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

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


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* RogerR at exabyte.com
*
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
> 
> 

*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org




More information about the T10 mailing list