On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 8:58 AM Tomasz Moń <desowin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 8:30 AM Jaap Keuter <jaap.keuter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Let’s put a hypothetical here, a 7 bit value spanning 2 octets:
> >
> > 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8| 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
> > +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
> > | | | | | | | 6| 5| 4| 3| 2| 1| 0| | | |
> > +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
> >
> > This would be the typical interpretation, as seen in network protocols.
> >
> > Your suggestion is that the interpretation can also be:
> >
> > 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8| 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
> > +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
> > | | | | | | | 1| 0| 6| 5| 4| 3| 2| | | |
> > +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
>
> This is not what I wanted to write. Assuming you meant two octets, and
> the bitmask on the 16-bit value is 0x1FC0 then the alternative
> interpretation would be:
> 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8| 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
> +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
> | | | | | | | 4| 3| 2| 1| 0| 6| 5| | | |
> +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
Sorry, I should have displayed that in a fixed font earlier! It is
perfectly clear then (the bitmask in your example is 0x03F8, and not
0x1FC0 as I was led to believe due to trying to figure it out on font
not suited for the task)
