Re: iSCSI Naming: iqn format specification

[Mark Bakke <mbakke@cisco.com>]

Works for me.  Anyone wanting to do their own naming schemes would
fall into three categories:

1. iSCSI hardware and software manufacturers

   Most iSCSI names would be generated by these folks; they would
   make them up either statically (based on a chassis number or
   something) or dynamically (based on user configuration, but not
   explicitly configured by the user), or a combination of the two.

   These have their own enterprise # anyway.

2. Service-minded end-users that want control over naming.

   These are sophisticated enough to want an enterprise number; I
   anticipate that only folks such as SSPs would want to do this
   sort of thing; most will leave the manufacturer-assigned names
   along.

3. Researchers building iSCSI experimental stuff

   These would not be concerned with being "iSCSI-compliant"; they
   would simply want to be reasonably sure that they won't conflict
   with other equipment in a lab environment.  These folks could just
   use enterprise # 0, along with their reversed domain name, and be
   reasonably assured of this. 

We don't have to mention #3 in the spec, if that's a problem, since
this decision of iSCSI-compliance would be up to the implementor

--
Mark

Black_David@emc.com wrote:
> 
> 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

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