Bespoke packet diagram format: a critique

Dmitri Tikhonov <> Tue, 26 May 2020 17:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC9423A0A62 for <>; Tue, 26 May 2020 10:21:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 59ms9Cg68JYM for <>; Tue, 26 May 2020 10:21:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::833]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5B5E3A0B94 for <>; Tue, 26 May 2020 10:21:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id k22so1987581qtm.6 for <>; Tue, 26 May 2020 10:21:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:mime-version :content-disposition:user-agent; bh=PRhME+ibptm4RSOBsmDPUHoulco9CLb0S/lsXc872hI=; b=mvn9ap4CisiJ4K5VxqAZ4zXP8gqvDoeOqfPOXrwMW83tn7UyA8niZ+P7iQGIACFNfn 5Eg3RvPBJpwT4U+Yt07kdVfarIHnUAtsog82L6xytPGHBHTko3wDKz/yuM70F5bfPJtj OASzjgDq0wvfw3IsgY5RoBAgnFSL5ZJBoDcs6ToE82rlJtnnpAIF2JEkONx7zth0T50B jml+ZjGkP6P7quVihxJ51cr2SwgNL6tEeyG8lDp0hKlT2YsVIyCAKK3RO3ata7NJOqXo 45apK+o0pA6+jmxi26b7lOigh8WO3+j2khuK+gQGSnteSxHOqVd9ksGKTWg91FV907iL WpJA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to :mime-version:content-disposition:user-agent; bh=PRhME+ibptm4RSOBsmDPUHoulco9CLb0S/lsXc872hI=; b=QdM5EF0OJOZUmTmuXHO/o7qOl3t4fwHrpQ4Wos3rCafIB53XAFg2R6G7p+K9Uo0ShB 1CSkEQw2xdPKepWVxPdsBtn4OcDO28brurhwhi/QXe4DPX5b829m9+e203hhSgFvhWQJ LX/V2pCY/eMOiGhn3PosZGE2C5XWHjfvVz/0RTjFB+GKnLyO/WWQ+n/t1c4r5ok34M4k 5UY9kpN/pbfKzuezIitfgHry6nFZMLETXDyUFQgAR6MmKCJ3hP9UpP4z0gxmd4MmLg1s 2Q/yUKRwAzzKSHuF00BNTWn1iAMyX+gq8QcziNyGGa1Vkeehu3Tskga/rOqsyPh6Q0o4 7qSw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532SzfTuDfzhw4DLZc/xZ9Oj2Ubj8Xm+nXP3A2Rt/6bn65/T9wlu YXgUjDk2vltAxaC6gwfvmUUouM1PabU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwYsLkrBEB3ZsSw6m/PWrMFVhKAwT8uUKXuycskSqwTBAEdKTkTLl7ePGg1KAbC7RaXYiD7CQ==
X-Received: by 2002:aed:37ca:: with SMTP id j68mr2405717qtb.276.1590513667597; Tue, 26 May 2020 10:21:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lubuntu ( []) by with ESMTPSA id x144sm215441qka.53.2020. for <> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 26 May 2020 10:21:06 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 13:21:03 -0400
From: Dmitri Tikhonov <>
Subject: Bespoke packet diagram format: a critique
Message-ID: <20200526172102.GB24967@lubuntu>
Mail-Followup-To: IETF QUIC WG <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 17:21:22 -0000


The new packet diagram format (1) introduced in Transport I-D 28
is not precise enough:

I.  High vs low bits

    From which side are we filling bytes?  Take, for example, the
    Example Structure from Section 1.3 (1): is One-bit Field 0x80
    or 0x01?

II. Multiple of eight/byte-spanning fields

    Fields that span bytes are never *not* multiples of eight.
    This should be stated explicitly.

On a stylistic note, I recommend using the word "custom" instead
of "bespoke."  The former is much more likely to be understood by
a wide audience of readers without making it reach for a dictionary.
Some anecdatal evidence:  In my 25-plus years of using English (not
my native tongue) as a primary means of communication, I had only
looked up what "bespoke" meant a few years ago.

  - Dmitri.