Subject: [lisp] editorial question on LISP packet format

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 May 2011 09:54:03 -0400

In discussing a question, I ended up talking past someone, because they 
referred to the S bit, and they meant the Map-Reply Security bit, and I 
thought they meant the SMR bit.
In one sense, the document is clear, in that it does not call either one 
the S bit.  However, the packet format diagrams use "S" to stand for 
both bits, for obvious reasons.

Is there a way to avoid this minor confusion?

Thanks,
Joel

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 May 2011 16:23:40 -0700

> In discussing a question, I ended up talking past someone, because  
> they referred to the S bit, and they meant the Map-Reply Security  
> bit, and I thought they meant the SMR bit.
> In one sense, the document is clear, in that it does not call either  
> one the S bit.  However, the packet format diagrams use "S" to stand  
> for both bits, for obvious reasons.

The names of the bits differ from packet to packet and only relevant  
as a label to the description that follows it.

There is an "S-bit" in the ECM and Map-Reply. That is the security- 
bit. There is an "S-bit" and an "s-bit" in the Map-Request that means  
SMR and SMR-invoked, respectively.

You will see the same excitement with the letter "P" and "p".

Dino

> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 May 2011 23:26:55 -0400

This is not a big deal, and maybe there is nothing we can do.
All I was doing was pointing out that the labelling has caused 
confusion.  So if we can find an easy way to improve the situation, we 
should.
If there is no easy way to do so, then we don't.
Joel

On 5/7/2011 7:23 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
>> they referred to the S bit, and they meant the Map-Reply Security bit,
>> and I thought they meant the SMR bit.
> The names of the bits differ from packet to packet and only relevant as
> a label to the description that follows it.
>
> There is an "S-bit" in the ECM and Map-Reply. That is the security-bit.
> There is an "S-bit" and an "s-bit" in the Map-Request that means SMR and
> SMR-invoked, respectively.
>