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 ?



    --- "Julian Satran (Actcom)"
    <Julian_Satran@actcom.net.il> wrote:
    
    > If you fear about extended precision arithmetic you
    > should carefully look at
    > what key=values are.
    > Precluding the use of large numerical values by
    > forbidding their encoding is
    > not a good way of considering this - we have also
    > base64 for large numbers
    > (and hex) and if you have to have a use for larger
    > numbers you have to have
    > the arithmetic to handle it.
    
    Julian,
    
    If this hadn't come up so late, I would even
    challenge you to find anybody besides yourself
    who is "for large-numerical-values"---my feeling
    from reading this list is that people preferred
    to just have "binary values" (of arbitrary length)
    instead.
    
    > As for the second subject - forbidding the use
    > decimals for binary strings -
    > we never discussed it or agreed on this.
    
    Many people mentioned it and are still doing it.
    The rest ignored the issue and keep doing it.
     
    > I wonder how natural it will feel for somebody to
    > have and IP address
    > encoded exclusively in hex, or a TargetPortalGroup
    > appearing as decimal in a
    > directory and having to be transliterated.
    
    These are very bad examples. TargetPortalGroupTag
    is defined as a numerical-value, so decimal is
    perfectly fine for it, it is given in decimal in
    all examples in the draft and I certainly would
    expect to find it in decimal.
    
    As for the IP addresses, I'm not an IPv6 expert,
    but I expect it to be given as an ASCII string 
    (and not a binary value/item in some encoding), 
    just like an IPv4 address.
    Speaking about the latter, we are used to seeing
    the octets of this address in decimal, not the
    address itself. If you insist on encoding the 
    address as a whole (i.e., the 32-bit binary value
    that it is), well, please tell me, which is
    more natural (although, I agree that both are
    awkward): 3228845671 or 0xc0744667? You may want
    to feed them to a "host" command, and you should
    recognize these addresses. Both get resolved on
    my home box. Such tricks used to even work in some
    browsers.
    
    Martins Krikis, Intel Corp.
    
    Disclaimer: these opinions are mine and may not
                be those of my employer.
    
    
    
    __________________________________________________
    Do You Yahoo!?
    Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
    http://sbc.yahoo.com
    


Home

Last updated: Fri Jul 05 11:18:44 2002
11129 messages in chronological order