RE: IDS> content & presentation style choices

From: William A Wagner (wamwagner@comcast.net)
Date: Fri Feb 06 2009 - 14:59:50 EST

  • Next message: Randy Turner: "IDS> ms contact info"

    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.

     

    Thanks,

     

    Bill Wagner

     

    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

     

    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

    Brian Smithson <brian.smithson@ricoh-usa.com>
    Sent by: owner-ids@pwg.org

    02/05/09 11:17 PM

    To

    ids@pwg.org

    cc

            

    Subject

    IDS> presentation style choices

     

                    

    As I was looking at how to present the bit-level contents of NAP
    packets, I found that there were several ways to present the information
    and each one had some advantage and disadvantages. I don't know what is
    best suited for this particular document, especially considering it in
    the context of other PWG binding specs, the Microsoft documents, and
    thinking ahead, compatibility with an NEA/TNC binding spec.

    Attached is an example of one attribute presented in different styles
    for your consideration.

    Choice #1 is the most consistent with MS-SOH, but it is somewhat more
    compact than what MS does.
    Choice #2 is a variation on that theme, showing the positions of bits in
    bit-fields.
    Choice #3 is the most compact, because it embeds values into the diagram
    where it is practical to do so.
    Choice #4 -- there isn't one, but if you have suggestions or other
    examples, I'm open...

    I don't really care what we choose, but I think that #2 could be a
    problem for long bit-fields. Choice #1 is a safe choice if we're
    considering style compatibility with MS, but I also like the compactness
    and conciseness of Choice #3.

    Please look at the attachment and send me some feedback, or discuss on
    the mailing list if that is appropriate.

    Thanks, 

    --
Regards,
Brian Smithson
PM, Security Research
PMP, CISSP, CISA, ISO 27000 PA
Advanced Imaging and Network Technologies
Ricoh Americas Corporation
(408)346-4435

    [attachment "style-choices.doc" deleted by Dave Whitehead/Lex/Lexmark]

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Feb 06 2009 - 15:01:16 EST