[netmod] "uint24" in rfc6991-bis?

Robert Varga <nite@hq.sk> Wed, 22 April 2020 21:17 UTC

Return-Path: <nite@hq.sk>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18C193A0A81 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 14:17:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=hq.sk
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 QCmX3niPigcs for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 14:17:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.hq.sk (hq.sk [81.89.59.181]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CA2D3A0A90 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 14:17:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nitebug.nitenet.local (chello085216197060.chello.sk [85.216.197.60]) by mail.hq.sk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 344D1241FED for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 23:17:32 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=hq.sk; s=mail; t=1587590252; bh=0LTzX4avexda4RmE+ETROOVMHNanuB3mXCvqlK6eAFY=; h=To:From:Subject:Date; b=lZPEHdMT+XGvFgXhgc1wHeO+2cG38BBkDeB5mbMLRYqt/xQqs9WUp1rIAYl2viupE fgfHBj0dCxtMtqmUeWABQDlY+hRG9qQVdRinPtOEbqFU8oSn8pOB5/Md56M238ftdH RduXbuVcmphB+H25C0Te62c39dZMQt06tY5vKfJk=
To: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
From: Robert Varga <nite@hq.sk>
Message-ID: <a185a706-235e-a780-1cdd-147ac33a4e40@hq.sk>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 23:17:26 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="EUCRqPb7Nh938OkQapZMzFsAKE8y5UXcN"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/MEJwqrazAoZCI0YUxIBJSaQmRgQ>
Subject: [netmod] "uint24" in rfc6991-bis?
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 21:17:49 -0000

Hello,

a number of IETF protocols-and-whatnots are operating on unsigned 24bit
(or 3-octet) entities. For example:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7471#section-4.1.5
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7471#section-4.4.5
SRGB range start/length in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8669

I wonder whether it would make sense to provide something like:

type uint24 {
   type uint32;
   range 0..16777215;
}

in ietf-inet-types as a common base type for such definitions.

Regards,
Robert