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

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

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?

> 
> 
> 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:[e-mail]] 
>> Sent: mercoledì 8 maggio 2013 19.22
>> To: [e-mail]; 
>> [e-mail]
>> Cc: [e-mail]
>> 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:  [e-mail]         |      Owner:  draft-ietf-ccamp-
>>     Type:  task                     |  
>> [e-mail]
>> 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
>>
> 
> 
>