As someone who has implemented and deployed product that use IEEE 802.15.4e-2012 Information Elements, I agree with Simon's encodings.
-- Jonathan Hui On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 4:21 AM, Simon Duquennoy <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear all, > > I believe the example IE headers (for header/payload/MLME IEs) are wrong > in section 10.1 of the minimal draft. Some endianness confusion I guess: > > 1) Header IE: list termination: > len = 0 as bits 0-6 > id = 0x7e as bits 7-14 > type = 0 as bit 15 > header = len + id << 7 which gives 0x3f00 > > => with little endian encoding we get: 00 3F > => in the document, it is currently 00 FC > > 2) Payload IE Header (MLME): 1A 88 seems correct > > 3) MLME-SubIE TSCH Synchronization: > len = 6 as bits 0-7 > id = 0x1a as bits 8-14 > type = 0 as bit 15 > header = len + id << 8 which gives 0x1a06 > > => with little endian encoding we get: 06 1A > => in the document, it is currently 06 34 > > 4) MLME-SubIE TSCH Timeslot: > len = 1 as bits 0-7 > id = 0x1c as bits 8-14 > type = 0 as bit 15 > header = len + id << 8 which gives 0x1c01 > > => with little endian encoding we get: 01 1C > => in the document, it is currently 01 38 > > and so on.. > > My apologies if it is me misreading something. > > One other minor remark: in section 10, when describing byte order, I would > suggest referring to "little-endian ordering" rather than "LSB format". > > Thank you, > Simon > > > _______________________________________________ > 6tisch mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch > >
_______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
