|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: iSCSI - working draft and IANASeveral 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 |