Re: [tram] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-tram-stunbis-16

worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) Tue, 24 April 2018 01:38 UTC

Return-Path: <worley@alum.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: tram@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tram@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C19A412E034 for <tram@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Apr 2018 18:38:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.684
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.684 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E6ZhjVuzylCB for <tram@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Apr 2018 18:38:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resqmta-ch2-11v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-11v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:43]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84A4F12E035 for <tram@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Apr 2018 18:38:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resomta-ch2-10v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.106]) by resqmta-ch2-11v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTP id Al5zfUfqYqEz4Amuxf9Ek4; Tue, 24 Apr 2018 01:38:51 +0000
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com ([IPv6:2601:192:4603:9471:222:fbff:fe91:d396]) by resomta-ch2-10v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTPA id AmuwfHrR85dFNAmuwfmGCa; Tue, 24 Apr 2018 01:38:51 +0000
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com (hobgoblin.ariadne.com [127.0.0.1]) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id w3O1cnAF008475; Mon, 23 Apr 2018 21:38:49 -0400
Received: (from worley@localhost) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id w3O1cnIf008472; Mon, 23 Apr 2018 21:38:49 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: hobgoblin.ariadne.com: worley set sender to worley@alum.mit.edu using -f
From: worley@ariadne.com
To: Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@acm.org>
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, draft-ietf-tram-stunbis.all@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, tram@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <0de8c1fd-ab42-6ea2-e04e-eba05f5848df@acm.org> (petithug@acm.org)
Sender: worley@ariadne.com
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 21:38:49 -0400
Message-ID: <87d0ypbcye.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfAgJ5txACYqxg6PhbR83EkVrNwEcPjQngcooMsf104HwCs5S7ui/d6DsgMGTcguaLcZ+c14EPvtsmszIZFJdfR8360kJauOzi5knKBYD3Ws7HYG9x84U 5DxD0cZiQBZiM1rv5olS+HkRpLTwd3AbVlHiz+f9mleNNhE7wUQp13Joy3ZdklbxcvEHDJX99NHpU4tkp5h/HfGcRcD+FbYDH/z9bLKSy5wCmmR37nB1PSP+ Xhmtip2eyJ6UWi19T3T+7rg9kK9fIJlcN7bMVz3lYUy1cbHw0Co8ZMuaqxFl1KhWjhBz50x57GwuZAmTWjDp5HofU86yYcG1sDtekboftG4QfgTQZ/sAaUgG q8cR6qfAfEt0vKK4yER0No+nt5/Vww==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tram/RPq4gBwSg_hSW5bUVYQmDb8fQn8>
Subject: Re: [tram] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-tram-stunbis-16
X-BeenThere: tram@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussing the creation of a Turn Revised And Modernized \(TRAM\) WG, which goal is to consolidate the various initiatives to update TURN and STUN." <tram.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tram>, <mailto:tram-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tram/>
List-Post: <mailto:tram@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tram-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram>, <mailto:tram-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 01:38:56 -0000

Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@acm.org> writes:
> I did some research and you were right, starting from the left side is
> more common.  My main counter-example is in fact in STUN itself as
> figure 3:
>
>                        0                 1
>                        2  3  4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
>                       +--+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>                       |M |M |M|M|M|C|M|M|M|C|M|M|M|M|
>                       |11|10|9|8|7|1|6|5|4|0|3|2|1|0|
>                       +--+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
[...]

That's an interesting complication.  As you've noted, it's nearly
universal for IETF documents to use big-endian numbering.

But the above example is paradoxical, as the bits are numbered in a
big-endian way across the top of the diagram, from 2 to 15, while being
numbered in a littl-endian way is the boxes, from 11 to 0.  I had
noticed that the top numbers didn't start at 0 (so I didn't count this
figure in my "8 out of 10"), but I overlooked the numbers in the boxes.

Dale