attachment

<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"> <style>  </style>  </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple> <div class=Section1> 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.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Thanks,<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Bill Wagner<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'> From: owner-ids@pwg.org [mailto:owner-ids@pwg.org] On Behalf Of Dave Whitehead Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 2:22 PM To: Brian Smithson; ids@pwg.org Subject: Re: IDS> content & presentation style choices<o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p> </o:p> 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 <o:p></o:p> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellpadding=0 width="100%" style='width:100.0%'> <tr> <td width="40%" valign=top style='width:40.0%;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt'> Brian Smithson <brian.smithson@ricoh-usa.com> Sent by: owner-ids@pwg.org <o:p></o:p> 02/05/09 11:17 PM <o:p></o:p> </td> <td width="59%" valign=top style='width:59.0%;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt'> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellpadding=0 width="100%" style='width:100.0%'> <tr> <td valign=top style='padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt'> To<o:p></o:p> </td> <td valign=top style='padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt'> ids@pwg.org <o:p></o:p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td valign=top style='padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt'> cc<o:p></o:p> </td> <td valign=top style='padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt'></td> </tr> <tr> <td valign=top style='padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt'> Subject<o:p></o:p> </td> <td valign=top style='padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt'> IDS> presentation style choices<o:p></o:p> </td> </tr> </table> <o:p> </o:p> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellpadding=0> <tr> <td valign=top style='padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt'></td> <td valign=top style='padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt'></td> </tr> </table> </td> </tr> </table> <tt>As I was looking at how to present the bit-level contents of NAP</tt> <tt>packets, I found that there were several ways to present the information</tt> <tt>and each one had some advantage and disadvantages. I don't know what is</tt> <tt>best suited for this particular document, especially considering it in</tt> <tt>the context of other PWG binding specs, the Microsoft documents, and</tt> <tt>thinking ahead, compatibility with an NEA/TNC binding spec.</tt> <tt>Attached is an example of one attribute presented in different styles</tt> <tt>for your consideration.</tt> <tt>Choice #1 is the most consistent with MS-SOH, but it is somewhat more</tt> <tt>compact than what MS does.</tt> <tt>Choice #2 is a variation on that theme, showing the positions of bits in</tt> <tt>bit-fields.</tt> <tt>Choice #3 is the most compact, because it embeds values into the diagram</tt> <tt>where it is practical to do so.</tt> <tt>Choice #4 -- there isn't one, but if you have suggestions or other</tt> <tt>examples, I'm open...</tt> <tt>I don't really care what we choose, but I think that #2 could be a</tt> <tt>problem for long bit-fields. Choice #1 is a safe choice if we're</tt> <tt>considering style compatibility with MS, but I also like the compactness</tt> <tt>and conciseness of Choice #3.</tt> <tt>Please look at the attachment and send me some feedback, or discuss on</tt> <tt>the mailing list if that is appropriate.</tt> <tt>Thanks,</tt> <tt>--</tt> <tt>Regards,</tt> <tt>Brian Smithson</tt> <tt>PM, Security Research</tt> <tt>PMP, CISSP, CISA, ISO 27000 PA</tt> <tt>Advanced Imaging and Network Technologies</tt> <tt>Ricoh Americas Corporation</tt> <tt>(408)346-4435</tt> [attachment "style-choices.doc" deleted by Dave Whitehead/Lex/Lexmark] <o:p></o:p> </div> </body> </html>