RE: iSCSI: Decimal encoding - why 64 bits ?

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

It was never supposed to be removed. Many values are passed around as decimal.
We can't make any progress if we keep hitting the same things again-and-again after a decent consensus has been reached.
And none of you has brought an argument that was not heard and dismissed before.

Remember we moved from unlimited length decimal to 64 bit to alleviate implementer fears.

Julo

Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@wasabisystems.com> 07/02/2002 10:03 PM Please respond to Bill Studenmund

To:        "THALER,PAT (A-Roseville,ex1)" <pat_thaler@agilent.com>         cc:        "LEMAY,KEVIN (A-Roseville,ex1)" <kevin_lemay@agilent.com>, Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, <ips@ece.cmu.edu>         Subject:        RE: iSCSI: Decimal encoding - why 64 bits ?

On Tue, 2 Jul 2002, THALER,PAT (A-Roseville,ex1) wrote:

> Bill,
>

> The decimal encoding is not just for numbers. It is also allowed for
> binary-values. Both CHAP and SRP exchange items that are identified as
> binary-values. In general these will be longer than 64 bits, but in
> cases where they are 64 bits or less the decimal encoding is currently
> allowed so we would have to support it.

I thought we had a big discussion about this, and we decided that decimal
was only used for numbers, hex for numbers and binary, and base64 only for
binary items. ??

Doh! I just looked in -14, and the text doesn't reflect that
understanding. Hmmm.

> The issue is that currently decimal encoding is allowed for
> binary-values and numbers less than 64 bits. There is little need for
> it over 32 bits. We have two other entirely adequate representations
> for those numbers. Why have something in there that causes extra code
> for no benefit?

All I can say is I thought it was removed. :-|

Take care,

Bill