|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: iSCSI: Support Alias in the protocolI support the Alias field. I can see value in being able to assign a user readable name to a storage device that is not required to be unique or adhere to a specific format. Regards, Kevin -----Original Message----- From: John Hufferd [mailto:hufferd@us.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 9:52 AM To: ips@ece.cmu.edu Subject: iSCSI: Support Alias in the protocol Today at the 51st meeting of the IETF, I presented an issue that came out of the Naming and Discovery Team. That was that some members of the team did not understand why we needed to have an Alias field, which is in the base protocol today, since it was technically not needed. The position I presented to the group was that the Naming and Discovery Team did not have consensus, since many of us felt that having a Human oriented "Tagging" function was useful, and a small item which would be useful for Administrators especially when EUI names are used. One person, at the meeting today, stated that it might not be of extreme importance on large Networks with sophisticated Management tools, but it was very useful in small to medium environments, where the Management tools were slim. And at least one person stated that since it was not required, it should not be in the protocol. As the conversations when on, it was pointed out by the area director, Scott Bradner, that SLP used a similar Text field in its protocol, so there was clearly a president. In any event, we could not reach consensus at the meeting, so I was asked to bring the issue to the List. (So here it is!) Please state your positions so that David can call a consensus. . . . John L. Hufferd Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM) IBM/SSG San Jose Ca Main Office (408) 256-0403, Tie: 276-0403, eFax: (408) 904-4688 Home Office (408) 997-6136 Internet address: hufferd@us.ibm.com
Home Last updated: Tue Sep 04 01:04:04 2001 6315 messages in chronological order |