I like Choice #2 better than Choice #1 (straight MS style).
I also like the compactness and clarity (for implementors)
of Choice #3.
I think I'd vote for Choice #3.
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
email: blueroofmusic at gmail.com
579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176
PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Brian Smithson
<brian.smithson at ricoh-usa.com> wrote:
> As I was looking at how to present the bit-level contents of NAP
> packets, I found that there were several ways to present the information
> and each one had some advantage and disadvantages. I don't know what is
> best suited for this particular document, especially considering it in
> the context of other PWG binding specs, the Microsoft documents, and
> thinking ahead, compatibility with an NEA/TNC binding spec.
>> Attached is an example of one attribute presented in different styles
> for your consideration.
>> Choice #1 is the most consistent with MS-SOH, but it is somewhat more
> compact than what MS does.
> Choice #2 is a variation on that theme, showing the positions of bits in
> Choice #3 is the most compact, because it embeds values into the diagram
> where it is practical to do so.
> Choice #4 -- there isn't one, but if you have suggestions or other
> examples, I'm open...
>> I don't really care what we choose, but I think that #2 could be a
> problem for long bit-fields. Choice #1 is a safe choice if we're
> considering style compatibility with MS, but I also like the compactness
> and conciseness of Choice #3.
>> Please look at the attachment and send me some feedback, or discuss on
> the mailing list if that is appropriate.
> Brian Smithson
> PM, Security Research
> PMP, CISSP, CISA, ISO 27000 PA
> Advanced Imaging and Network Technologies
> Ricoh Americas Corporation