Open dthaler opened 2 weeks ago
Paul Wouters comments:
Can the headers in the tables such as in Section 3 be extended so it is more clear how many bits are in the various fields ? eg the IETF style is:
1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | opcode | regs | offset | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | imm | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Why "host vs big" endian instead of "host order vs network order" or "little vs big endian" ? I understand not all hosts are "host endian", I am just a little confused why to fixup two common sets into a new set.
NITS:
boilerplate got rendered badly
Proposed patch posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bpf/G0yjlzZ4GazyQC2gN0jW8YjqGkk/ (Boilerplate fix will be done as part of #160)
Fixed in draft -04
John Scudder comments: