RE: iSCSI: Support Alias in the protocol

["John Hufferd" <hufferd@us.ibm.com>]

Robert,
You make good points, however, I would say that they show that an alias in
the protocol is useful.  The items you list are not an "eui" iSCSI
Initiator or Target Node name.  The fact that and "eui" name can be a bunch
of Hex numbers, is the exact reason that a human way to talk about it, and
get MIB and SNMP reports is useful and important.  There is no other item
in the system or the SCSI level that has a method of identifying an iSCSI
Initiator or Target via a Human oriented name.

.
.
.
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


Robert Snively <rsnively@brocade.com> on 08/10/2001 12:06:54 AM

To:   John Hufferd/San Jose/IBM@IBMUS, ips@ece.cmu.edu
cc:
Subject:  RE: iSCSI: Support Alias in the protocol



John,

I feel that the alias does not belong in the iSCSI architecture.
Aliasing is already routinely provided at two other levels in
the protocol stack and need not be redundantly inserted in iSCSI.

a)  In the SCSI command set

There is already available a logical unit level aliasing process
using the SET/REPORT DEVICE IDENTIFIER service actions defined
in the SCSI command set standard SPC-2.

b)  In the operating system stack

Most implementations use aliases created at the system level, not
the protocol level, that are far more useful and can be tuned
to the particular environment.  A particularly naive example of
this is the mapping of identified devices to the A:, B:, or
C: disk drives in the similarly naive MS-DOS operating system.
More sophisticated systems and management structures use similar
aliasing at the system level.

Bob

-----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