Re: [Anima-signaling] CDDL mistake

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 08 December 2016 15:56 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 75D4A12984C for <anima-signaling@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Dec 2016 07:56:35 -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 cj6rHt5roRgZ for <anima-signaling@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Dec 2016 07:56:33 -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 C1C71129EFB for <anima-signaling@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Dec 2016 07:56:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58F30203AE; Thu, 8 Dec 2016 11:13:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD19D63782; Thu, 8 Dec 2016 10:56:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <6e4bb53e-ec73-2790-0129-0953e7e96612@gmail.com>
References: <0f17ca76-f4ed-5596-776b-34e666e10d22@gmail.com> <32399.1481152073@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <6e4bb53e-ec73-2790-0129-0953e7e96612@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: Thu, 08 Dec 2016 10:56:21 -0500
Message-ID: <14527.1481212581@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima-signaling/e-eDdMS0Su7CIVybEJ_Wqd5Puu0>
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: Thu, 08 Dec 2016 15:56:35 -0000

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> 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.

    > I noticed the problem while adding code for the (proposed) new
    > F_NEG_DRY flag,

I think upon reflection, that I'd rather the bit definition.

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