Re: [tram] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-tram-stunbis-16

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@xxxxxxx> writes:
> I did some research and you were right, starting from the left side is
> more common.  My main counter-example is in fact in STUN itself as
> figure 3:
>
>                        0                 1
>                        2  3  4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
>                       +--+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>                       |M |M |M|M|M|C|M|M|M|C|M|M|M|M|
>                       |11|10|9|8|7|1|6|5|4|0|3|2|1|0|
>                       +--+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
[...]

That's an interesting complication.  As you've noted, it's nearly
universal for IETF documents to use big-endian numbering.

But the above example is paradoxical, as the bits are numbered in a
big-endian way across the top of the diagram, from 2 to 15, while being
numbered in a littl-endian way is the boxes, from 11 to 0.  I had
noticed that the top numbers didn't start at 0 (so I didn't count this
figure in my "8 out of 10"), but I overlooked the numbers in the boxes.

Dale




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux