RE: iSCSI Naming: WWUIs, URNs, and namespaces

[Black_David@emc.com]

Marj,

> How does this relate to URLs?  Does this mean we can't specify a URL
format
> for iSCSI resources?  Can you provide the logic behind the IESG
pronouncing
> that the IESG won't approve another global namespace?

Use of URLs is fine (existing namespace), as is use of URL format.  The word
"global" has a number of meanings - in this context it has to do with scope
and context, namely globally unique identifiers for anything on the globe
that
needs a unique identifier.  While it may not have been the intention to do
so, the WWUI approach leads to a new global naming framework.  The
IESG is saying "NO" to that sort of general framework in no uncertain terms
and asking the WG to focus on the storage naming problems we need to
solve and not go about defining a framework that is extensible to solve a
whole batch of other unrelated problems.

At the next level down, there are three sorts
of issues floating in here:
- Semantics: Unique identifiers, global scope,
	not tied to communication endpoints.
- Syntax: How those identifiers are represented
	in messages and related issues of control
	over use and extension of that representation
- Description: How the syntax is documented and
	the resulting suggestions/implications for
	its use.
To a first approximation, the above list is in
the order of importance to iSCSI (Semantics is
most important) and in REVERSE order of importance
to the IESG/IAB issues I've raised (i.e., the
biggest issues are with the Description, believe
it or not :-)).

Let me know if I need to explain more,
--David

---------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 42 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 435-1000 x75140     FAX: +1 (508) 497-8500
black_david@emc.com       Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
---------------------------------------------------