Re: iSCSI: Decimal encoding - why 64 bits ?

[Mark Bakke <mbakke@cisco.com>]

Pat-

We use hex for binary values; it just made the most sense to us.  So
I agree that decimal for binary values ought to be eliminated, particularly
since they can sometimes be longer than 64 bits, and sometimes shorter.
I can't see the value in accepting the same key in one case as a binary
string, and another as an integer.  In the MIB, any key information
(the CHAP and SRP passwords) are configured as octet strings, not integers.

Anyway, I'm not necessarily trying to change anything, but if there's
an opportunity to decide on when and whether decimal is used, I don't
see any use for decimal > 32 bits.

--
Mark

"THALER,PAT (A-Roseville,ex1)" wrote:
> 
> Mark,
> 
> What about 40-bit to 56-bit decimal encoded binary values? They are allowed.
> 
> 4.1
> binary-value includes regular-binary-value and large-binary-value.
> regular-binary-value is for strings less than 64 bits and allows decimal encoding. (It says less than 64 and decimal encoded binary strings are always in bytes so the largest decimal encoded binary would be 56 bits.)
> 
> 10.4 SRP: N,g,s,A,B,M and H(A | M | K) are binary-values
> 10.5 CHAP: C and R are binary-values
> 
> 10.2 and 10.3 use large-binary-value instead of binary-value and I can't find any other use of binary-value.
> 
> Normally, the values defined as binary-values for SRP and CHAP would be 64 bits or longer anyway, but someone could send short keys and encode them in decimal according to the current draft. This should be eliminated.
> 
> Regards,
> Pat
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Bakke [mailto:mbakke@cisco.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 3:36 PM
> To: pat_thaler@agilent.com
> Cc: Black_David@emc.com; Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com; ips@ece.cmu.edu
> Subject: Re: iSCSI: Decimal encoding - why 64 bits ?
> 
> For what it's worth, none of the numeric values for iSCSI that
> can be retrieved or set via the MIB require more than 32 bits
> (other than counters, but I doubt we would ever send a counter
> during negotiation :-).  The allowable ranges just didn't need
> more than that.
> 
> Anyway, I haven't seen a need to provide support for 64-bit
> values in our implementation yet, since none of the numeric
> keys can have values that high.
> 
> --
> Mark A. Bakke
> Cisco Systems
> mbakke@cisco.com
> 763.398.1054

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