Thread Links			Date Links
Thread Prev	Thread Next	Thread Index	Date Prev	Date Next	Date Index

[P1619-2] Byte vs. Octet

To: P1619-2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [P1619-2] Byte vs. Octet
From: Matt Ball <matt.ball@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 15:12:30 -0700
Delivered-to: mhonarc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
List-help: <http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?LIST=P1619-2>, <mailto:LISTSERV@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG?body=INFO%20P1619-2>
List-owner: <mailto:P1619-2-request@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
List-subscribe: <mailto:P1619-2-subscribe-request@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:P1619-2-unsubscribe-request@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Reply-to: Matt Ball <matt.ball@xxxxxxxx>

The P1619.2/D9 draft uses both the terms 'byte' and 'octet'. We should pick one of these terms and use it consistently throughout. In the context of storage encryption (like P1619.2), I tend to prefer 'byte'. 'Octet' seems to be more popular for network protocols (like P1619.3).

--
Thanks!
-Matt

Matt Ball, IEEE P1619.x SISWG Chair
Cell: 303-717-2717
http://www.linkedin.com/in/matthewvball
http://www.mavaball.net/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [P1619-2] Byte vs. Octet
  - From: Shai Halevi
- Re: [P1619-2] Byte vs. Octet
  - From: Landon Curt Noll

Prev by Date: Re: [P1619-2] [Fwd: E-MOTION 2008-09, Advance 1619.2/D9 to IEEE Sponsor Ballot]
Next by Date: [P1619-2] [Fwd: E-MOTION 2008-09, Advance 1619.2/D9 to IEEE Sponsor Ballot]
Previous by thread: [P1619-2] [Fwd: E-MOTION 2008-09, Advance 1619.2/D9 to IEEE Sponsor Ballot]
Next by thread: Re: [P1619-2] Byte vs. Octet
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread