Subject: Re: iSCSI - decimal coded binary strings - a proposed resolution

From: "Julian Satran" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 17:52:00 +0300

Comments in text. Julo

Paul Koning <[email-masked]>
07/10/2002 04:09 PM
Please respond to Paul Koning

        To:     Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL
        cc:     [email-masked]
        Subject:        Re: iSCSI - decimal coded binary strings - a proposed resolution

> Paul,
> There seems to be something missing.
> There is no decimal coding for numbers over 2**64.
> And there no implied length for strings.
> Where is the complexity?

If I understood correctly, you were proposing:

1. For binary strings, decimal coding is allowed only if the
particular string can never be longer than 64 bits.  In other words,
even in cases when some of the allowed values are less than 64 bits,
you're not allowed to use decimal, ever.  So the encoding rule is tied
to the parameter, not to its value.

+++ that was true even before - now we added the restriction that the 
length is not implicit (decimals have no implicit length) so your "know 
ahead  of converting" is met anyhow.

2. On the other hand, for numbers, the proposed rule says that you can
encode the value in decimal whenever the value happens to be less than
2**64.  If 5 minutes later that same parameter happens to have a
value 2**64 or greater, then you cannot encode that particular value
in decimal.  So the encoding rule here is tied to the value, not the
parameter; a given parameter sometimes permits decimal and sometimes
not.

That's what I meant: it is extra complexity to have an encoding rule
for a variable that isn't the same for all possible values of the
variable.

+++ that is only an issue for the encoder - and encoding is not an issue 
for any 
of the encoding methods - you send starting (supposedly) from an internal 
value of defined
length and may use whatever is fit but we may tight the rule to allowed 
values not actual values.
Is that acceptable?
+++

                 paul

---

From: Bill Studenmund <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 12:05:55 -0700 (PDT)

> values not actual values.

Let's tie the rule to the allowed values. That would clear up a chunk of
the mess.

Take care,

Bill