Re: [iSCSI:] Logout request -- reason? Correction

[Luben Tuikov <luben@splentec.com>]

I see absolutely no point in replying to this.

-- 
Luben


pat_thaler@agilent.com wrote:
> 
> Luben,
> 
> I was refering to your statement "I was under the impression that byte 1 in
> BHS is a flags byte -- i.e. bit values." The BHS is what is defined in the
> template which says it is opcode specific, not a flags byte. If you want to
> be able to count on it being a flags byte, than that additional information
> would need to be added to the template.
> 
> Some PDU types have 2-bit fields in the first byte (e.g. CSG and NSG), some
> have 3-bit fields. All these values are described as numeric values (e.g.
> CSG/NSG is described as having values 0,1 and 3). I don't see how a 2-bit
> value is okay in that location but a 7-bit value is not okay. I also note
> that it appears that only 3 bits of the Function field are actually used
> currently as the
> 
> As an aside, I don't see that the spec describing a 2 to 8 bit field in
> decimal, hex or binary makes any difference to what the hardware/software
> does in processing those bits when the field is just a mapping of a type to
> a set of bits. It would be different if one was expected to do arithmetic
> operations on the field. The existing uses of the first byte are all
> mappings of a meaning to a bit pattern regardless of the representation of
> that bit pattern in the field. Of course, some day it could be used for a
> real number.
> 
> It isn't a sound architectural idea to assume that fields which are OpCode
> specific will have a consistency of format across opcodes. If it isn't in
> the template then future OpCodes may be created that use that byte in
> different ways.
> 
> I understood what you meant and I don't have to have the same reason to
> object as other people.