Re: [iSCSI][Q+RFC] login response, tsid

[Luben Tuikov <luben@splentec.com>]

"Robert D. Russell" wrote:
> 
> Luben:
> 
> > 2. Login response PDU, status-class, status-detail.
> >
> > Wouldn't it be better to use one 16-bit unsigned integer
> > for this information, call it ``status''
> >
> > Then this ``status'' can be _logically_ split into
> > ``class'' (8 MSb) and ``detail'' (8 LSb).
> >
> > But an implementation (HBA, software, etc) will use
> > it as a 16-bit unsigned integer.
> >
> > Comments?
> 
> I see no reason to combine the status class and status detail
> fields into 1 field if the implementation just has to split
> them apart again.  What benefit is there to combining them?
> I vote against this idea.

The reason was that an implementation can manipulate it easier
and as the table on the next page shows it is one field.
It can be fetched off the packet in just one operation
and then if an interpretation is needed it can then
be split __logically__ by whoever needs to know it.

The table next page in the draft (pp. 151-152, v10) does seem
to represent it as _one_ 16 bit number with suitable
description and status.

I.e. the separation is only logical and for all practical
purposes IT IS one field as the table clearly shows.

P.S. My suggestion is exactly what happened to the 
ISID field (pp. 145, 147, v10).

-- 
Luben