Return-Path: <owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu>
X-Sieve: cmu-sieve 2.0
Return-Path: <owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
	by ece.cmu.edu (8.11.0/8.10.2) id h162EMj01195
	for ips-outgoing; Wed, 5 Feb 2003 21:14:22 -0500 (EST)
X-Authentication-Warning: ece.cmu.edu: majordom set sender to owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu using -f
Received: from d12lmsgate.de.ibm.com (d12lmsgate.de.ibm.com [194.196.100.234])
	by ece.cmu.edu (8.11.0/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h162EIW01187;
	Wed, 5 Feb 2003 21:14:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from d12relay02.de.ibm.com (d12relay02.de.ibm.com [9.165.215.23])
	by d12lmsgate.de.ibm.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h162E5TQ036782;
	Thu, 6 Feb 2003 03:14:05 +0100
Received: from d10ml001.telaviv.ibm.com (d10ml001.telaviv.ibm.com [9.148.216.55])
	by d12relay02.de.ibm.com (8.12.3/NCO/VER6.4) with ESMTP id h162E4Ob125090;
	Thu, 6 Feb 2003 03:14:04 +0100
In-Reply-To: <1BEBA5E8600DD4119A50009027AF54A00ECB3D74@axcs04.cos.agilent.com>
To: kevin_lemay@agilent.com
Cc: blandry@crossroads.com, ips@ece.cmu.edu, kevin_lemay@agilent.com,
   owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject: RE: iSCSI: numeric-range format question (pedantic)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0 September 26, 2002
From: "Julian Satran" <Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <OF81B60088.E05C7418-ONC2256CC5.0001682C-C2256CC5.000C44BC@telaviv.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 04:13:59 +0200
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D10ML001/10/M/IBM(Release 5.0.9a |January 7, 2002) at
 06/02/2003 04:14:04,
	Serialize complete at 06/02/2003 04:14:04
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0001881EC2256CC5_="
Sender: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
Precedence: bulk

This is a multipart message in MIME format.
--=_alternative 0001881EC2256CC5_=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

WADR I do not see an interoperability  issue - you just implement both 
anyway and  you admit for range both (it is not even costlier).

Julo



kevin_lemay@agilent.com 
06/02/03 02:11

To
Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, 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)






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




--=_alternative 0001881EC2256CC5_=
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"


<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">WADR I do not see an interoperability
&nbsp;issue - you just implement both anyway and &nbsp;you admit for range
both (it is not even costlier).</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Julo</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=40%><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>kevin_lemay@agilent.com</b>
</font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">06/02/03 02:11</font>
<td width=59%>
<table width=100%>
<tr>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">To</font></div>
<td valign=top><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL,
kevin_lemay@agilent.com</font>
<tr>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">cc</font></div>
<td valign=top><font size=1 face="sans-serif">blandry@crossroads.com, ips@ece.cmu.edu,
owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu</font>
<tr>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Subject</font></div>
<td valign=top><font size=1 face="sans-serif">RE: iSCSI: numeric-range
format question (pedantic)</font></table>
<br>
<table>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td></table>
<br></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>Julian,<br>
 <br>
I guess now I question whether clearer wording is needed to specify that
both are acceptable ( or not)<br>
 <br>
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 &quot;~&quot; to denote
a single value.<br>
 <br>
If 4096~4096 is allowed, then I must decode both values and ensure that
they are indeed the same. <br>
 <br>
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.<br>
 <br>
Right now, we have an interoperabilty issue.<br>
 <br>
Kevin<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Julian Satran [mailto:Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com]<br>
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 4:04 PM<br>
To: kevin_lemay@agilent.com<br>
Cc: blandry@crossroads.com; ips@ece.cmu.edu; owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu<br>
Subject: RE: iSCSI: numeric-range format question (pedantic)<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
obviously 4096~4096 is also valid (but redundant). Julo <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
kevin_lemay@agilent.com <br>
Sent by: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu <br>
<br>
<br>
06/02/03 01:48 <br>
<br>
<br>
To<br>
blandry@crossroads.com, ips@ece.cmu.edu <br>
<br>
cc<br>
<br>
Subject<br>
RE: iSCSI: numeric-range format question (pedantic)<br>
<br>
 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Buck,<br>
<br>
I coded it this way....<br>
<br>
OFMarkInt=4096<br>
<br>
If you don't fine the &quot;~&quot; delimiter then it is a single value.<br>
<br>
I would interpret 4096~4096 as a range with only one acceptable value.<br>
<br>
Kevin<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Buck Landry [mailto:blandry@crossroads.com]<br>
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 3:35 PM<br>
To: ips@ece.cmu.edu<br>
Subject: iSCSI: numeric-range format question (pedantic)<br>
<br>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
I ask because:<br>
-- the definition for numeric-range does not mention this (5.1)<br>
-- OFMarkInt and IFMarkInt are defined as &lt;numeric-range&gt; for offers
(A.3.2)<br>
-- .. but the description for these keys says &quot;In case it only wants
a specific value, only a single value has to be specified&quot;.<br>
<br>
There are three conclusions I might make:<br>
a) When the draft says &quot;only a single value has to be specified&quot;,
it means only that (for instance) 4096~4096 might be specified.<br>
b) x is valid shorthand for x~x, but only for OFMarkInt and IFMarkInt<br>
c) x is valid shorthand for x~x, for any theoretical numeric-range<br>
<br>
The safest choice is obviously c). &nbsp;If the intent was actually a),
would somebody please speak up.<br>
<br>
Thanks, --buck<br>
<br>
<br>
</tt></font>
<br>
--=_alternative 0001881EC2256CC5_=--