RE: iSCSI: 2.2.6. Naming & mapping

["Douglas Otis" <dotis@sanlight.net>]

Julo,

Consider placing abstractions for names, proxies, paths, and settings found
in readable form as something derived from an LDAP server and keep
information sent to the device strictly a one-way binary, then abstractions
at a management agent could change every two days without affecting storage
transport.  The storage device would expose fewer avenues of attack and have
a smaller workload making conversions through some extraordinary means
beyond the IP transport, ICMP and ARP.  Conversely, should the transport
change, management could still use the same structures.  Otherwise,
transport protocol will slowly assume the role of LDAP and DNS.  The sign
for frustration is ...

Doug

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On Behalf Of
> julian_satran@il.ibm.com
> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 7:05 AM
> To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
> Subject: Re: iSCSI: 2.2.6. Naming & mapping
>
>
>
>
> Not again (what is the sign for frustration?)... I mean not
> before the next
> version.
>
> Julo
>
> Raghavendra Rao <Jp.Raghavendra@EBay.Sun.COM> on 14/09/2000 21:04:02
>
> Please respond to Raghavendra Rao <Jp.Raghavendra@EBay.Sun.COM>
>
> To:   Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL
> cc:
> Subject:  iSCSI: 2.2.6. Naming & mapping
>
>
>
>
>
> I feel that a LUN should be very much part of the Naming scheme
> that has been proposed in the draft, regardless of the level of
> enforcement of the scheme by implementors. LUNs are very much
> part of SCSI addressing, and where LUN doesn't exist, zero is
> assumed.
>
> Without a LUN identifier, Naming section doesn't look complete.
>
> Do you have insights why it is omitted ? Is this by design or overlook ?
>
> Thanks.
> -JP
>
>
>
>