Subject: [issue48] Data Packing Rules: addressing tables

From: Robert Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 08:18:55 +0000

New submission from Robert Haas <[email-masked]>:

Sec 6.1.1.1.1 Data Packing Rules
[...]
When a table is refered in the PATH (ids), then the RAWDATA's V will contain 
that tables row content prefixed by its 32 bit index/ subscript OTOH, when 
SELECTOR flags are 00, the PATH may contain an index pointing to a row in 
table; in such a case, the RAWDATA's V will only contain the content with the 
index in order to avoid ambiguity. 

This paragraph is far from clear ... maybe correct "PATH flags" instead 
of "SELECTOR flags" as there are no flags defined in the SELECTOR.

----------
category: Editorial
draft: draft-ietf-forces-protocol
messages: 105
nosy: rha
priority: Should fix
status: No discussion
title: Data Packing Rules: addressing tables

___________________________________________________
Forces issue tracker <[email-masked]>
<http://www.mip4.org/issues/tracker/forces/issue48>
___________________________________________________

---

From: Jamal Hadi Salim <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 07:43:12 -0400

> of "SELECTOR flags" as there are no flags defined in the SELECTOR.

Yes, that text may not be very clear that early in the draft - I cant
think of a better way to say it - suggest some text. And they are "PATH
flags" not SELECTOR flags (which at some point was actually the correct
term to use).

As a note, the text bullet:
"As an example a 16 bit value will have an extra 16 bit pad ..."
should be indented.

cheers,
jamal