:) > On 30 Jul 2020, at 09:19, Tomasz Moń <deso...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 8:58 AM Tomasz Moń <deso...@gmail.com > <mailto: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
