Re: Confusing illustration for 3.2.11

Hi Henrik,

Yes, that would be an improvement.

Taras
----- Original Message -----
From: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 5:26 PM
Subject: Re: [DIME] Confusing illustration for 3.2.11


> You are right that the illustration is not correct with respect to
> representing the ELEMENT_DATA field: It is not padded and does not
have
> to be aligned to 4 octets. Only the overall OPTIONS element is 4
octet
> aligned.
>
> Would this diagram be better:
>
> 0                   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
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> |            ELEMENT_T          |         ELEMENT_LENGTH        |
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> |                         ELEMENT_DATA    ...
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- ...
>
> Henrik
>
> >In the draft there's a illustration in section 3.2.11 showing
> >the layout of ELEMENT_T, ELEMENT_LENGTH and ELEMENT_DATA.
> >
> >The ELEMENT_DATA block has "/" left and right borders,
> >indicating a padding on a 4-byte boundry.
> >
> >The text that accompanies the illustration says:
> >
> >"....
> >The length of each element does not have to be a multiple of 4
> >     octets and there is no padding between elements. However, the
size
> >     of the OPTIONS field MUST be a multiple of 4 octets. If the
length
> >     of all the elements is not a multiple of 4 octets, the
generator
> >     MUST pad the OPTIONS field value with all zero octets. Padding
is
> >     not included in the OPTIONS_LENGTH field (see section 3.2.7).
..."
> >
> >The text *before* the illustration indicates:
> >
> >"The OPTIONS field contains 0 or more option elements where each
> >     element follows the layout in Figure 4 (see section 2.4 for a
> >     description of option elements): "
> >
> >If the illustration is an example of a single element (as I
> >read this), then the "'/' walls" indicating padding should not
> >be there. They should only be in the illustration for 3.2.
>