RE: null termination of keys

[pat_thaler@agilent.com]

Bill,

I agree. Also, changing this bit is unnecessary thrashing and it is time to 
stop changing things that aren't broken. We are already seeing that changing
the C bit is in danger of having a ripple effect.

Regards,
Pat

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Studenmund [mailto:wrstuden@wasabisystems.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 9:50 AM
To: Julian Satran
Cc: Robert D. Russell; ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: null termination of keys


On Tue, 4 Jun 2002, Julian Satran wrote:

> Bob,
>
> The reason it was put in is to to enable "parsing" without the C bit.
> With key spanning PDUs before having the C bit the sender had to avoid
> sending a 0 if this was the last byte of the PDU as he had no other means
> of signaling continuation. A 0 at the end of a PDU meant end-of-LTDS.
>
> Now that we have the C bit we can live with or without having a 0 at the
> end of the last PDU.
> Let's hear some more voices.

As a C/C++ programmer, I really like the idea of having 0s at the end of a
key/value pair.

I agree with Bob that having key/value pairs terminated by NULs is easier.

Take care,

Bill