--- 1/draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-03.txt 2021-04-21 09:13:36.494358222 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-04.txt 2021-04-21 09:13:36.510358624 -0700 @@ -1,43 +1,43 @@ CBOR Working Group M. Richardson Internet-Draft Sandelman Software Works -Intended status: Standards Track 25 March 2021 -Expires: 26 September 2021 +Intended status: Standards Track 21 April 2021 +Expires: 23 October 2021 CBOR tags for IPv4 and IPv6 addresses and prefixes - draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-03 + draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-04 Abstract This document describes two CBOR Tags to be used with IPv4 and IPv6 addresses and prefixes. - RFC-EDITOR-please remove: This work is tracked at - https://github.com/mcr/cbor-network-address.git + RFC-EDITOR-please remove: This work is tracked at https://github.com/ + cbor-wg/cbor-network-address Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - This Internet-Draft will expire on 26 September 2021. + This Internet-Draft will expire on 23 October 2021. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights @@ -52,23 +52,23 @@ 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3. Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3.1. IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3.2. IPv4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Encoder Consideration for prefixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5. Decoder Considerations for prefixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7.1. Tag 54 - IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7.2. Tag 52 - IPv4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 9. Changelog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + Appendix A. Changelog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1. Introduction [RFC8949] defines a number of CBOR Tags for common items. Not included are ones to indicate if the item is an IPv4 or IPv6 address, or if it is an address plus prefix length. This document defines them. @@ -85,43 +85,43 @@ These tags can applied to byte strings to represent a single address. When applied to an array, the represent a CIDR-style prefix. When a byte string (without prefix) appears in a context where a prefix is expected, then it is to be assumed that all bits are relevant. That is, for IPv4, a /32 is implied, and for IPv6, a /128 is implied. 3.1. IPv6 IANA has allocated tag 54 for IPv6 uses. (Note that this is the - ASCII code for '6') + ASCII code for '6'.) An IPv6 address is to be encoded as a sixteen-byte byte string ([RFC8949] section, 3.1, major type 2), prefixed with Tag(54). An IPv6 prefix, such as 2001:db8:1234::/48 is to be encoded as a two element array, with the length of the prefix first. Trailing zero - octets MUST be omitted. + bytes MUST be omitted. For example: 54([ 48, h'20010db81234']) 3.2. IPv4 IANA has allocated tag 54 for IPv4 uses. (Note that this is the - ASCII code for '4') + ASCII code for '4'.) An IPv4 address is to be encoded as a four-byte byte string ([RFC8949] section, 3.1, major type 2), prefixed with Tag(52). An IPv4 prefix, such as 192.0.2.1/24 is to be encoded as a two element array, with the length of the prefix first. Trailing zero - octets MUST be omitted. + bytes MUST be omitted. For example: 52([ 24, h'C00002']) 4. Encoder Consideration for prefixes An encoder may omit as many right-hand (trailing) bytes which are all zero as it wishes. @@ -188,58 +188,59 @@ The right-hand bits of the prefix, after the prefix-length, are ignored by this protocol. A malicious party could use them to transmit covert data in a way that would not affect the primary use of this encoding. Such abuse would be detected by examination of the raw protocol bytes. Users of this encoding should be aware of this possibility. 7. IANA Considerations - IANA is asked to allocate two tags from the Specification Required - area of the Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags, in the - ("1+1") area. + IANA has allocated two tags from the Specification Required area of + the Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags: 7.1. Tag 54 - IPv6 - Data Item: byte string and array + Data Item: byte string or array Semantics: IPv6 or [prefixlen,IPv6] 7.2. Tag 52 - IPv4 - Data Item: byte string and array + Data Item: byte string or array Semantics: IPv4 or [prefixlen,IPv4] -8. Acknowledgements - - none yet - -9. Changelog - - * 01 added security considerations about covert channel - -10. Normative References - - [BCP14] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC - 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, - May 2017, . +8. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . [RFC8949] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)", STD 94, RFC 8949, DOI 10.17487/RFC8949, December 2020, . +Appendix A. Changelog + + This section is to be removed before publishing as an RFC. + + * 03 + + * 02 + + * 01 added security considerations about covert channel + +Acknowledgements + + none yet + Author's Address Michael Richardson Sandelman Software Works Email: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca