[T11.3] Re: World Wide Port Name vs. Port Name

RogerR at exabyte.com RogerR at exabyte.com
Thu Jan 2 12:30:18 PST 2003


INCITS T11.3 Mail Reflector
********************************
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C2B29D.C4035EC0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

Actually, FC-FS should have minimal use of the "world-wide" terminology.
Avoiding the requirement for world-wide uniqueness permits the use of
NAA format 3 ("locally assigned") names without making special
allowances throughout the standard or weakening the definition of
"world-wide".

Whenever "Node_Name" or "N_Port_Name" are used alone, they may be either
a "Worldwide_Name" or simply a name unique within the fabric.  It makes
some sense for the embedded implementations, since there isn't any great
value in ensuring world-wide uniqueness on closed systems.

-roger 

> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Paul.A.Suhler at seagate.com [ mailto:Paul.A.Suhler at seagate.com
 ] 
> Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 12:50 PM 
> To: t10 at t10.org; t11_3 at mail.t11.org 
> Subject: [T11.3] World Wide Port Name vs. Port Name 
> 
> 
> INCITS T11.3 Mail Reflector 
> ******************************** 
> In SPC-3 Rev. 10 Clause 8.5.2.2, I see the use of the terms 
> "world wide port name" and "world wide node name."  By my reading of 
> FC-FS, the terms "N_Port_Name" and "Node_Name" are implicitly world 
> wide names. 
> 
> Should SPC-3 be changed to use the shorter "Port Name" and 
> "Node Name" ? 
> 
> Thanks, 
> 
> Paul Suhler 
> Seagate Removable Storage Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> To Unsubscribe: 
> mailto:t11_3-request at mail.t11.org?subject=unsubscribe
<mailto:t11_3-request at mail.t11.org?subject=unsubscribe>  
> 
> 


------_=_NextPart_001_01C2B29D.C4035EC0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">

 RE: [T11.3] World Wide Port Name vs. Port Name Actually, FC-FS should have minimal use of the = ;world-wide; terminology.  Avoiding the requirement for = world-wide uniqueness permits the use of NAA format 3 (;locally = assigned;) names without making special allowances throughout the = standard or weakening the definition of = ;world-wide;. Whenever ;Node_Name; or = ;N_Port_Name; are used alone, they may be either a = ;Worldwide_Name; or simply a name unique within the = fabric.  It makes some sense for the embedded implementations, = since there isn't any great value in ensuring world-wide uniqueness on = closed systems. -roger > -----Original Message----- 
> From: Paul.A.Suhler at seagate.com [mailto:Paul.A.Suhler at seagate.c= om] 
> Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 12:50 = PM 
> To: t10 at t10.org; t11_3 at mail.t11.org 
> Subject: [T11.3] World Wide Port Name vs. Port = Name 
> 
> 
> INCITS T11.3 Mail Reflector 
> ******************************** 
> In SPC-3 Rev. 10 Clause 8.5.2.2, I see the use = of the terms 
> ;world wide port name; and = ;world wide node name.;  By my reading of 
> FC-FS, the terms ;N_Port_Name; and = ;Node_Name; are implicitly world 
> wide names. 
> 
> Should SPC-3 be changed to use the shorter = ;Port Name; and 
> ;Node Name; ? 
> 
> Thanks, 
> 
> Paul Suhler 
> Seagate Removable Storage Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> To Unsubscribe: 
> mailto:= t11_3-request at mail.t11.org?subject=3Dunsubscribe 
> 
> 
------_=_NextPart_001_01C2B29D.C4035EC0--




More information about the T10 mailing list