IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] voting on frame length ideas

John Tamplin <jat@google.com> Mon, 23 August 2010 18:17 UTC

Return-Path: <jat@google.com>
X-Original-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B27703A6A64 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 11:17:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.451
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.451 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.525, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z+esDUYJfnr9 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 11:17:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [74.125.121.35]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E26A3A67E6 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 11:17:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hpaq14.eem.corp.google.com (hpaq14.eem.corp.google.com [172.25.149.14]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o7NIISUt003808 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 11:18:29 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1282587509; bh=YNDnmtCa4t+ma6u7vcAIbEtbWyc=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=b++s43OV8ENO1MI3iOd85JboUxQMgbxoXzZFEyliJ9nnDMJIu9p+8bTh9dF3wFgm4 5ZScyklmVrAGKP47B2w9w==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id: subject:to:cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; b=ojIAHN4aIky4sFHruZv8U8oyRgqBlqZBHBf5Fwz1x5E8QL5UlqmhGVfOB0hH2Pe4n 32SNposJx9+geWSS4cpTA==
Received: from gxk26 (gxk26.prod.google.com [10.202.11.26]) by hpaq14.eem.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o7NIIRMF026539 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 11:18:27 -0700
Received: by gxk26 with SMTP id 26so140068gxk.18 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 11:18:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.151.14.8 with SMTP id r8mr5451766ybi.398.1282587507206; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 11:18:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.151.103.4 with HTTP; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 11:18:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <f56eb138b9ff3401721efac3374b1e2c.squirrel@sm.webmail.pair.com>
References: <AANLkTinh5ON_L9yc29Y2CMrEeJHV=nvRhQauMSFi3ib1@mail.gmail.com> <4C7222EC.2000804@gmx.de> <AANLkTikVJ5dyK3LFWWhH2ZD6KgHdoSREo1N2UjyKN0O+@mail.gmail.com> <fd3c294d6196ffb6f0c1de931f533c40.squirrel@sm.webmail.pair.com> <AANLkTikMe=0gDs_z8gEkSceYNnYoL4qVaWhjUCHWf49F@mail.gmail.com> <f56eb138b9ff3401721efac3374b1e2c.squirrel@sm.webmail.pair.com>
From: John Tamplin <jat@google.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:18:07 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=16mjSYZFTkndBEJWOAiZKHG8sxp51xLCHukQb@mail.gmail.com>
To: shelby@coolpage.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000e0cd6ea72c2acb4048e81ac6e"
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: Hybi <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] voting on frame length ideas
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi>
List-Post: <mailto:hybi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 18:17:57 -0000

On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Shelby Moore <shelby@coolpage.com> wrote:

> I think the changes you made are misleading:
>

Neither I or Julian made the proposal 2B you are referring to.


> "Option #2B - 8/16/63-bit length Read the first length byte, if 0-253,
> that is the length. If 254, the next two bytes are the length. Otherwise,
> read the next 8 bytes (high bit must be zero) and that is the length."
>
> That does not explain that the penality is that we lost 1 reserved bit and
> only have 2 reserved bits remaining.  You argued strongly against that
> option before correct?  Did you drop your objective to losing the 3rd
> reserved bit?  Maybe you can just add that disadvantage and reset the
> voting for that item?


-- 
John A. Tamplin
Software Engineer (GWT), Google

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email