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

Robert Snively rsnively at brocade.com
Sat Jan 4 15:08:58 PST 2003


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Robert Snively <rsnively at brocade.com>
*
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_01C2B446.433DF700
Content-Type: text/plain

The use of the "world-wide" property for port and node 
names is desirable.  The main characteristic of these 
components is that they are almost never used exclusively 
in closed systems.  

By pressing the case for world-wide terminology in 
FC-FS, I believe we are providing superior diagnostic 
capabilities which we should not give up.  The NAA=3 case 
is explicitly an "at your own risk" and "proprietary" 
choice, to be avoided. 

The shorter names Node_Name and N_Port_Name must be 
defined in the glossary of SPC-3 (if you choose to make 
that change) in such a way that it is clear that they 
have the implicit world-wide properties mandated by 
FC-FS. 

Bob 

> -----Original Message----- 
> From: RogerR at exabyte.com [ mailto:RogerR at exabyte.com
 ] 
> Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 12:30 PM 
> To: Paul.A.Suhler at seagate.com 
> Cc: t10 at t10.org; t11_3 at mail.t11.org 
> Subject: RE: [T11.3] World Wide Port Name vs. Port Name 
> 
> 
> * 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
<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 
> 


------_=_NextPart_001_01C2B446.433DF700
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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

RE: [T11.3] World Wide Port Name vs. Port Name The use of the ;world-wide; property for = port and node 
names is desirable.  The main characteristic of = these 
components is that they are almost never used = exclusively 
in closed systems.  By pressing the case for world-wide terminology in = 
FC-FS, I believe we are providing superior = diagnostic 
capabilities which we should not give up.  The = NAA=3D3 case 
is explicitly an ;at your own risk; and = ;proprietary; 
choice, to be avoided. The shorter names Node_Name and N_Port_Name must be = 
defined in the glossary of SPC-3 (if you choose to = make 
that change) in such a way that it is clear that = they 
have the implicit world-wide properties mandated = by 
FC-FS. Bob > -----Original Message----- 
> From: RogerR at exabyte.com [mailto:RogerR at exabyte.com]= 
> Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 12:30 = PM 
> To: Paul.A.Suhler at seagate.com 
> Cc: t10 at t10.org; t11_3 at mail.t11.org 
> Subject: RE: [T11.3] World Wide Port Name vs. = Port Name 
> 
> 
> * 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.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 
> > 
> > 
> 
> * 
> * For T10 Reflector information, send a message = with 
> * 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to = majordomo at t10.org 
> 
------_=_NextPart_001_01C2B446.433DF700--




More information about the T10 mailing list