| |
Kekoa Proudfoot wrote:
> Regarding the CRC, I would use a CRC8 unless practice shows that a CRC16 is
> required. I would look ahead to the day when a CRC16 is used and choose
> the more important byte of the CRC16 to be the CRC8. Tagging an extra byte
> onto the end of a message can then be completely backwards compatible
> assuming you write the software correctly.
I'm not sure you can construct a sensible CRC16 that has a CRC8 as one
byte.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | RE: LNP Repost
|
| (...) I think Kekoa means that we should calculate the CRC16 and use only the high byte in the message, to save space. If we then tag the low byte on later, the old code expecting only the high byte won't break.... Cheers, Ralph Hempel - P.Eng (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jul-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: LNP Repost
|
| (...) My only thoughts are that not everybody will need or want the generality of port support in the protocol. I would suggest reordering the first four bytes, moving the payload length up toward the front, and defining it to explicitly include the (...) (25 years ago, 28-Jul-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
21 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
