I had a few (well.. two) hallway conversations about RFC9164 (IPv4/IPv6) tags for CBOR this week.
Specifically... in large YANG described dumps (such as a BGP FIB table) it becomes critical not spend so many bytes on some fundamental datatypes when there are hundreds of thousands of entries. "ietf-yang-types" and "ietf-inet-types" Also a need for AS numbers, MAC addresses in optimized formats. I think that we concluded that there are three ways to do this. 1) a hack in a document when I use yang:ipv6-address I wrote some text that says one should use CBOR foo. The result is very specific to that use, and it is never encoded in the YANG. [not great] 2) some kind of extension where when I *use* yang:ipv6-address that I say that it should be encoded in CBOR using tag <foo>. Also specific to that document/module, but the YANG knows. Russ speculated on the ways in which one could use the right yang extensions to do this without new syntax. 3) some revision to rfc6991 that would include statements about how to encode the known things in CBOR. Then we just have to include a new enough YANG module that specifies things. It seems that draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-13 is in progress, although I don't seem to follow the list to know what's up with. (I thought I subscribed, but maybe it was all via IMAP) Is there some interest in doing this? I guess the better question is, what are the objections? -- Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
