Subject: RE: iSCSI Naming: iqn format specification

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 14:09:13 -0400

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
[email-masked]       Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
---------------------------------------------------

---

From: Mark Bakke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 15:27:45 -0500

So, should we require the enterprise number?  It's a whole
lot cheaper than getting an OUI.

-- 
Mark A. Bakke
Cisco Systems
[email-masked]
763.398.1054