RE: iSCSI - decimal coded binary strings - a proposed resolution

["Randy Jennings" <randyj@data-transit.com>]

> >  Julian> decimal-constant: an unsigned decimal number - the digit 0 or
> >  Julian> a string of 1 or more digits starting with a non-zero digit.
> >  Julian> Decimal-constants are used to encode numerical values or
> >  Julian> binary strings. Decimal constants can be used to encode
> >  Julian> binary strings only if the stringlength is explicitly
> >  Julian> speci-fied. There is no implicit length for decimal
> >  Julian> strings. This encoding MUST NOT used for numerical values
> >  Julian> equal or greater than 2**64 or binary strings that could be
> >  Julian> longer than 64 bits.

Here is the problem:
Do you mean (parentheses added):

This encoding MUST NOT used for (numerical values equal or greater than
2**64) or (binary strings that could be longer than 64 bits).

or:

This encoding MUST NOT used for (numerical values equal or greater than
2**64 or binary strings) that could be longer than 64 bits.

The first is admittedly the more logical choice, but it is not the only
choice.  I originally read it as the second and wondered what Paul's issue
was.

This is the editorial clarity issue that David Black is talking about.  I
remember having this issue with spec 11 when I was primarily learning the
spec. However, as I care more about decoding the info instead of writing a
protocol state machine, I did not make note of these problems.  I apologize
for not going over spec 12-(15?) closely.  These issues may have been
addressed by other editorial comments, but when adding text, it should be
carefully scrutinized as well.

With a 'for' in front of binary strings, the sentence can only be
interpreted one way.  From your following email is the wording intended.

Sincerely,
Randy
Data Transit