Skip to content
GitLab
Projects Groups Snippets
  • /
  • Help
    • Help
    • Support
    • Community forum
    • Submit feedback
    • Contribute to GitLab
  • Sign in
  • Trac Trac
  • Project information
    • Project information
    • Activity
    • Labels
    • Members
  • Issues 246
    • Issues 246
    • List
    • Boards
    • Service Desk
    • Milestones
  • Monitor
    • Monitor
    • Metrics
    • Incidents
  • Analytics
    • Analytics
    • Value stream
  • Wiki
    • Wiki
  • Activity
  • Create a new issue
  • Issue Boards
Collapse sidebar
  • Legacy
  • TracTrac
  • Issues
  • #26870
Closed (moved) (moved)
Open
Issue created Jul 19, 2018 by dmr@dmr

Spec: clarify inconsistency for [V]PADDING/DROP cell content vs. padding bytes

This ticket is split off from #26228 (moved).

Here's the relevant description from that ticket: Replying to dmr:

[...] ==== Unclear areas Here are the points that need clarification / specification:

  • [...]
  • spec is a bit inconsistent with PADDING cells ^^[1^^]^^[2^^] [...]

==== Inconsistency: PADDING cell payload (see bullet above)

These references highlight the inconsistency:

^^[1^^] PADDING: Payload is unused. per [3 "Cell Packet format"]. implies 0 bytes of payload, so the rest should be padded per that section ^^[2^^] The contents of a PADDING, VPADDING, or DROP cell SHOULD be chosen randomly, and MUST be ignored. per [7.2 "Link padding"]. implies the payload of a PADDING cell actually is the rest of the size of the cell, and that it SHOULD be chosen randomly

The PADDING cells were mentioned in IRC but not discussed. I think a simple change to make the spec consistent between the two sections would be this: {{{ PADDING: Payload contains random data. (See Sec 7.2) }}}

However, given the other points here, is that correct?

To upload designs, you'll need to enable LFS and have an admin enable hashed storage. More information
Assignee
Assign to
Time tracking