Removing the whole bit numbering mess, and showing the flags in the main figure as you suggest, sounds good to me.
(But since nobody has noticed this before -- AFAIK, at least -- perhaps leaving this as-is would also be acceptable...) Best regards, Pasi > -----Original Message----- > From: ipsec-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipsec-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of ext Tero Kivinen > Sent: 19 January, 2010 14:32 > To: Eronen Pasi (Nokia-NRC/Helsinki) > Cc: ipsec@ietf.org > Subject: [IPsec] Flags in header (was: IKEv2bis, comments about > sections 3-) > > pasi.ero...@nokia.com writes: > > - Section 3.1: "The bits are defined LSB first, so bit 0 would be the > > least significant bit of the Flags octet." This seems to be exactly > > the opposite of the bit numbering used in the figure above, which > > sounds confusing. Instead of using numbers, we should just show a > > diagram? > > > > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > |X X|R|V|I|X X X| > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > So you are suggesting that we change the bit order to use MSB instead > of LSB as it is now? It might be better to get rid of bit numbers > completely then and put the separate flags to the main figure: > > 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | IKE SA Initiator's SPI | > | | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | IKE SA Responder's SPI | > | | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Next Payload | MjVer | MnVer | Exchange Type |X|X|R|V|I|X|X|X| > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Message ID | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Length | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > Figure 4: IKE Header Format > > and remove the whole bit numbering mess. > > Note, that this bit order thing has been inherited from the RFC2408 > which also used MSB bit order when showing figures having 32 bits > words, but used LSB bit order when actually counting bits inside the > octect. > > BTW, your format confused me as I am so used to talking about bit 0 > when I am talking about the lowest bit of the octect (i.e the one you > get by doing (octect & 1)). > > I would actually prefer to keep the text as it is now, even though it > is not consistent with the bit order in 32-bit figures and the bit > order in the text, but at least it clearly defines the bit order. > -- > kivi...@iki.fi > _______________________________________________ > IPsec mailing list > IPsec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
