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

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Mon, 13 May 2013 17:31 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CC2421F93DE for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 May 2013 10:31:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.159
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.159 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.106, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RrqHyGvSqVEl for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 May 2013 10:31:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oproxy6-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy6-pub.bluehost.com [67.222.54.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 8428C21F93EB for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 May 2013 10:31:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 1548 invoked by uid 0); 13 May 2013 17:29:55 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by cpoproxy3.bluehost.com with SMTP; 13 May 2013 17:29:55 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=+J7WsLCChodL/GeNOLAIY3vG3QmuKdol4yKtIQekc2g=; b=nBnuZwtrUm7XRdO1dGAw0o8s4tncM7BeFUt30IdyTlUti2B4DqPxvuKFyM1sfacyGHIwvbvXdoAErinuipthvyNs40BB5pEaWaXLh5YQAvpuUGVOdIccxpmVJOqErSLK;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:54971 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1UbwZP-0003WM-FV; Mon, 13 May 2013 11:29:55 -0600
Message-ID: <51912312.9070903@labn.net>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 13:29:54 -0400
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Julien Meuric <julien.meuric@orange.com>, CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
References: <059.82d98e9dee0226e015a3852ed4c8eece@trac.tools.ietf.org> <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE480C70F8@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se> <5190C777.2090100@labn.net> <519115C1.9080507@orange.com>
In-Reply-To: <519115C1.9080507@orange.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Cc: "draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] [CCAMP WG] #50: Identification of hexadecimal representation in G.709 vs decimal in GMPLS
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 17:31:18 -0000

Julien,
	I think you win on this one.

Authors,
	Please add a '0x' prefix to any hexadecimal value in the draft.  In
other words:
  s/=2/=0x2
  s/ 20/ 0x20
  s/ 21/ 0x21

Lou

On 5/13/2013 12:33 PM, Julien Meuric wrote:
> Hi.
> 
> On my right, a simple prefix that makes values clear and unambiguous at 
> reading time, without the burden of references' context; on my left, 2 
> confusing statements that will no more be in mind when reading figures...
> I have often heard comments about RFC readability and the needed IETF 
> background to understand what is not explicit: 2 more characters per 
> figure would be both helpful and harmless.
> 
> By the way, the IANA registry about GMPLS makes use of the '0x' prefix: 
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters/gmpls-sig-parameters.xml#gmpls-sig-parameters-8
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Julien
> 
> 
> On 05/13/2013 12:59, Lou Berger wrote:
>>>> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>