IDS> content & presentation style choices

IDS> content & presentation style choices

IDS> content & presentation style choices

William A Wagner wamwagner at comcast.net
Fri Feb 6 14:59:50 EST 2009


They all seem to do the job well. I would prefer 3, for the stated reasons.
Actually, perhaps style 3 but with the breakdown of the bit field in the
diagram as in 2 (at least for bit fields that allow it) would be best. The
location and significance of the  M and R fields, and why they are '0' might
be addressed in a general statement somewhere.

 

Thanks,

 

Bill Wagner

 

From: owner-ids at pwg.org [mailto:owner-ids at pwg.org] On Behalf Of Dave
Whitehead
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 2:22 PM
To: Brian Smithson; ids at pwg.org
Subject: Re: IDS> content & presentation style choices

 


Hi Brian, 

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.) 

Thanks, 

dhw 

David H. Whitehead
Development Engineer
Lexmark International, Inc.
859.825.4914
davidatlexmarkdotcom 




Brian Smithson <brian.smithson at ricoh-usa.com> 
Sent by: owner-ids at pwg.org 

02/05/09 11:17 PM 


To

ids at pwg.org 


cc

	

Subject

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
bit-fields.
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.

Thanks,

--
Regards,
Brian Smithson
PM, Security Research
PMP, CISSP, CISA, ISO 27000 PA
Advanced Imaging and Network Technologies
Ricoh Americas Corporation
(408)346-4435


[attachment "style-choices.doc" deleted by Dave Whitehead/Lex/Lexmark] 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.pwg.org/archives/ids/attachments/20090206/d54dfeff/attachment.html


More information about the Ids mailing list