The examples look good and I think we should use style 1 or 3.
1 would be more familiar since it mimics MS.
3 is nice and compact, but it may cause confusion -- "Where's the R bit?"
(It shouldn't, but it might.)
David H. Whitehead
Lexmark International, Inc.
Brian Smithson <brian.smithson at ricoh-usa.com>
Sent by: owner-ids at pwg.org
02/05/09 11:17 PM
ids at pwg.org
IDS> presentation style choices
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.
PM, Security Research
PMP, CISSP, CISA, ISO 27000 PA
Advanced Imaging and Network Technologies
Ricoh Americas Corporation
[attachment "style-choices.doc" deleted by Dave Whitehead/Lex/Lexmark]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...