🐞Predefined `Crc16.CCITT` is confusing about crc HOT 4 CLOSED

As far as I understand CCITT-16 encompasses a range of similar configurations…

One source of confusion is, some literature refers to "the CCITT polynomial" (𝑥¹⁶ + 𝑥¹² + 𝑥⁵ + 1; 0x1021) only caring about the polynomial itself, without regard to the other parameters that constitute a CRC algorithm. So from that point-of-view, any CRC that uses the "CCITT polynomial" might be confusingly named a CCITT CRC.

Eg Cyclic redundancy check — Polynomial representations (Wikipedia) lists various CRC polynomials including CCITT without other parameters.

Since the Catalogue of parametrised CRC algorithms exists and provides a more precise identification of CRC algorithms, it makes sense to follow its nomenclature.

Will be addressed in 7.0.0

Thanks for that. I appreciate your work to improve this.

from crc.

Hi @cmcqueen,

Thanks for reaching out. As far as I understand CCITT-16 encompasses a range of similar configurations, not just one. I wasn't fully aware of this in the past, leading to the current approach. I will address this in the future when releasing the next major version. I'm always a bit cautious about potential breaking changes. For now, I see the best step as improving documentation to mitigate this.

You can find a basic outline of the configurations here:

• CRC8 Documentation
• CRC16 Documentation
• CRC32 Documentation
• CRC64 Documentation

Acknowledging this isn't ideal, I'm considering creating a MkDocs plugin to enhance the documentation in regard to the CRC configurations.

best
Nico

from crc.

Will be addressed in 7.0.0

from crc.

Hi @cmcqueen,

thanks for response, yes that's pretty much what happend to me 😅.

best
Nico

from crc.