On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 8:58 AM Tomasz Moń <deso...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 8:30 AM Jaap Keuter <jaap.keu...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > > Let’s put a hypothetical here, a 7 bit value spanning 2 octets: > > > > 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8| 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 > > +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ > > | | | | | | | 6| 5| 4| 3| 2| 1| 0| | | | > > +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ > > > > This would be the typical interpretation, as seen in network protocols. > > > > Your suggestion is that the interpretation can also be: > > > > 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8| 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 > > +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ > > | | | | | | | 1| 0| 6| 5| 4| 3| 2| | | | > > +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ > > This is not what I wanted to write. Assuming you meant two octets, and > the bitmask on the 16-bit value is 0x1FC0 then the alternative > interpretation would be: > 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8| 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 > +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ > | | | | | | | 4| 3| 2| 1| 0| 6| 5| | | | > +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
Sorry, I should have displayed that in a fixed font earlier! It is perfectly clear then (the bitmask in your example is 0x03F8, and not 0x1FC0 as I was led to believe due to trying to figure it out on font not suited for the task) ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
