SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


    [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

    Re: ISCSI: question about text command data



    
    I think that it is as easy to discard as to check and sending an error for
    non-conformance is
    costly.
    
    Julo
    
    Mark Bakke <mbakke@cisco.com>@cisco.com on 17-09-2001 15:57:24
    
    Please respond to Mark Bakke <mbakke@cisco.com>
    
    Sent by:  mbakke@cisco.com
    
    
    To:   Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL
    cc:   ips@ece.cmu.edu
    Subject:  Re: ISCSI: question about text command data
    
    
    
    
    Julian-
    
    Wouldn't it be simpler to just say "exactly one".  The last
    part of Buck's question mentioned that he didn't see why
    anyone would want more than one, and nobody responded saying
    they did.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Mark
    
    
    Julian Satran wrote:
    >
    > I've changed it the text to "at least one" to avoid errors hard to list.
    >
    > Julo
    >
    > "Buck Landry" <blandry@Crossroads.com>@ece.cmu.edu on 13-09-2001 01:25:36
    >
    > Please respond to "Buck Landry" <blandry@Crossroads.com>
    >
    > Sent by:  owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
    >
    > To:   <ips@ece.cmu.edu>
    > cc:
    > Subject:  ISCSI: question about text command data
    >
    > I have a small question about what separates the "key=value" pairs in
    > the data segment of an iscsi text command.  On pg. 78 of the iscsi v7-90
    > draft (2.10.5), it states:
    >
    > >>>
    > Every key=value pair (including the last or only pair) MUST be followed
    > by null (0x00) delimiter.
    > <<<
    >
    > The question: is it legal to have *more* than one null char between
    > key=value pairs?  (no, I don't know why anybody would particularly want
    > to do this.)
    >
    > Thanks,
    > buck
    
    --
    Mark A. Bakke
    Cisco Systems
    mbakke@cisco.com
    763.398.1054
    
    
    
    


Home

Last updated: Tue Sep 18 09:17:20 2001
6569 messages in chronological order