Subject: IPS-All: WG Last Call on "iSCSI Naming and Discovery"

From: Elizabeth Rodriguez <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:51:31 -0700

All,

We would like to announce IPS WG last call on the draft "iSCSI Naming and
Discovery ".
The last call period is for two weeks, ending at 5pm EST on Thursday,
September 12.

Editorial comments may be directly sent to the editor/authors of the
document -- 
with copy to myself [[email-masked]], David Black
[[email-masked]] and John Hufferd [[email-masked]]

Technical comments should be sent to the IPS mailing list for discussion.

Summary:
Draft:  	iSCSI Naming and Discovery 

URL:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-name-disc-06.txt
Period:	2 weeks, ending at 5pm Thursday, Sept 12
Editor:	Mark Bakke [[email-masked]]
Authors:	Mark Bakke [[email-masked]]
		Jim Hafner [[email-masked]]
		John Hufferd [[email-masked]]
		Kaladhar Voruganti [[email-masked]]
		Marjorie Krueger [[email-masked]]
TC:		John Hufferd [[email-masked]]

Thanks,

Elizabeth Rodriguez & David Black,
IPS co-chairs

---

From: Robert Grant <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 08:45:42 -0600

Hello,
 
One aspect of the Naming and Discovery draft that I find misleading lies in
the sentence in Section B.3
 
"The gateway may manufacture its own  iSCSI Names, or use those provided by
the real devices." 
 
Now B.3 deals with non-iSCSI devices, so does the phrase "those provided by
the real devices" refer to non-iSCSI devices providing an iSCSI Name? I read
"those provided by the real devices" as the native identifiers (i.e. FC
WWN). This may lead to the conclusion that a Gateway can use the "eui." form
of the iSCSI name in a fairly straight-forward manner. Unfortunately, we
know is not true (at least for the case where multiple gateways can see the
same device on a SAN). So - I suggest a caveat is warranted, like
 
"It is the responsibility of the gateway to ensure the uniqueness of any
iSCSI name it manufactures. The gateway may need to account for multiple
gateways having access to a single real device". 
 
Now - of course I would REALLY like to see something done at the naming
level that would allow gateway vendors to preserve some part of the identity
of the real device in a non-proprietary fashion. But at least alerting
readers to the problem would be a good step.
 
Regards,
Rob.

---

From: Jim Hafner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 07:52:02 -0700

Rob,

I think this is a reasonable and acceptable change.  Thanks.

Jim Hafner

Sent by:        [email-masked]
To:     [email-masked]
cc: 
Subject:        RE: IPS-All:  WG Last Call on "iSCSI Naming and Discovery"

Hello,

One aspect of the Naming and Discovery draft that I find misleading lies 
in
the sentence in Section B.3

"The gateway may manufacture its own  iSCSI Names, or use those provided 
by
the real devices."

Now B.3 deals with non-iSCSI devices, so does the phrase "those provided 
by
the real devices" refer to non-iSCSI devices providing an iSCSI Name? I 
read
"those provided by the real devices" as the native identifiers (i.e. FC
WWN). This may lead to the conclusion that a Gateway can use the "eui." 
form
of the iSCSI name in a fairly straight-forward manner. Unfortunately, we
know is not true (at least for the case where multiple gateways can see 
the
same device on a SAN). So - I suggest a caveat is warranted, like

Now - of course I would REALLY like to see something done at the naming
level that would allow gateway vendors to preserve some part of the 
identity
of the real device in a non-proprietary fashion. But at least alerting
readers to the problem would be a good step.

Regards,
Rob.