Re: iSCSI - working draft and IANA

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

I agree - Julo

Mark Bakke <mbakke@cisco.com> Sent by: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu 07/30/2002 08:52 PM

To:        Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL         cc:        Steve Senum <ssenum@cisco.com>, ips@ece.cmu.edu         Subject:        Re: iSCSI - working draft and IANA

Julian-

I'm not sure I see the need for registering keys, but that
aside, if we register digest and auth methods I would suggest
that we also register an integer method number with each; this
will make it easier to add them to the MIBs.  I would also
suggest that we register the current ones as well as any
extensions.

--
Mark

Julian Satran wrote:
> 
> 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>
>                                            To:        Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL
>   07/30/2002 01:48 AM                      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

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