RE: [kmip] Diagram showing difference between 32-bit and 64-bit binary alignment proposals

Matt,

 

Thanks for putting this together.  It is clearer when 
you have diagrams like this.  It seems like we ought to reserve bits/octets 
if we aren't going to use them in a field.  It's kind of odd that the 
32-bit proposal header takes up 3 words and the 64 bit proposal header takes up 
2 words.  The TTLV format should be a different discussion than the bit 
alignment.  I prefer the TTLV format of the 64 bit alignment proposal, but 
either will do.

 

One thing your diagram doesn't show is that padding in the 
32-bit proposal is either 1 to 3 bytes while the padding in the 64 bit proposal 
is 1 to 7 bytes to get the alignment.  Your examples in the other proposals 
clearly show this.

 

Thanks for clearing this up,

Scott

 

From:  
[mailto:] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 3:41 
PM
To: 
Subject: [kmip] Diagram 
showing difference between 32-bit and 64-bit binary alignment 
proposals

Hi Folks,

I've put together a diagram that shows the 
difference between the 32-bit and 64-bit proposals in graphic detail.  For 
these types of comparisons, words don't quite express the idea as well as 
pictures do.

As the poll showed, the group is about halfway split between 
32-bit and 64-bit, and I'm hoping that this diagram will show that the 64-bit 
proposal works just as well for 32-bit applications.   :)

With 
any luck we'll reach a conclusion via e-mail and will be able to have a quick 
vote in tomorrow's meeting to pick one of these proposals.  I do prefer the 
64-bit option as more useful, but would be happy to approve the 32-bit version 
if that's the group's favorite.

Let me know if you have any comments or 
questions!

Cheers,
-Matt