Re: Section 4.1 clarifications

[Mark Bakke <mbakke@cisco.com>]

OK; works for me.

--
Mark

Julian Satran wrote:
> 
> OK let's all settle on 64 and close the thread. Julo
> 
>   pat_thaler@agilent.com
>                                        To:        Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL,
>   04/26/2002 07:41 PM          pat_thaler@agilent.com
>   Please respond to pat_thaler         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

-- 
Mark A. Bakke
Cisco Systems
mbakke@cisco.com
763.398.1054