Hello Carsten,
Thanks for pointing out that typo. The expressions should have been
"4..64-bit" in both cases. It's amazing how often we can look at the
text and still miss obvious mistakes.
Regards,
Charlie P.
On 5/12/2019 11:49 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On May 12, 2019, at 15:54, Barry Leiba via Datatracker <[email protected]> wrote:
Why is DTL the length *minus 1*? Doesn’t that invite mistakes? Is there a
reason not to make it the length, and to say that 0 is not a valid value?
Fundamentally, a small integer encoded into a bitfield is best encoded as a
value starting from 0, instead of creating holes at the bottom *and* the top.
Also, in this case, the 4-bit value encoding DTL can be between 0 and 15, so
the length in bits could be 0 to 60, which is not enough for 64 bits.
So adding one sounds fine, even if you believe holes are good.
But then, I don’t understand why both DT and OTD are said to be “8..64” bits —
that needs 15 possible values, not 16; OTL has only 3 bits (which cannot
express 15 possible values, which are probably not needed anyway), and the
example for OTL has a DT of 4 bits.
Grüße, Carsten
_______________________________________________
6lo mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
