Use octets rather than bytes throughout #1912
Conversation
martinthomson
added
editorial
| @@ -618,8 +617,8 @@ sent_packets: | |||
| : An association of packet numbers to information about them, including a number | |||
| field indicating the packet number, a time field indicating the time a packet | |||
| was sent, a boolean indicating whether the packet is ack-only, a boolean | |||
| indicating whether it counts towards bytes in flight, and a bytes | |||
| field indicating the packet's size. sent_packets is ordered by packet number, | |||
| indicating whether it counts towards bytes in flight, and a size field | |||
|
Q: Why not standardize on bytes? All the TCP RFCs use byte, and the word octet does not occur in any TCP RFCs I can find. |
|
I would also prefer |
|
I vote for bytes. |
|
bytes are not quantifiable. They could be 6-bit (as if I care). Why not also little endian now we are at it? |
|
Right now, we're inconsistent. I don't believe that there is any problem along the lines @mikkelfj describes with using bytes - that ship sailed a long time ago - but HTTP/2 went with octets and we've been inconsistent. I can easily do a search and replace in the other direction; and I don't personally care. |
|
then bytes it is - I have never heard of bandwidth measured in MOps |
|
See #1921. |
|
@mikkelfj, see here, for example. Capacities are described in Go, Mo, etc. in French. Bandwidth is usually still in bits, though. Bytes have historically varied in size, as large as 64 bits. The C and C++ standards define a byte as being at least eight bits in size. (See their FAQ here.) I'm very much in favor of retaining octets, because that's not a platform-specific term. |
|
@MikeBishop yeah - I discovered the french connection subsequently but more often MOps means mega outputs pers second or mega operations per second or similar. |
|
The french also invented the decimal system. For a short while they also had decimal time. Wonder why it never took off... |
I have a feeling that Ian isn't going to like this because it messes with the notion of "bytes in flight" that we use in -recovery. I would prefer to be consistent though. For the transport, "bytes in flight" only appeared once, but its use wasn't critical.
Also closes #1863.