Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Standardize terminology for clarity and consistency (value -> integer) #175

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 12, 2025

Conversation

fxlb
Copy link
Contributor

@fxlb fxlb commented Jan 11, 2025

s/unsigned value/unsigned integer/g
s/signed value/signed integer/g
s/unsigned integer value/unsigned integer/g
s/signed integer value/signed integer/g

s/unsigned value/unsigned integer/g
s/signed value/signed integer/g
s/unsigned integer value/unsigned integer/g
s/signed integer value/signed integer/g
@guyharris
Copy link
Collaborator

For some of these, "{signed|unsigned} integer" is preceded by "''N''-bit", even if the field is defined earlier as being ''N'' bits wide; in others, it isn't. Should "{signed|unsigned} integer" always be preceded by the bit width? (If so, that's a separate change.)

@guyharris guyharris merged commit 26341d4 into IETF-OPSAWG-WG:master Jan 12, 2025
1 check failed
@fxlb fxlb deleted the value_integer branch January 12, 2025 11:13
@fxlb
Copy link
Contributor Author

fxlb commented Jan 12, 2025

It seems not, as it is sometimes redundant, indeed.
Proposal: PR #177 for pcap draft.

@guyharris
Copy link
Collaborator

It seems not, as it is sometimes redundant, indeed. Proposal: PR #177 for pcap draft.

Merged.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants