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

From: "THALER,PAT (A-Roseville,ex1)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 13:15:36 -0600

Bill,

I also thought that the result of the reflector discussion was agreement that decimal would only be used for numbers and not be used for strings that are sometimes longer than the 64 bit limit like CHAP and SRP strings. That seems to be partially implemented in that the Kerbos and SPKM sections call for large-binary-values, but it was done incompletely.

Regards,
Pat

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Studenmund [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 12:03 PM
To: THALER,PAT (A-Roseville,ex1)
Cc: LEMAY,KEVIN (A-Roseville,ex1); [email-masked];
[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 12:18:58 -0700 (PDT)

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

> Bill,
>
> I also thought that the result of the reflector discussion was
> agreement that decimal would only be used for numbers and not be used
> for strings that are sometimes longer than the 64 bit limit like CHAP
> and SRP strings. That seems to be partially implemented in that the
> Kerbos and SPKM sections call for large-binary-values, but it was done
> incompletely.

I looked at the list archive, and
http://www.pdl.cmu.edu/mailinglists/ips/mail/msg10319.html
is a comment by David indicating he saw concensus for not using base64 for
numbers.

I didn't find the thread part where I thought we agreed that we would
use decimal only for numbers (and not for small binary strings).

??

Take care,

Bill

---

From: Paul Koning <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 15:55:40 -0400

>>>>> "Bill" == Bill Studenmund <[email-masked]> writes:

 Bill> On Tue, 2 Jul 2002, THALER,PAT (A-Roseville,ex1) wrote:
 >> agreement that decimal would only be used for numbers and not be
 >> used for strings that are sometimes longer than the 64 bit limit
 >> like CHAP and SRP strings. That seems to be partially implemented
 >> in that the Kerbos and SPKM sections call for large-binary-values,
 >> but it was done incompletely.

 Bill> I looked at the list archive, and
 Bill> http://www.pdl.cmu.edu/mailinglists/ips/mail/msg10319.html is a
 Bill> comment by David indicating he saw concensus for not using
 Bill> base64 for numbers.

 Bill> I didn't find the thread part where I thought we agreed that we
 Bill> would use decimal only for numbers (and not for small binary
 Bill> strings).

That certainly is the conclusion I find most reasonable.  The allowed
encoding should be a property of the thing encoded.  We have a pile of
integers, and we have a few bitstrings.  The integers need to allow
decimal encoding; the bitstrings should NOT allow it.

	paul