SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


    [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

    RE: iSCSI Naming: iqn format specification



    That would work - REQUIRE the enterprise
    number and possibly  RECOMMEND that it be
    followed by the reverse DNS name for
    human-friendliness.  --David
    
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From:	Mark Bakke [SMTP:mbakke@cisco.com]
    > Sent:	Monday, July 16, 2001 4:28 PM
    > To:	Black_David@emc.com
    > Cc:	ips@ece.cmu.edu
    > Subject:	Re: iSCSI Naming: iqn format specification
    > 
    > So, should we require the enterprise number?  It's a whole
    > lot cheaper than getting an OUI.
    > 
    > Black_David@emc.com wrote:
    > > 
    > > A couple of comments on this:
    > > 
    > > > Anyone wanting to ensure that their names
    > > > will never conflict with someone else's can add the enterprise number.
    > > 
    > > Nice try, but not good enough.  If this course is followed the
    > > enterprise number has to be REQUIRED independent of the whims
    > > of those who are creating the names so that this conflict can't
    > > happen, period.
    > > 
    > > > > Finally, we should use the URI name and format for the namespace
    > > > > where a URI format exists.  This is simply for consistency.
    > > > >
    > > > > For example:
    > > > >    backwardsdns:au.edu.example.faculty
    > > > >    oid:1.32.43.5.3.2.43.2.2.34
    > > > >    oui:2e319c65786e
    > > >
    > > > I had suggested this before, in my draft on iSCSI URNs; the IESG
    > > > completely shot this down, and I'm still not sure why.  Anyway,
    > > > I don't have the energy to push the URN/URI thing any further.
    > > 
    > > What the IESG shot down was the notion of WWUI as a new URN
    > > namespace into which other namespaces could be glued.  Anyone
    > > whose reaction to this is "but it's functionally equivalent", has missed
    > > the point, and should be thankful that they don't spend all their time
    > > on naming issues ;-).  The issues here are syntax, intent, and
    > > control; the IESG is not prepared to allow the IPS WG to define
    > > a new global namespace into which the IPS WG could decide
    > > to glue in other namespaces at its discretion.  AFAIK, the IESG
    > > would be interested in things like an OUI URN definition (anyone
    > > want to write a draft? - it should be good for at least 15 minutes of
    > > fame).
    > > 
    > > --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
    > > ---------------------------------------------------
    > 
    > -- 
    > Mark A. Bakke
    > Cisco Systems
    > mbakke@cisco.com
    > 763.398.1054
    


Home

Last updated: Tue Sep 04 01:04:18 2001
6315 messages in chronological order