ISCSI: NAA naming format

["Randy Jennings" <randyj@data-transit.com>]

I will not be in the Atlanta meeting, so I will have to open this can of
worms here.

> - NAA naming format for iSCSI (30 min)
draft-krueger-iscsi-name-ext-00.txt
>	This draft proposes to add a new .naa naming format to iSCSI in
>	addition to the current .iqn and .eui formats.  A significant
>	motivation for this is an desire by T10 (ANSI organization that
>	handles SCSI standards) to obtain consistent SCSI device
>	naming across SCSI transports.
>
>	The authors request that the IPS WG adopt this draft as an
official
>	work item.  It would become a separate RFC rather than being
folded
>	into the main iSCSI draft.
I first want to say that whether the NAA naming format is adopted or not
does not matter to me, but it matters to me if the following text is
left in the Proposed Standard version of the iSCSI draft:

(pg39, line from start of document 2340)
   As these two naming authority designators will suffice in nearly
   every case for both software and hardware-based entities, the
   creation of additional type designators is prohibited.

Now, it does not use the MUST language required by IETF drafts (as I
understand it), but prohibited is a strong word for me.  (On a side
note, it would be interesting to open up a thesaurus and search for
other such words in the draft (i.e. 'mandatory').)

I do not want to see a sorry chap reading this draft, see the word
'prohibited' and not ever worry about another name format ever being
made.  It gives this nice sense of (false?) security that made me like
math and standards in the first place.

Sincerely,
Randy Jennings
Data Transit