Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags for IPv4 and IPv6 Addresses and Prefixes
draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-13

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, barryleiba@computer.org, cbor-chairs@ietf.org, cbor@ietf.org, draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses@ietf.org, francesca.palombini@ericsson.com, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: Protocol Action: 'CBOR tags for IPv4 and IPv6 addresses and prefixes' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-13.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'CBOR tags for IPv4 and IPv6 addresses and prefixes'
  (draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-13.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Concise Binary Object Representation
Maintenance and Extensions Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Murray Kucherawy and Francesca Palombini.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses/

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

This specification defines two new CBOR tags, 54 and 52, which provide formats for IPv6 and IPv4 addresses, respectively.  The new tags are intended to be used in place of the existing 260 and 261 tags, and make a clear distinction between v6 and v4 while also allowing specification of addresses, prefixes, and addresses with prefixes.  These new tags are proposed as standard tags, so the document is a Proposed Standard.

Working Group Summary and Document Quality

The document is a simple one, and had discussion among a relatively small group of participants.  On request during working group last call we confirmed that the support in the working group is broad, and that the working group as a whole agrees with it.  External reviews have been requested during WGLC and received from OpsDir and IoTDir.  Discussion in general has been largely editorial.  There are broad plans to implement these tags; the desire for the features provided here, noting how 260 and 261 are lacking, was the reason for creating this.

There has been some late discussion to do with zone index, which might continue during IETF-wide last call.  At this time, we don't think changes are needed as a result of that discussion.

Personnel

The document shepherd is Barry Leiba; the responsible AD is Francesca Palombini.

RFC Editor Note