Spec: clarify inconsistency for [V]PADDING/DROP cell content vs. padding bytes
This ticket is split off from legacy/trac#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 aPADDING
cell actually is the rest of the size of the cell, and that it SHOULD be chosen randomlyThe
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?