Subject: RE: iSCSI: Decimal encoding - why 64 bits ?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 15:36:17 -0400

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:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 3:23 PM
To: [email-masked]
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 <[email-masked]> 

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

        To:        "THALER,PAT (A-Roseville,ex1)" <[email-masked]> 
        cc:        "LEMAY,KEVIN (A-Roseville,ex1)"
<[email-masked]>, Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, <[email-masked]> 
        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

---

From: Bill Studenmund <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 14:01:37 -0700 (PDT)

> WG chair determination of what was or was not concluded.

Ok, I found some of the confusion.

Here's one of Paul's notes at the end of the thread I was remembering:

http://www.pdl.cmu.edu/mailinglists/ips/mail/msg10302.html

In it he says that he'd like base64 ot be used only for binary strings
(not numbers). He also goes on to say, "For all other integer parameters
-- which are 64 bit or smaller integers -- permit only hex and decimal.'

In http://www.pdl.cmu.edu/mailinglists/ips/mail/msg10303.html, I agreed
with both points above.

In http://www.pdl.cmu.edu/mailinglists/ips/mail/msg10304.html, Shawn
agrees with both myself and Paul, and talks about base64.

In http://www.pdl.cmu.edu/mailinglists/ips/mail/msg10319.html, you (David)
indicated you saw concensus for the base64 part of Paul's comments.

My concusion was that I though we were all agreeing with both parts. I
think we definitely got base64, but not so sure about
no-decimal-binary-strings.

> For now, this issue is open.

I think this issue is a seperate one. I am fine with 64 bits (as I don't
see us needing more than 32 with the present draft) or 32 bits.

Take care,

Bill