Re: iSCSI: Some proposed vendor-specific (X-) keys

[Paul Koning <ni1d@arrl.net>]

>>>>> "Ken" == Ken Sandars <ksandars@eurologic.com> writes:

 Ken> On Thursday 06 June 2002 11:57 pm, Bill Studenmund wrote:
 >> On Thu, 6 Jun 2002 pat_thaler@agilent.com wrote: > Bill, > > If
 >> x-keys are used for this then they should be given proper x-key
 >> names: > x-reversed.dns_name.key_name > > It is a bad precedent to
 >> ignore domain naming in some of the first > x-keys. People
 >> wouldn't want the dns name to be a vendor name in this > case but
 >> perhaps a neutral party such as SNIA or UNH would be willing to >
 >> have its domain name used for such keys (and they have nice short
 >> DNS > names).
 >> 
 >> True. Point taken. Any volinteers?
 >> 

 Ken> I agree that proper vendor-specific x-keys should use the
 Ken> reverse-dns format as stated. However, in this case the proposed
 Ken> keys are generic (for the good of all) and I'd hope are
 Ken> consistent.

 Ken> Can we have a set of "well-known" X-keys which just start "X-"?

 Ken> It certainly is a legal format according to the spec. Support of
 Ken> course would be completely optional for these.

I am strongly opposed to any of this.

Clearly there's no way to stop people at foo.com defining an
x-com.foo.whatever, but I DO NOT like the idea of giving this notion
any semblance of official sanction by creating "standard" X- keys to
do what's proposed here.

   paul