Subject: [Cbor] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-09: (with COMMENT)

From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2021 12:12:53 -0700

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-09: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

** Section 7.  Recommend generalizing the text.

OLD
   Identifying which byte sequences in a protocol are addresses may
   allow an attacker or eavesdropper to better understand what parts of
   a packet to attack.  That information, however, is likely to be found
   in the relevant RFCs anyway, so this is not a significant exposure.

NEW
This document provides an CBOR encoding for IPv4 and IPv6 address information. 
Any applications using these encodings will need to consider the security
implications of this data in their specific context.  For example, identifying
which byte sequences in a protocol are addresses may allow an attacker or
eavesdropper to better understand what parts of a packet to attack.

** Section 8.3.  Recommend making the text clearer on what’s getting deprecated

OLD
   IANA is requested to add the note "DEPRECATED in favor of 52 and 54
   for IP addresses" to registrations 260 and 261

NEW
IANA is requested to add the note "DEPRECATED for use with IP addresses in
favor of 52 and 54" to registrations 260 and 261

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2021 16:37:33 -0400

I'm replying again to this email for completeness:

    > eavesdropper to better understand what parts of a packet to attack.

I took your text as is, in commit 42e5c5cd0f3d7cb87a96908fba441f96391736e3
https://github.com/cbor-wg/cbor-network-address/commit/42e5c5cd0f3d7cb87a96908fba441f96391736e3

    > favor of 52 and 54" to registrations 260 and 261

And this change was made in
https://github.com/cbor-wg/cbor-network-address/commit/de38e39dfa7fce46c567b42332fb578632a6b749

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

---

From: Roman Danyliw <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2021 21:37:22 +0000

Thanks Michael!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: iesg <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 4:38 PM
> To: Roman Danyliw <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; The IESG <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Cbor] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-cbor-network-
> addresses-09: (with COMMENT)
> 
> 
> https://github.com/cbor-wg/cbor-network-
> address/commit/42e5c5cd0f3d7cb87a96908fba441f96391736e3
> 
> https://github.com/cbor-wg/cbor-network-
> address/commit/de38e39dfa7fce46c567b42332fb578632a6b749
> 
> 
> --