Re: iSCSI - re-phrase of 4.1

[Mark Bakke <mbakke@cisco.com>]

Julian-

That works great!

Thanks,

Mark

Julian Satran wrote:
> 
> The issue of leading 0s was brought up in the context of decimal numbers.
> In the context of hex or base 64 encoding for binaries (not numbers) the leading 0 has value - it
> implies length -
> 0x0015 is different from 0x15.
> 
> Julo
> 
>   Luben Tuikov <luben@splentec.com>
>   Sent by: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu                     To:        "THALER,PAT (A-Roseville,ex1)"
>                                              <pat_thaler@agilent.com>
>   05/03/2002 05:18 PM                                cc:        Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL,
>   Please respond to iSCSI; Please respond to ips@ece.cmu.edu
>   Luben Tuikov                                       Subject:        Re: iSCSI - re-phrase of 4.1
> 
> 
> 
> > "THALER,PAT (A-Roseville,ex1)" wrote:
> >
> > hex-constant: unsigned hexadecimal constant described by regu-lar expression "0[xX][0-9a-zA-Z]+"
> > Hexidecimal only uses the alphabet up to F so the regular expression should be:
> > "0[xX][0-9a-fA-F]+"
> 
> Wasn't there some consenus that there will be no extra leading 0, unless
> part of the base identifier (and thus at most one)? Else I can
> put 1e9 zeros like this: 0x0000...03 to be a valid hex const.
> 
> Also why do we need to _restrict_ as to the sign of
> a hex constant. I'm sure that sooner or later it will
> have its applications. If a value cannot be negative
> and a node sent it as negative then the peer will
> reply with Reject or appropriately.
> 
> Isn't all this the whole point of interoperability and
> the use of Reject, et al?
> 
> Thus,
> hex const: 0[xX][1-9A-Fa-f]+[0-9A-Fa-f]*
> 
> And similarly for the others.
> 
> --
> Luben

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