Re: [CCAMP] [CCAMP WG] #50: Identification of hexadecimal representation in G.709 vs decimal in GMPLS

On May 13, 2013, at 6:59 AM, Lou Berger wrote:

> Daniele,
> 
> On 5/13/2013 4:03 AM, Daniele Ceccarelli wrote:
>> Lou, CCAMP,
>> 
>> This is the proposed text for the info-model wrt the decimal vs
>> hexadecimal encoding issue.
>> 
> 
> I think the author's preference of not using the 0x prefix to
> hexadecimal representation is viable if it is clear in the document (as
> you mention below) and you can point to precedent of similar usage in
> existing RFCs.  Have you checked / can you check to see if there's such?

As a data point, OSPF RFCs and drafts always precede hexadecimal values with 0x. Of course, the OSPF WG has a heritage of the authors also being software developers.
Unfortunately, I don't see any guidance here:  http://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide.html

Thanks,
Acee 

> 
>> 
>> 
>> 13.  Identification of hexadecimal representation in G.709 vs decimal in
>>     GMPLS considerations
>> 
>>   Encoding in GMPLS foresses the utilization of hexadecimal values
>>   format "0x" while in the data plane documents, like G.709
>>   reccomendation, the format usually used is the decimal one (e.g.
>>   G-PID in RSVP-TE vs Payload Type in G.709). 
>> 
> 
> Assuming we go this way: I understand your intent, but I think you're
> actually stating exactly the opposite.  How about, simply:
> 
>  Note that the Payload Types (PT) defined in [G709-2012], and repeated
>  in this document, are provided in hexadecimal representation without
>  the commonly used '0x' prefix.
> 
> Lou
> 
>> BR
>> Daniele & Sergio
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ccamp issue tracker [mailto:trac+ccamp@trac.tools.ietf.org] 
>>> Sent: mercoledì 8 maggio 2013 19.22
>>> To: draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model@tools.ietf.org; 
>>> lberger@labn.net
>>> Cc: ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org
>>> Subject: [CCAMP WG] #50: Identification of hexadecimal 
>>> representation in G.709 vs decimal in GMPLS
>>> 
>>> #50: Identification of hexadecimal representation in G.709 vs 
>>> decimal in GMPLS
>>> 
>>> From: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg14812.html
>>> 
>>>  The authors had previously stated the intent to just make this clear
>>>  in the signaling document.  I'd like to make an alternate proposal:
>>>  let's do the the obvious and have the documents simply use 
>>> the normal
>>>  (IETF) convention of using a '0x' prefix anytime a hexadecimal value
>>>  is represented. I believe this means that only the info-model draft
>>>  needs to be updated.
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> -------------------------------------+-------------------------
>>> ---------
>>> -------------------------------------+---
>>> Reporter:  lberger@labn.net         |      Owner:  draft-ietf-ccamp-
>>>    Type:  task                     |  
>>> otn-g709-info-model@tools.ietf.org
>>> Priority:  major                    |     Status:  new
>>> Component:  otn-g709-info-model      |  Milestone:  Post WG Last Call
>>> Severity:  Waiting for Document     |    Version:
>>> Update                             |   Keywords:
>>> -------------------------------------+-------------------------
>>> ---------
>>> -------------------------------------+---
>>> 
>>> Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ccamp/trac/ticket/50>
>>> CCAMP WG <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ccamp/> Common Control and 
>>> Measurement Plane Working Group
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp