Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-08

Request Review of draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 13)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2021-09-22
Requested 2021-09-08
Authors Michael Richardson , Carsten Bormann
Draft last updated 2021-09-19
Completed reviews Iotdir Early review of -05 by Mohit Sethi (diff)
Opsdir Early review of -05 by Ron Bonica (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -08 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -09 by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Robert Sparks
State Completed
Review review-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-08-genart-lc-sparks-2021-09-19
Posted at
Reviewed revision 08 (document currently at 13)
Result Ready
Completed 2021-09-19
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at


Document: draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-08
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 2021-09-19
IETF LC End Date: 2021-09-22
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: Ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC

Should the IANA registry (and/or the document) say something more about what
one can do if one wanted to represent an Ethernet address? 260 allowed that but
you are deprecating it - are you only deprecating it for v4 and v6 use, or do
you hope its use goes away completely?