Hi Carsten, I have no objection to the assignment of 1048 for OUIs (and CIDs).
Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e...@gmail.com On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 6:49 AM Carsten Bormann <c...@tzi.org> wrote: > > Hi Donald, > > The designated experts for CBOR tags have looked at this document. > > The document is proposing to assign tags 48 and 49 for MAC addresses and > OUIs, resp. > These tags come out of a relatively small “efficient” space (*). > A tag for MAC addresses will be widely used and therefore this is an > efficient way to utilize tag 48. > With the length information in the tag content, this also has all the > extensibility we are likely to need. > > For OUIs, I think there are fewer use cases where saving a byte would make a > difference. > So we will propose using tag 1048 instead of 49 for this (adding decimal 1000 > to a tag number to present a related tag is something of a convention now). > Please indicate whether this different assignment is acceptable for this > specification. > > We note that the document does not give a representation of MA-S, MA-M > prefixes (we understand the OUI/CID representation could be used in a pinch > for MA-L), or MAC address prefixes in general (compare RFC 9164, where > representation for IP address prefixes are defined, due to some widely > applicable use cases). Representations for such prefixes, when needed, can of > course be added in a separate registration later. > > Grüße, Carsten > > (*): 48 is in the “1+1” space, of which there are 161 left: > range used % free total > 0 1+0 13 54.17 11 24 > 1 1+1 71 30.60 161 232 > 2 1+2 952 1.46 64328 65280 > 3 1+4 65385 0.00 4294836375 4294901760 > 4 1+8 2 0.00 18446744069414584318 18446744069414584320 > These 161 tags have to serve us the next few decades... > 1048 is from the “1+2” space, which is not likely to run out. > > > On 2023-11-06, at 10:59, Donald Eastlake <d3e...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > This minor revision resolves IESG COMMENTs. > > > > Thanks, > > Donald > > =============================== > > Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) > > 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA > > d3e...@gmail.com > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 4:58 AM <internet-dra...@ietf.org> wrote: > > Internet-Draft draft-ietf-intarea-rfc7042bis-11.txt is now available. It is > > a > > work item of the Internet Area Working Group (INTAREA) WG of the IETF. > > > > Title: IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol and Documentation Usage > > for IEEE 802 Parameters > > Authors: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd > > Joe Abley > > Yizhou Li > > Name: draft-ietf-intarea-rfc7042bis-11.txt > > Pages: 37 > > Dates: 2023-11-06 > > > > Abstract: > > > > Some IETF protocols make use of Ethernet frame formats and IEEE 802 > > parameters. This document discusses several aspects of such > > parameters and their use in IETF protocols, specifies IANA > > considerations for assignment of points under the IANA OUI > > (Organizationally Unique Identifier), and provides some values for > > use in documentation. This document obsoletes RFC 7042. > > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-intarea-rfc7042bis/ > > > > There is also an HTML version available at: > > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-intarea-rfc7042bis-11.html > > > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > > https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-intarea-rfc7042bis-11 > > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at: > > rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts > > _______________________________________________ > > Int-area mailing list > > Int-area@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
