On Sat, 20 Mar 2021, Ángel wrote:
Subject: Re: [openpgp] [RFC4880bis PATCH] Clarify CRC-24 C example
implementation
This issue was also left with multiple competing texts, and so I would
like the WG to come up with 1 change for me to apply :)
Paul
On 2021-03-19 at 13:24 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
fwiw, i'm fine with either of these. I note that the change i'd
originally proposed renamed the constant to CRC24_GENERATOR, to align
it with the term in the text ("poly" doesn't appear anywhere in the
text, but "generator" does).
Right. I began from Hal's mail [1] Particularly the second option is
his code just adding the comment. Thus I didn't want to add another
change with the constant rename (something I'm fine with).
Another potential point is if 0xffffff should have been changed to
0xffffffUL, as we are also changing the type to unsigned, but it looks
redundant.
That said, we are pretty clearly in bike-shedding territory here.
I have heard no one advocate for leaving the text unchanged, and i have
heard no one advocate for just silently amending the code to drop bit 25
from the constant.
Indeed. Even if discussing which wording might be (slightly) better,
let me explicitly state my support, in that I think all proposed
changes on this thread represent an improvement over the existing text.
Best regards
1-
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/UMLreIiKtKzXEnPT5ZbcDDjRQX0/
_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list
openpgp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp
_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list
openpgp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp