Subject: iSCSI -DLB comments

From: "Julian Satran" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 18:13:47 +0300

David,

I have posted fixes for T1 to T10 and keep working on the rest (I could 
not devote enough time today to iSCSI).
With regard to T11 the text you quote specifies only the "implicit 
length". The encoding length specified later in 4.1 for binary and 
large-binary says that the
length can be either implicit or explicit. The examples you quote can 
be/are solved with an explicit length.

As I said we considered forbidding decimals several times but that would 
be a total departure from the RFC "tradition".

Julo

---

From: "John Hufferd" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 10:45:58 -0700

Julian,
please do not be too quick to follow the suggestion regarding T6.   Ayman,
had a valid point.

.
.
.
John L. Hufferd
Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
IBM/SSG San Jose Ca
Main Office (408) 256-0403, Tie: 276-0403,  eFax: (408) 904-4688
Home Office (408) 997-6136, Cell: (408) 499-9702
Internet address: [email-masked]

Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@[email-masked] on 07/07/2002 08:13:47 AM

Sent by:    [email-masked]

To:    [email-masked], [email-masked]
cc:
Subject:    iSCSI -DLB comments

David,

I have posted fixes for T1 to T10 and keep working on the rest (I could not
devote enough time today to iSCSI).
With regard to T11 the text you quote specifies only the "implicit length".
The encoding length specified later in 4.1 for binary and large-binary says
that the
length can be either implicit or explicit. The examples you quote can
be/are solved with an explicit length.

As I said we considered forbidding decimals several times but that would be
a total departure from the RFC "tradition".

Julo