Re: iSCSI - working draft and IANA

["Julian Satran" <Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com>]

Registering the current keys is an issue already raised by Mallikarjun. The only think I can comment about is that I don't see what we stand to gain (and I can cleraly see the  pain!).

As for the prefixes - they are aimed at clearly delineating what is mandatory (key defined in the basic iSCSI doc) from vendor or group=of-vendors additions.

The registration is meant to allow groups of vendors to agree on a key and provide a semantic doc (an RFC that can be informational).

Julo

Steve Senum <ssenum@cisco.com> 07/30/2002 01:48 AM

To:        Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL         cc:        ips@ece.cmu.edu         Subject:        Re: iSCSI - working draft and IANA

Julian,

1. I would suggest registering all the current iSCSI keys, auth methods,
and digests with the IANA, with references to the iSCSI RFC (when published),
and dropping the X#, Y#, and Z# prefixes.  This would be more consistent
with how I have seen this done in the past.

2. I am not sure I really see the need.  In other cases, this is done
to allow vendor specific registrations, but we already have a mechanism
for that (the X- prefix).  Note that there is no reason why a vendor
can't defined a vendor specific key in an informational RFC.

Regards,
Steve Senum

Julian Satran wrote:
> 
> Dear colleagues,
> 
> The current (today's) version of the draft has a revised IANA consideration
> section
> and specific  indication on how to build keys, authentication methods and
> digests.
> 
> David Black suggested that we might want to go for 3 different registries
> maintained by IANA for iSCSI
> and I liked the idea.
> 
> Please comment,
> Julo