Re: iSCSI: Support Alias in the protocol

[James Smart <james.smart@trebia.com>]

I support the notion of an Alias. This is a feature that I've seen many FC SAN
configurations use. This feature is extremely high on many SAN administrators
lists.

-- James Smart


John Hufferd wrote:

> 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