IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Anima-signaling] CDDL mistake

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 07 December 2016 23:07 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: anima-signaling@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima-signaling@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 498481295E2 for <anima-signaling@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Dec 2016 15:07:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.797
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.797 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ducX9M_tqndu for <anima-signaling@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Dec 2016 15:07:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C9B81295D7 for <anima-signaling@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Dec 2016 15:07:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1892203AE; Wed, 7 Dec 2016 18:25:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90EB663768; Wed, 7 Dec 2016 18:07:53 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <0f17ca76-f4ed-5596-776b-34e666e10d22@gmail.com>
References: <0f17ca76-f4ed-5596-776b-34e666e10d22@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2016 18:07:53 -0500
Message-ID: <32399.1481152073@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima-signaling/PV7GPriiU-KByZOWYETrS0q0QcQ>
Cc: Anima signaling DT <anima-signaling@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Anima-signaling] CDDL mistake
X-BeenThere: anima-signaling@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for the signaling design team of the ANIMA WG <anima-signaling.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/anima-signaling>, <mailto:anima-signaling-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/anima-signaling/>
List-Post: <mailto:anima-signaling@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-signaling-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima-signaling>, <mailto:anima-signaling-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2016 23:07:56 -0000

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
    > I've just realised that I have a mistake in my GRASP code
    > concerning the following CDDL:

So, basically, you are replacing a set with an enum.
I don't see a problem for the current three flags.

    > On balance I think this is better (and certainly easier to implement).
    > There doesn't seem to be any advantage in using bit positions.

What happens if we need an additional flag?
Bit positions had the advantage that you understand the things you understand
and ignore the rest.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email