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/