IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cbor] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-09: (with COMMENT)

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Wed, 06 October 2021 21:19 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C4FA3A08FD; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 14:19:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no 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 ax7Ups9r5EzJ; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 14:19:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D71793A08DA; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 14:19:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 196LJPlr013538 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 6 Oct 2021 17:19:30 -0400
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2021 14:19:24 -0700
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Cc: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses@ietf.org, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, cbor@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, cbor-chairs@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20211006211924.GI4103@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <163337270139.24096.2858053457546637595@ietfa.amsl.com> <54845F41-869A-43CE-BF02-825CB728A2CA@tzi.org> <21159.1633552900@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <21159.1633552900@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/ohD5fR45z1hqBPlonGYthA2Ed28>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-09: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: cbor@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Concise Binary Object Representation \(CBOR\)" <cbor.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/cbor>, <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cbor/>
List-Post: <mailto:cbor@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor>, <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2021 21:19:43 -0000

On Wed, Oct 06, 2021 at 04:41:40PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
>     >> unused_bits = (8 - (prefix_length_in_bits & 7)) % 8;
> 
>     > Well, I for one don’t like making the “simply” more complicated (*).
> 
> I have no strong preference.
> If I didn't have to read/write C again in my life, that would be fine.

I'm sure many share that sentiment :)

> I'll go with whatever the working group can agree on, and put that in -11.

Carsten's complaint about mixing & and % is reasonable.

My main stance here is that if we're using code in a standard to illustrate
the behavior, the code should be as easy as possible to understand and
confirm the behavior of.  If that means the expression is a little longer,
rather than requiring the reader to "know" the bit representation of signed
integers, that seems like a wonderful tradeoff to make, to me.

-Ben

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status