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

["Scott Kipp" <skipp@Brocade.COM>]

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: Matthew.Ball@Sun.COM [mailto:Matthew.Ball@Sun.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 3:41 PM
To: kmip@lists.oasis-open.org
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