RE: iSCSI Discovery and SendTargets or Expediency vs. Planning

["KRUEGER,MARJORIE (HP-Roseville,ex1)" <marjorie_krueger@hp.com>]

*My point* = the fact that configuration information needs to be managed
does not dictate the way information is exchanged.  We are already
exchanging some "configuration information" in the text commands so that the
iSCSI endpoints may communicate.  Are you saying we must remove all text
commands, since they are also "things that are part of the managed data"?
There have been extensions to the text commands - are we also tempted to add
"configure" text command options for them?  We have to exercise judgement on
all issues, we all agree.

-Marj
 
> Marjorie,
> 
> This is exactly my point. SendTargets has to be part of the management
> infrastructure and not the iSCSI operational structure.  It 
> can live and
> thrive there.
> 
> Julo
> 
> "KRUEGER,MARJORIE (HP-Roseville,ex1)" <marjorie_krueger@hp.com> on
> 06-06-2001 03:31:21
> 
> Please respond to "KRUEGER,MARJORIE (HP-Roseville,ex1)"
>       <marjorie_krueger@hp.com>
> 
> To:   Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, ips@ece.cmu.edu
> cc:
> Subject:  RE: iSCSI Discovery and SendTargets or Expediency 
> vs. Planning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Julo,
> 
> > I would like to point out that the SendTargets should not 
> be considered
> as
> > a standalone thing.
> > It will (has to) be supported by a management infrastructure that:
> >
> > - has to install the names
> > -check and invalidate  them as needed
> 
> A target device with a network interface already has to have 
> a "management
> infrastructure", regardless of whether or not SendTargets is 
> part of the
> iSCSI protocol.  The IP-ness of the device requires that the 
> user be able
> to
> configure IP addresses, masks, gateway's, DNS servers (possibly) and
> there's
> also the configuration of a target name, should a user want 
> to change the
> target's default name.
> 
> -Marj
> 
> 
>