LARTC - May 2001 - Is this a mistake (AF level)?????

I saw the draft-almesberger-wajhak-diffserv-linux-00.txt file.
But in this file say that AF21 is 0x18 and AF22 is 0x1a.

If the rfc2597 is right(list below)
  The RECOMMENDED values of the AF codepoints are as follows: AF11 = ''
   001010'', AF12 = ''001100'', AF13 =
''001110'', AF21 = ''010010'', AF22 = ''
   010100'', AF23 = ''010110'', AF31 =
''011010'', AF32 = ''011100'', AF33 = ''
   011110'', AF41 = ''100010'', AF42 =
''100100'', and AF43 = ''100110''.


AF21 and AF22 is 010010 and 010100
010010 = 0x12
010100 = 0x14
is that right??????
Why many papers and documents arent'' use this table?????

Hello Juergen,
> I saw the draft-almesberger-wajhak-diffserv-linux-00.txt file.
> But in this file say that AF21 is 0x18
and two paragraphs before that they state that AF21 is 0x12 - so maybe its
a typing error. Or the AF-DSCP values were not defined clearly at that
time - both, rfc2597 and the draft were written in june99. Or its pure
stubbornness - imagine Werner realy _wanted_ his AF22 to be 0x1a. The
values in rfc2597 are RECOMMENDED values after all. ;)
> If the rfc2597 is right(list below)
>   The RECOMMENDED values of the AF codepoints are as follows: AF11 =
''
>    001010'', AF12 = ''001100'', AF13 =
''001110'', AF21 = ''010010'', AF22 = ''
>    010100'', AF23 = ''010110'', AF31 =
''011010'', AF32 = ''011100'', AF33 = ''
>    011110'', AF41 = ''100010'', AF42 =
''100100'', and AF43 = ''100110''.
>
> AF21 and AF22 is 010010 and 010100
> 010010 = 0x12
> 010100 = 0x14
> is that right??????
Yes.
> Why many papers and documents arent'' use this table?????
Stubbornness, ignorance, inertia, eccentricsm, typos... hmm, probably
mostly ignorance - that''s my guess.


Kurt