Subject: RE: iSCSI: Alias consensus call

From: Robert Snively <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 12:47:51 -0700

Well, of course I had not thought it totally irrelevant, or
else I would not have posted it :-)

What is irrelevant is the concept of an initiator or target
alias.  The SCSI architecture explicitly allows more than one 
target to provide porting to a given logical unit.  The ultimate
target of a SCSI command is a logical unit, so there is no 
necessity to have architected familiar names for the 
simple path/session/target-initiator pair that gets you to the logical unit.
Those names can be and should be provided
if necessary by higher level mechanisms outside the scope 
of the iSCSI document set, as Marjorie indicates.  Count me 
on her side.

Bob

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2001 12:09 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: iSCSI: Alias consensus call

Traffic on this topic has died down, so I believe that the
rough consensus of the IPS WG is to retain support for Alias
in the iSCSI protocol.

I have seen two expressions of the opposite view:
- Bob Snively's, which I am setting aside, as not
	being relevant to the topic - Bob's post
	concerned LU aliases rather than Initiator/
	Target aliases.
- Marj Krueger's, which I take note of in making this
	call (i.e., the consensus call is over Marj's
	objection).

Anyone other than Marj who wishes to object should post
to the list.

Thanks,
--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
---------------------------------------------------