Re: [Idr] Comments on draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis

Hi Shunwan,

Thanks very much for pointing that out (I was reading thru it 20+ times already… - especially #2 is something that I should have spottet earlier ;-)

#1: I think the text is rather clear here. 

Compared with section 4.3.2 (Numeric operator) the text under the table should actually say “Bitmask Operator”.

#2: You are right. The text is fine so far and even the encoding is clear but it *really* should say “value” not “bitmask”.

I will upload those editorial changes today.

Cheers Christoph

-- 
Christoph Loibl
c@tix.at | CL8-RIPE | PGP-Key-ID: 0x4B2C0055 | http://www.nextlayer.at

> On 31.05.2019, at 08:28, Zhuangshunwan <zhuangshunwan@huawei.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear authors,
>  
> I have read this document and found that some text may have questions.
>  
> #1
> 4.2.9.  Type 9 - TCP flags
>  
> …
>     0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7
>    +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
>    | e | a |  len  | 0 | 0 |not| m |
>    +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
>  
>       Bitmask format
> [Shunwan]  The “Bitmask format” here should be “Bitmask operand format” .
>  
>  
> #2
> 4.2.10.  Type 10 - Packet length
>  
>       Encoding:<type (1 octet), [op, bitmask]+>
> [Shunwan]  The “bitmask” here should be “value”.
>  
>  
> Please correct me if I didn't understand it correctly, thank you！
>  
> Best regards,
> Shunwan
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org <mailto:Idr@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>