draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-03.txt		draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-04.txt
	CBOR Working Group M. Richardson		CBOR Working Group M. Richardson
	Internet-Draft Sandelman Software Works		Internet-Draft Sandelman Software Works
	Intended status: Standards Track 25 March 2021		Intended status: Standards Track 21 April 2021
	Expires: 26 September 2021		Expires: 23 October 2021
	CBOR tags for IPv4 and IPv6 addresses and prefixes		CBOR tags for IPv4 and IPv6 addresses and prefixes
	draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-03		draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-04
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document describes two CBOR Tags to be used with IPv4 and IPv6		This document describes two CBOR Tags to be used with IPv4 and IPv6
	addresses and prefixes.		addresses and prefixes.
	RFC-EDITOR-please remove: This work is tracked at		RFC-EDITOR-please remove: This work is tracked at https://github.com/
	https://github.com/mcr/cbor-network-address.git		cbor-wg/cbor-network-address
	Status of This Memo		Status of This Memo
	This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the		This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
	provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.		provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		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 Notice
	Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
	license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.		license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
	Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights		Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
	skipping to change at page 2, line 18 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 18 ¶
	2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	3. Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		3. Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	3.1. IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		3.1. IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	3.2. IPv4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		3.2. IPv4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	4. Encoder Consideration for prefixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		4. Encoder Consideration for prefixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	5. Decoder Considerations for prefixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		5. Decoder Considerations for prefixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	7.1. Tag 54 - IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		7.1. Tag 54 - IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	7.2. Tag 52 - IPv4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		7.2. Tag 52 - IPv4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	9. Changelog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		Appendix A. Changelog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	[RFC8949] defines a number of CBOR Tags for common items.		[RFC8949] defines a number of CBOR Tags for common items.
	Not included are ones to indicate if the item is an IPv4 or IPv6		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		address, or if it is an address plus prefix length. This document
	defines them.		defines them.
	skipping to change at page 2, line 51 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 51 ¶
	These tags can applied to byte strings to represent a single address.		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		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		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		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.		is, for IPv4, a /32 is implied, and for IPv6, a /128 is implied.
	3.1. IPv6		3.1. IPv6
	IANA has allocated tag 54 for IPv6 uses. (Note that this is the		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		An IPv6 address is to be encoded as a sixteen-byte byte string
	([RFC8949] section, 3.1, major type 2), prefixed with Tag(54).		([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		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		element array, with the length of the prefix first. Trailing zero
	octets MUST be omitted.		bytes MUST be omitted.
	For example:		For example:
	54([ 48, h'20010db81234'])		54([ 48, h'20010db81234'])
	3.2. IPv4		3.2. IPv4
	IANA has allocated tag 54 for IPv4 uses. (Note that this is the		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		An IPv4 address is to be encoded as a four-byte byte string
	([RFC8949] section, 3.1, major type 2), prefixed with Tag(52).		([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		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		element array, with the length of the prefix first. Trailing zero
	octets MUST be omitted.		bytes MUST be omitted.
	For example:		For example:
	52([ 24, h'C00002'])		52([ 24, h'C00002'])
	4. Encoder Consideration for prefixes		4. Encoder Consideration for prefixes
	An encoder may omit as many right-hand (trailing) bytes which are all		An encoder may omit as many right-hand (trailing) bytes which are all
	zero as it wishes.		zero as it wishes.
	skipping to change at page 5, line 10 ¶		skipping to change at page 5, line 10 ¶
	The right-hand bits of the prefix, after the prefix-length, are		The right-hand bits of the prefix, after the prefix-length, are
	ignored by this protocol. A malicious party could use them to		ignored by this protocol. A malicious party could use them to
	transmit covert data in a way that would not affect the primary use		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		of this encoding. Such abuse would be detected by examination of the
	raw protocol bytes. Users of this encoding should be aware of this		raw protocol bytes. Users of this encoding should be aware of this
	possibility.		possibility.
	7. IANA Considerations		7. IANA Considerations
	IANA is asked to allocate two tags from the Specification Required		IANA has allocated two tags from the Specification Required area of
	area of the Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags, in the		the Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags:
	("1+1") area.
	7.1. Tag 54 - IPv6		7.1. Tag 54 - IPv6
	Data Item: byte string and array		Data Item: byte string or array
	Semantics: IPv6 or [prefixlen,IPv6]		Semantics: IPv6 or [prefixlen,IPv6]
	7.2. Tag 52 - IPv4		7.2. Tag 52 - IPv4
	Data Item: byte string and array		Data Item: byte string or array
	Semantics: IPv4 or [prefixlen,IPv4]		Semantics: IPv4 or [prefixlen,IPv4]
	8. Acknowledgements		8. Normative References
	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, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,		DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
	[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC		[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
	2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,		2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
	May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.		May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
	[RFC8949] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object		[RFC8949] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
	Representation (CBOR)", STD 94, RFC 8949,		Representation (CBOR)", STD 94, RFC 8949,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC8949, December 2020,		DOI 10.17487/RFC8949, December 2020,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8949>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8949>.
			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		Author's Address
	Michael Richardson		Michael Richardson
	Sandelman Software Works		Sandelman Software Works
	Email: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca		Email: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca
End of changes. 14 change blocks.
	31 lines changed or deleted		32 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/