Re: iSCSI Naming: iqn format specification

["John Hufferd" <hufferd@us.ibm.com>]

Every one can be their own authority with out have to work with some super
entity to get a simple number that is unique when combined with the reverse
DNS.  Dates are ideal for that.  Simple, straight forward and really no
problem.

I vote for Date qualifications instead of Enterprise numbers.  Perhaps a
DDDYY or DDDYYY type format.

.
.
.
John L. Hufferd
Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
IBM/SSG San Jose Ca
Main Office (408) 256-0403, Tie: 276-0403,  eFax: (408) 904-4688
Home Office (408) 997-6136
Internet address: hufferd@us.ibm.com


Mark Bakke <mbakke@cisco.com>@ece.cmu.edu on 07/18/2001 01:31:20 PM

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


To:   Black_David@emc.com, ips@ece.cmu.edu
cc:
Subject:  Re: iSCSI Naming: iqn format specification




To get the draft out, I am going to require the enterprise number.

A second possibility exists; the reversed DNS name could be qualified
by the date on which the iSCSI name was generated.  Since two entities
cannot own the same DNS name at the same time, the separate naming
authorities would not generate these using the same dates.

Anyone want dates instead of enterprise numbers?

--
Mark

Mark Bakke wrote:
>
> Works for me.  Anyone wanting to do their own naming schemes would
> fall into three categories:
>
> 1. iSCSI hardware and software manufacturers
>
>    Most iSCSI names would be generated by these folks; they would
>    make them up either statically (based on a chassis number or
>    something) or dynamically (based on user configuration, but not
>    explicitly configured by the user), or a combination of the two.
>
>    These have their own enterprise # anyway.
>
> 2. Service-minded end-users that want control over naming.
>
>    These are sophisticated enough to want an enterprise number; I
>    anticipate that only folks such as SSPs would want to do this
>    sort of thing; most will leave the manufacturer-assigned names
>    along.
>
> 3. Researchers building iSCSI experimental stuff
>
>    These would not be concerned with being "iSCSI-compliant"; they
>    would simply want to be reasonably sure that they won't conflict
>    with other equipment in a lab environment.  These folks could just
>    use enterprise # 0, along with their reversed domain name, and be
>    reasonably assured of this.
>
> We don't have to mention #3 in the spec, if that's a problem, since
> this decision of iSCSI-compliance would be up to the implementor
>
> --
> Mark
>
> Black_David@emc.com wrote:
> >
> > That would work - REQUIRE the enterprise
> > number and possibly  RECOMMEND that it be
> > followed by the reverse DNS name for
> > human-friendliness.  --David
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Mark Bakke [SMTP:mbakke@cisco.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 4:28 PM
> > > To:   Black_David@emc.com
> > > Cc:   ips@ece.cmu.edu
> > > Subject:      Re: iSCSI Naming: iqn format specification
> > >
> > > So, should we require the enterprise number?  It's a whole
> > > lot cheaper than getting an OUI.
> > >
> > > Black_David@emc.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > A couple of comments on this:
> > > >
> > > > > Anyone wanting to ensure that their names
> > > > > will never conflict with someone else's can add the enterprise
number.
> > > >
> > > > Nice try, but not good enough.  If this course is followed the
> > > > enterprise number has to be REQUIRED independent of the whims
> > > > of those who are creating the names so that this conflict can't
> > > > happen, period.
> > > >
> > > > > > Finally, we should use the URI name and format for the
namespace
> > > > > > where a URI format exists.  This is simply for consistency.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For example:
> > > > > >    backwardsdns:au.edu.example.faculty
> > > > > >    oid:1.32.43.5.3.2.43.2.2.34
> > > > > >    oui:2e319c65786e
> > > > >
> > > > > I had suggested this before, in my draft on iSCSI URNs; the IESG
> > > > > completely shot this down, and I'm still not sure why.  Anyway,
> > > > > I don't have the energy to push the URN/URI thing any further.
> > > >
> > > > What the IESG shot down was the notion of WWUI as a new URN
> > > > namespace into which other namespaces could be glued.  Anyone
> > > > whose reaction to this is "but it's functionally equivalent", has
missed
> > > > the point, and should be thankful that they don't spend all their
time
> > > > on naming issues ;-).  The issues here are syntax, intent, and
> > > > control; the IESG is not prepared to allow the IPS WG to define
> > > > a new global namespace into which the IPS WG could decide
> > > > to glue in other namespaces at its discretion.  AFAIK, the IESG
> > > > would be interested in things like an OUI URN definition (anyone
> > > > want to write a draft? - it should be good for at least 15 minutes
of
> > > > fame).
> > > >
> > > > --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
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > --
> > > Mark A. Bakke
> > > Cisco Systems
> > > mbakke@cisco.com
> > > 763.398.1054
>
> --
> Mark A. Bakke
> Cisco Systems
> mbakke@cisco.com
> 763.398.1054

--
Mark A. Bakke
Cisco Systems
mbakke@cisco.com
763.398.1054