of the YANG no-zone types.
> 
> okay, do you think this needs some text to explain this?
> 
>     > I’d rather wait for the dust on RFC6874bis to settle before putting in
>     > zones, and I still think CRIs (draft-ietf-core-href) are the place to
>     > do this.
> 
> how long will it be for the dust on RFC6874bis to settle?
> Should we ask for IESG review now?
> It seems that we could do this in parallel.
> 
>     > If we do put them in here (draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses), we 
need
>     > to put them into the address and the interface format; maybe not into
>     > the prefix format (but I’m not so sure about that).
> 
> Yes, you are right Address format too.
> I think we can revise (extend) the document to add what we need, once we
> understand the use cases better.
> 
> The only reason to stop is if we think we got something wrong.
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>            Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 