Re: iSCSI CRC: A CRC-checking example

[Mark Bakke <mbakke@cisco.com>]

I agree with Joe.  Whether to reflect, complement, or
whatever makes no important difference for either a table-
driven software implementation, nor for a hardware
implementation; at least not important enough to tell our
grandkids about someday.

The important thing is that we have finally specified
the algorithm, and have clear examples that everyone's
implementation matches, so this will actually interoperate.

The rest just doesn't matter.

Let's please move on.

--
Mark

Joe Gervais wrote:
> 
> Bob,
> 
> If the data was going on token ring or some other media, sure, who cares
> about an Ethernet approach, but the data is generally being sent and
> received over Ethernet, and there is advantage at least in some
> implementations to be in Ethernet bit/byte order.
> 
> Additionally, as David said earlier today, if it isn't broke, let's not fix
> it. Can we get consensus and move on?
> 
> Joe
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On Behalf Of
> Robert Snively
> 
> ... snip ...
> So I would have expected that we would avoid any choice that
> makes that less convenient.  The Ethernet approach to those
> bytes would strike me as being the second-least convenient
> approach.  Clearly, throwing hardware at this could correct
> for that inconvenience, but it seems to me that any
> optimizations we make should focus on what we want to do, not
> what Ethernet did.
> 
> Bob

-- 
Mark A. Bakke
Cisco Systems
mbakke@cisco.com
763.398.1054