RE: iSCSI: Alias consensus call FAILURE

["Jim Hafner" <hafner@almaden.ibm.com>]

David,

You might have missed my note on this subject amidst the flood of other
notes.

I am also opposed to Aliases for all the reasons state by others, though my
objection is not strong.  In essence, I don't think it belongs here in the
iSCSI protocol, but I also don't think it breaks anything or causes any
significant problems in interoperability, testing, performance, etc.  There
are other things I've raised issue about that fit in these categories (some
of which have been addressed, others not -- but I'll pick up on those
later).

So, count me just over the line on negative side for aliases.

Jim Hafner


Black_David@emc.com@ece.cmu.edu on 08/21/2001 06:24:40 am

Sent by:  owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu


To:   Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, ips@ece.cmu.edu
cc:
Subject:  RE: iSCSI: Alias consensus call FAILURE



Julian,

> Did you see something on the list that none of us did?  Are objections
not
> meant to be public too?

All the objections are public.  Marj Krueger, Bob Snively
and Doug Otis have all objected to the inclusion of Alias,
and have all made essentially the same technical argument.
Between that and the significant prior traffic on the list
supporting the inclusion of Alias, the only reasonable
conclusion is that I do not see rough consensus on the list.

About all I can do in this case is postpone - if this
causes people to rethink their positions, that is
definitely an intended consequence.

--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
---------------------------------------------------