RE: Section 4.1 clarifications

["Julian Satran" <Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com>]

OK let's all settle on 64 and close the thread. Julo

pat_thaler@agilent.com 04/26/2002 07:41 PM Please respond to pat_thaler

To:        Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, pat_thaler@agilent.com         cc:        ips@ece.cmu.edu, iscsiteam@windriver.com, michael.krueger@windriver.com         Subject:        RE: Section 4.1 clarifications

Julian,
 
Considering the conversion process, I agree with the suggestions from Bill and Paul to limit it to 32 or 64 bit (I assume they mean numbers which in binary form are that size) numbers. That would be integers with 10 or 20 digits respectively. 
 
Addresses and other numbers longer than that are almost always viewed by humans in hex or other non-decimal forms and decimal for larger number is not likely to be useful to humans so the rationale for supporting decimal doesn't apply above that size.
 
Pat
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Satran [mailto:Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 8:02 PM
To: THALER,PAT (A-Roseville,ex1)
Cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu; iSCSI Team; Michael Krueger
Subject: RE: Section 4.1 clarifications
Importance: High


Pat, 

I suggest that we say that support for large decimal integers and define large decimal integers is limited to 100 digits (or 200)? 

Julo