[manet] Re: Diagramms with 64 bit values

Hi

Yes usually it is better not to repeat the word 'carrier frequency',
because it is one field.



On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 8:33 AM Henning Rogge <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> After the last round of reviews I am brooding over a design decision
> in my drafts. We have quite a few 64 bit values in DLEP related
> messages and there seems to be no clear consensus on how to display
> them in a protocol diagram. IETF protocol diagrams are 32 bit per
> line, so 64 bit values need two lines... I originally copied the style
> from RFC 8175 (example from the radio band draft):
>
>    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
>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>    | Data Item Type                | Length                        |
>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>    |                       Carrier Frequency                       |
>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>    |                       Carrier Frequency                       |
>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
> The text explanation should make clear that it's a single 64 bit
> value, but two reviewers suggested that it's misleading and I should
> fix it...
>

Yes I agree to fix it better,


>
> Some people seem to the "..." for the second part of the 64 bit value,
> but I don't like it. "..." should be (in my opinion) limited to
> separate an arbitrary number of similar fields.
>

yes agree with you,


>
>    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
>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>    | Data Item Type                | Length                        |
>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>    |                       Carrier Frequency                       |
>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>    |                       ...                                     |
>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
> I looked through a couple of other RFCs with 64 bit fields and found
> the following design in the IPv6 RFC (
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8200#section-3 ):
>
> IPv6 Header Format
>
>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>    |Version| Traffic Class |           Flow Label                  |
>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>    |         Payload Length        |  Next Header  |   Hop Limit   |
>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>    |                                                               |
>    +                                                               +
>    |                                                               |
>    +                         Source Address                        +
>    |                                                               |
>    +                                                               +
>    |                                                               |
>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
> I think this design could work well for DLEP extension RFCs, but I
> would like to hear your opinion on this.
>

Yes that is best

thanks,

AB

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]