I'll just note that I re-implemented my demo code for RFC8992 using these tags instead of the format in that RFC, and this was easy and works well. Code at https://github.com/becarpenter/graspy/blob/master/pfxm4.py Regards Brian Carpenter On 09-Sep-21 07:09, The IESG wrote: > > The IESG has received a request from the Concise Binary Object Representation > Maintenance and Extensions WG (cbor) to consider the following document: - > 'CBOR tags for IPv4 and IPv6 addresses and prefixes' > <draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-08.txt> as Proposed Standard > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final > comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > last-call@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2021-09-22. Exceptionally, comments may > be sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the beginning > of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > Abstract > > > This specification defines two CBOR Tags to be used with IPv6 and > IPv4 addresses and prefixes. > > > // RFC-EDITOR-please-remove: This work is tracked at > // https://github.com/cbor-wg/cbor-network-address > > > > > The file can be obtained via > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses/ > > > > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > CBOR mailing list > CBOR@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor > -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
