Re: [openpgp] [RFC4880bis PATCH] Clarify CRC-24 C example implementation

On Sat, 20 Mar 2021, Ángel wrote:

> Subject: Re: [openpgp] [RFC4880bis PATCH] Clarify CRC-24 C example
>     implementation

This issue was also left with multiple competing texts, and so I would
like the WG to come up with 1 change for me to apply :)

Paul

> On 2021-03-19 at 13:24 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>>
>> fwiw, i'm fine with either of these.  I note that the change i'd
>> originally proposed renamed the constant to CRC24_GENERATOR, to align
>> it with the term in the text ("poly" doesn't appear anywhere in the
>> text, but "generator" does).
>
> Right. I began from Hal's mail [1] Particularly the second option is
> his code just adding the comment. Thus I didn't want to add another
> change with the constant rename (something I'm fine with).
>
>
> Another potential point is if 0xffffff should have been changed to
> 0xffffffUL, as we are also changing the type to unsigned, but it looks
> redundant.
>
>
>> That said, we are pretty clearly in bike-shedding territory here.
>>
>> I have heard no one advocate for leaving the text unchanged, and i have
>> heard no one advocate for just silently amending the code to drop bit 25
>> from the constant.
>
> Indeed. Even if discussing which wording might be (slightly) better,
> let me explicitly state my support, in that I think all proposed
> changes on this thread represent an improvement over the existing text.
>
> Best regards
>
>
> 1-
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/UMLreIiKtKzXEnPT5ZbcDDjRQX0/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> openpgp mailing list
> openpgp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp
>