search

hstenn / ietf-ntp-extended-information-ef

IETF NTP Extension Field proposal: Extended-Information
1 stars 0 forks source link

explain bitmask #4

Closed samuelweiler closed 5 years ago

samuelweiler commented 5 years ago

the document does not make clear that the content descriptor is a bitmask - other than by implication. be explicit. Also see issue #1 - you may just want to define two bits - or even some simpler way of telling which of these data elements is present in this EF. (Does it make sense to break this into two separate extensions?)

samweiler commented 5 years ago

The example at the end of section 2 is what makes it clear that you're using a bitmask, and only when you look at the ASCII art. I recall a former IETF area director being quite firm that documents needed to make sense without the pictures for accessibility reasons. This one doesn't.

That said, if you remove the extensibility, as I suggest in issue #1 and as Danny suggested in issue #8 , this could become moot.

hstenn commented 5 years ago

resolved by e48af8a..81cd42d master -> master