RE: Packet format in ENRP
Johnson Walter-CWJ002 <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.rserpool |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <6F8DFFA2C996D711945800065BFC9E4A0CABD53D@il02exm11> |
I agree with all the changes but would like to suggest another. Much like Michael's suggestion in section 3.3 to align the R bit in PEER_NAME_TABLE_RESPONSE with PEER_PRESENCE and PEER_LIST_RESPONSE. How about the following for the 8 bit flag field. Define bit 15 to be the R flag bit, bit 14 to be the M flag bit, and bit 13 to be W flag bit as shown below the pertinent ENRP protocol messages. This would allow a single mask at least until the time that more than 8 flags were required. PEER_PRESENCE 0000000R PEER_NAME_TABLE 00000W00 PEER_NAME_TABLE_RESPONSE 000000MR (Change as suggested by Michael) PEER_LIST_RESPONSE 0000000R This would also work for the ASAP protocol messages as currently defined. REGISTRATION_RESPONSE 0000000R Walter Qiaobing Xie <> wrote: > Michael, > > Michael Tuexen wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> while writing the ethereal dissector for ENRP I found some things I >> would like to change: >> >> Section 3.1 >> >> The length field is shown as 'Message Length = 0xC' which >> is not correct because there can be some parameters. > > good catch. > >> >> Section 3.3 >> >> Could we exchange the R and M bit? This would align the >> R bit position with the reject bit in a PEER_LIST_RESONSE message. > > I agree. Better alignment is always good :-) > >> >> Section 3.4 >> >> To have a similar layout of the packets i would suggest to change it >> to: >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | >> Type = 0x4 |0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0| Message Length | >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | >> Sender Server's ID | >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | >> Receiver Server's ID | >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | >> Update Action | (reserved) | >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ : >> Pool handle : >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ : >> Pool Element : >> >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > Makes sense to me. I agree. > > regards, > -Qiaobing > >> >> Best regards >> Michael >> >> PS.: ethereal version 0.10.5 will support both ASAP and ENRP... >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rserpool mailing list >> [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rserpool >> > > > _______________________________________________ > rserpool mailing list > [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rserpool