SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


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

    RE: iSCSI: Decimal encoding - why 64 bits ?



    Easy does it.  First of all - if someone will go find the mail
    thread that discussed this (I also recall a discussion of
    numbers vs. binary items) I'll take a look at it and make a
    WG chair determination of what was or was not concluded.
     
    Kevin's comment that decimal ought to be limited to 32 bits
    is still valid at this point - a reference to prior discussions
    without specifics isn't enough to dismiss it.  My rough
    recollection of the discussion partially matches Julian's -
    we reduced the required size to 64 bits from unlimited on
    the assumption that platforms could cope with this ... and
    now Kevin has raised the issue that two platforms he
    considers important don't cope well with 64 bit arithmetic.
    I don't recall discussion of whether to limit to 32 bits vs.
    64 bits.
     
    For now, this issue is open.
     
    Thanks,
    --David
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Julian Satran [mailto:Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com]
    Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 3:23 PM
    To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
    Subject: RE: iSCSI: Decimal encoding - why 64 bits ?


    It was never supposed to be removed. Many values are passed around as decimal.
    We can't make any progress if we keep hitting the same things again-and-again after a decent consensus has been reached.
    And none of you has brought an argument that was not heard and dismissed before.

    Remember we moved from unlimited length decimal to 64 bit to alleviate implementer fears.

    Julo


    Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@wasabisystems.com>

    07/02/2002 10:03 PM
    Please respond to Bill Studenmund

           
            To:        "THALER,PAT (A-Roseville,ex1)" <pat_thaler@agilent.com>
            cc:        "LEMAY,KEVIN (A-Roseville,ex1)" <kevin_lemay@agilent.com>, Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, <ips@ece.cmu.edu>
            Subject:        RE: iSCSI: Decimal encoding - why 64 bits ?

           


    On Tue, 2 Jul 2002, THALER,PAT (A-Roseville,ex1) wrote:

    > Bill,
    >

    > The decimal encoding is not just for numbers. It is also allowed for
    > binary-values. Both CHAP and SRP exchange items that are identified as
    > binary-values. In general these will be longer than 64 bits, but in
    > cases where they are 64 bits or less the decimal encoding is currently
    > allowed so we would have to support it.

    I thought we had a big discussion about this, and we decided that decimal
    was only used for numbers, hex for numbers and binary, and base64 only for
    binary items. ??

    Doh! I just looked in -14, and the text doesn't reflect that
    understanding. Hmmm.

    > The issue is that currently decimal encoding is allowed for
    > binary-values and numbers less than 64 bits. There is little need for
    > it over 32 bits. We have two other entirely adequate representations
    > for those numbers. Why have something in there that causes extra code
    > for no benefit?

    All I can say is I thought it was removed. :-|

    Take care,

    Bill





Home

Last updated: Tue Jul 02 17:18:55 2002
11079 messages in chronological order