SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


    [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

    RE: iSCSI - working draft and IANA



    Several comments on this topic:
    
    - The IANA text in the working draft is going to need some
    	expansion.  IANA will want explicit instructions on how
    	to manage the registries, as IANA does *not* have
    	a single or default set of procedures for this purpose
    	and hence needs instructions on what is to be done.
    	See RFC 2434.
    
    - The rationale for the X/Y/Z prefixes is to avoid losing key
    	and value names to vendor registration that we might like
    	to use in the future - future RFCs would be able to define
    	new key and value names without problems, because we wouldn't
    	us those prefixes.  The # prefix ensures that registered
    	and unregistered vendor-specified names can't conflict.
    	Both of these are important (e.g., the X- format for
    	vendor-specific keys is not going away at this stage).
    	If the # character is objectionable, a possible alternative
    	is that registered values MUST NOT contain a period ('.')
    	and unregistered values MUST contain a period ('.') between
    	the first and second components of the reversed domain name.
    	We may also want to reserve/restrict the use of underscore
    	('_') to continue the convention that for AuthMethod <foo>,
    	the keys that negotiate its parameters are named <foo>_* .
    
    - The reason for creating a registry for existing keys is that
    	it would provide a single point of reference in the future as
    	new keys get added to iSCSI.  Right now this doesn't matter, but
    	down the road, after a few RFCs add several new keys, having one
    	place to look could be quite convenient.  A number of things
    	have been put into IANA registries after the fact as it was
    	subsequently discovered that such a registry would be useful
    	(e.g., the IP protocol number [IPv4/IPv6] is in such a registry).
    
    I may need to volunteer to help with the IANA text - it doesn't
    have to be perfect to Last Call the draft as long as for each
    registry, two things are clear:
    
    - The criteria for registration - the things that someone who
    	wants to register something has to present to IANA.
    - How IANA handles registration requests, including reasons for
    	rejection and requirements for review.
    
    I'm not sure about Mark Bakke's suggestion to number newly registered
    authentication/digest algorithms for MIB usage vs. having the MIB use
    the strings.  In practice, the string is what names these algorithms,
    so using numbers seems to create an additional opportunity to get the
    algorithm (string) to number mapping wrong.
    
    Thanks,
    --David
    ---------------------------------------------------
    David L. Black, Senior Technologist
    EMC Corporation, 42 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
    +1 (508) 249-6449            FAX: +1 (508) 497-8018
    black_david@emc.com       Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
    ---------------------------------------------------
    


Home

Last updated: Thu Aug 01 10:18:52 2002
11509 messages in chronological order