Subject: iSCSI - working draft and IANA

From: "Julian Satran" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 16:05:59 +0300

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

---

From: "Mallikarjun C." <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 13:33:06 -0700

Julian,

I like the general idea, a couple of comments.

- I assume that it's still the case that new RFCs can define new keys
  without any of the (X#, Y# and Z#) prefixes, if the proposed keys
   are expected to be broadly useful (i.e. beyond a "group of vendors").
   If that's true, then should they be registered into the IANA registry
   as well?

- It appears that the text only appears to require a registry for all
  new keys, but not for what's defined in the iSCSI draft today.  It
  may be useful to include currently defined keys as well, so there's 
  one repository for all keys.  I hope it doesn't lead to any technical 
  delays for the current draft....

Thanks.
--
Mallikarjun

Mallikarjun Chadalapaka
Networked Storage Architecture
Network Storage Solutions
Hewlett-Packard MS 5668 
Roseville CA 95747
[email-masked]

---

From: Steve Senum <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 17:48:06 -0500

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