SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


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

    RE: ISCSI: found the constant for divide-only circuit!



    >>>>> "Vince" == A-Roseville,ex1  <CAVANNA> writes:
    
     Vince> Added iSCSI prefix to subject line.  Actually both "example"
     Vince> and "preferred" seem inappropriate. How about "reference" or
     Vince> "assumed" implementation? 
    
    That suggest you have to do it (or at least SHOULD do it) the way that
    is being described, which is not the right thing to say.  The thing
    that has to be stated is the mathematical statement of the CRC value,
    and the rules of bit order.  That and only that is required for
    interoperability.
    
    All else is implementation detail that can certainly be helpful but is
    in no way normative, and anyone is entirely free to do something
    completely different so long as the PDUs come out the same.
    
     Vince> For the claims and examples in the
     Vince> iSCSI spec to be correct we must refer to an implementation
     Vince> that performs the following transformations (responses), after
     Vince> n input bits are applied, on an initial state I(x) and an
     Vince> input M(x):
    
     Vince> 1. when I(x) is zero, multiplies the input, M(x), by x^32 and
     Vince> divides by G(x).  2. when M(x) is zero, multiplies the initial
     Vince> state, I(x), by x^n and divides by G(x).
    
     Vince> ... In contrast, the divide-only serial circuit that I have also
     Vince> provided performs the following transformations on an initial
     Vince> state I(x) and an input M(x) and iSCSI should not refer to it
     Vince> unless it changed some of its claims and examples:
    
     Vince> 1. when I(x) is zero, divides the input, M(x), by G(x) 2. when
     Vince> M(x) is zero, multiplies the initial state, I(x), by x^n and
     Vince> divides by G(x)
    
    Those are four example implementations, I think.  I'm not sure if
    giving four examples is better than giving just one, or more
    confusing.  (Perhaps the right answer is to give no examples, as Pat
    suggested, retaining only the formal mathematical definition; that
    would match the practice of all other datacomm specs other than
    Ethernet that I know of.)
    
          paul
    
    


Home

Last updated: Fri Dec 14 16:17:45 2001
8074 messages in chronological order