No Subject

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

How about the following text to replace
the draconian "only those 2" text for naming and open the way
for other naming (if we really want them):

These two naming authority designators
where considered sufficient at the time of writing this document.  The
creation of additional naming type designators for iSCSI may be considered
by the IETF and detailed in separate RFCs. 

Regards,
Julo
----- Forwarded by Julian
Satran/Haifa/IBM on 08/01/03 09:16 -----

"Randy Jennings" <randyj@data-transit.com>
Sent by: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu

07/11/02 18:50

To	<ips@ece.cmu.edu>
cc
Subject	ISCSI: NAA naming format

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


----- Forwarded by Julian
Satran/Haifa/IBM on 08/01/03 09:16 -----

"Mallikarjun C." <cbm@rose.hp.com>
Sent by: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu

08/11/02 07:42

To	"Randy Jennings" <randyj@data-transit.com>, <ips@ece.cmu.edu>
cc
Subject	Re: ISCSI: NAA naming format

Good catch.

The statement would need to be modified to state that: this version
of the iSCSI draft allows only two name type designators, and using
user-defined name type designators is prohibited.

Implementations complying with the iSCSI RFC would then support
only those two formats, while new name formats may in addition be
supported based on compliance to additional RFCs, as may be approved 
by the WG from time to time.

Thanks.
--
Mallikarjun

Mallikarjun Chadalapaka
Networked Storage Architecture
Network Storage Solutions
Hewlett-Packard MS 5668 
Roseville CA 95747
cbm@rose.hp.com

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Randy Jennings" <randyj@data-transit.com>
To: <ips@ece.cmu.edu>
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 8:50 AM
Subject: ISCSI: NAA naming format


> 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
> 
>