|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: iSCSI - decimal coded binary strings - a proposed resolutionthanks - julo
> > Julian> decimal-constant: an unsigned decimal number - the digit 0 or > > Julian> a string of 1 or more digits starting with a non-zero digit. > > Julian> Decimal-constants are used to encode numerical values or > > Julian> binary strings. Decimal constants can be used to encode > > Julian> binary strings only if the stringlength is explicitly > > Julian> speci-fied. There is no implicit length for decimal > > Julian> strings. This encoding MUST NOT used for numerical values > > Julian> equal or greater than 2**64 or binary strings that could be > > Julian> longer than 64 bits. Here is the problem: Do you mean (parentheses added): This encoding MUST NOT used for (numerical values equal or greater than 2**64) or (binary strings that could be longer than 64 bits). or: This encoding MUST NOT used for (numerical values equal or greater than 2**64 or binary strings) that could be longer than 64 bits. The first is admittedly the more logical choice, but it is not the only choice. I originally read it as the second and wondered what Paul's issue was. This is the editorial clarity issue that David Black is talking about. I remember having this issue with spec 11 when I was primarily learning the spec. However, as I care more about decoding the info instead of writing a protocol state machine, I did not make note of these problems. I apologize for not going over spec 12-(15?) closely. These issues may have been addressed by other editorial comments, but when adding text, it should be carefully scrutinized as well. With a 'for' in front of binary strings, the sentence can only be interpreted one way. From your following email is the wording intended. Sincerely, Randy Data Transit
Home Last updated: Mon Jul 15 19:18:52 2002 11330 messages in chronological order |