Message-ID: <1BEBA5E8600DD4119A50009027AF54A00ECB3D74@axcs04.cos.agilent.com>
From: kevin_lemay@agilent.com
To: Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com, kevin_lemay@agilent.com
Cc: blandry@crossroads.com, ips@ece.cmu.edu, owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject: RE: iSCSI: numeric-range format question (pedantic)
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 17:11:39 -0700 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
Precedence: bulk

Julian,
 
I guess now I question whether clearer wording is needed to specify that both are acceptable ( or not)
 
I reasoned, that a range must be offered and a single value returned in reply. It is easier to check for the lack of the "~" to denote a single value.
 
If 4096~4096 is allowed, then I must decode both values and ensure that they are indeed the same. 
 
This is not a big issue, but I would prefer that the spec pick one way or the other. I see no value in allowing both.
 
Right now, we have an interoperabilty issue.
 
Kevin
-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Satran [mailto:Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 4:04 PM
To: kevin_lemay@agilent.com
Cc: blandry@crossroads.com; ips@ece.cmu.edu; owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject: RE: iSCSI: numeric-range format question (pedantic)



obviously 4096~4096 is also valid (but redundant). Julo 



kevin_lemay@agilent.com 
Sent by: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu 


06/02/03 01:48 


To
blandry@crossroads.com, ips@ece.cmu.edu 

cc

Subject
RE: iSCSI: numeric-range format question (pedantic)

	




Buck,

I coded it this way....

OFMarkInt=4096

If you don't fine the "~" delimiter then it is a single value.

I would interpret 4096~4096 as a range with only one acceptable value.

Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: Buck Landry [mailto:blandry@crossroads.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 3:35 PM
To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject: iSCSI: numeric-range format question (pedantic)


Is it draft 20's intent that any numeric-range may be represented by a single numerical-value, if that value is the only one acceptable?

I ask because:
-- the definition for numeric-range does not mention this (5.1)
-- OFMarkInt and IFMarkInt are defined as <numeric-range> for offers (A.3.2)
-- .. but the description for these keys says "In case it only wants a specific value, only a single value has to be specified".

There are three conclusions I might make:
a) When the draft says "only a single value has to be specified", it means only that (for instance) 4096~4096 might be specified.
b) x is valid shorthand for x~x, but only for OFMarkInt and IFMarkInt
c) x is valid shorthand for x~x, for any theoretical numeric-range

The safest choice is obviously c).  If the intent was actually a), would somebody please speak up.

Thanks, --buck