invalid
On Dec 28, 2012, at 10:21 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin <[email protected]> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > Hi, > > In base-23, the value "0" in most registries is assigned the label "invalid", > but in the text itself the same value is assigned the label "reserved" or a > label derived from "reserved". > > Now "reserved" and "invalid" are not synonymous. "reserved" carries the idea > that this may be redefined in the future (for example to extend the size), > where "invalid" has a more definitive connotation. It does not matter for > interoperability purpose yet, but it would be nice if the two definitions > would match. > > So, which label is the correct one for values 0? "invalid" or "reserved"? > > Thanks. > > - -- > Marc Petit-Huguenin > Email: [email protected] > Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org > Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) > > iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJQ3dT9AAoJECnERZXWan7EXz8QAM9+JIFljevZSv6EnMI91AyZ > GUO1gtPk2VdMcbok9enTRnX4W90vql9dF2V+TK6z2EdOO/Hb2Zn4n5ClM0uPZ5V+ > 0cpBaV8BJ5AncDRZdgcsgZHkr9IR7F60CQ6mNFSFLG/ZIiDD3JJ/JfQLZxv9aI4R > hFAzSdivseuLDKPAO92k8hCcalBYC55IGBpxQeXwi3Eduva8XMUfRVxK2U1uftUZ > +JFvODhGdYNhtuzDwHpBBjZ9JBjUFfY0b7jwry3bDGFK2FofJpkXJ3YU5B1LJRrU > LCOaaLSonn4URbL20bJUKN+iSbc0beQw7I56UN+8eUcoV+kkgYNTC7eOQS2Jyjki > Eif+5opV/Nvn7FlcSPVwdCgGmYQJNJLCAXJXVqbuzhW1fPDh6wE2xXQ/lTphG/Vx > UUaI3daLm28kNLKP2rd9uFMo6+o2IaBbXIH3V6AKdXHxlGq12bxKYPvAbmNEIy3N > Hg7azleq6kEM07SylnjahHgBmxAr/hSl52REj/OshW+W71bMlPjU2oZHLZsuYX7C > +WAJLOEX7ZAo9UwrQJc8ATLkKHm09xN+pXwO99AfbwfZQF/rFdVNVYYKsCaHJY0i > SSRgJO1cxsEgkOwgQ+QF+fe9FpMWhhxjfoz9uttZE7DhuopDpA9ebLFlYlyAj3bU > n7I2TthSAJvJluPdufIq > =Hos6 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
