More than an Identifier ...but... less than a Name

Ralph Weber roweber at IEEE.org
Thu Jan 20 15:15:02 PST 2011


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Ralph Weber <roweber at ieee.org>
*
Gerry,
I am not asking for a term for the thing (e.g., snapshot,
point-in-time-copy, ...).
I am looking for a term for the 512-byte token whose life
is bigger than the domain in which it arose (at least in
those cases were the creator of the token has ports connected
to multiple domains).
As of this writing, "token" is still in the pole position.
All the best,
.Ralph
On 1/20/2011 4:16 PM, Gerry Houlder wrote:
> The discussion on this subject during the T10 meeting got better 
> understanding of the whole "point in time copy of stuff" concept by 
> calling it a snapshot. Snapshot seems like a perfectly good term.
>
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Joe Breher <joe at lingua-data.com 
> <mailto:joe at lingua-data.com>> wrote:
>
>     * From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org <mailto:t10 at t10.org>),
>     posted by:
>     * Joe Breher <joe at lingua-data.com <mailto:joe at lingua-data.com>>
>     *
>     Hmmm. This could make for an interesting philosophical discussion.
>
>     In my mind, names are not long-lived so much as they are
>     permanent. The name is a property of an object as long as that
>     object is in existence. Further, names have the characteristic
>     that, for the entire life of any given domain, the name uniquely
>     identifies a given object - whether that object has not yet been
>     instantiated, is currently in existence, or is no longer in
>     existence. That name will never be reused within a given domain.
>
>     Yes, I acknowledge that several things we refer to as 'names', may
>     not be names per this definition, unless they are fully-qualified
>     names. A true name may contain a time component. A good example of
>     such would be a WWN as per the iSCSI IQN textual format.
>
>     Identifiers, by contrast, only need be unique within a given
>     domain at an instant in time. They are the 'handle-like-thing' by
>     which we refer to any given object, within a given domain, at a
>     given instant in time.
>
>     Do we really need an intermediary term? Why is 'identifier' not
>     the proper classifier for the characteristic employed in referring
>     to a 'pile of point-in-time logical block copies'?
>
>
>     On Jan 20, 2011, at 12:37 PM, Ralph Weber wrote:
>
>     > * From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org <mailto:t10 at t10.org>),
>     posted by:
>     > * Ralph Weber <roweber at ieee.org >
>     > *
>     > Here is the perfect kind of grist for the CAP-ites
>     > to chew on.
>     >
>     > Today, SCSI has Identifier, which are short-lived numbers
>     > that identify something (e.g., Command IDs, formerly Tags,
>     > identify one command as the Q in an I_T_L_Q nexus).
>     >
>     > SCSI also has Names, which are long-lived constructs that
>     > uniquely identify something (e.g., a logical unit name).
>     >
>     > What is the right term for something in the middle (neither
>     > short- nor long-lived) that identifies something (e.g.,
>     > the pile of point-in-time logical block copies in a
>     > Copy Offload operation (such as was discussed in Irvine)?
>     >
>     > The current proposal says "token".
>     >
>     > If there are better ideas, please post them to this reflector.
>     >
>     > All the best,
>     >
>     > .Ralph
>     >
>     > P.S. Whatever gets chosen will be around for a long time.
>     > *
>     > * For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
>     > * 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to
>     majordomo at t10.org <mailto:majordomo at t10.org>
>
>
>     *
>     * For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
>     * 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org
>     <mailto:majordomo at t10.org>
>
>
*
* 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