search

netconf-wg / zero-touch

1 stars 2 forks source link

Removable storage details? #14

Closed kwatsen closed 7 years ago

kwatsen commented 8 years ago

The current draft says: "Details such as the format of file system and the naming of the files are left to the device's manufacturer to define", but an on-list review recommends that the draft be more normative about this.

The above is essentially slide #12 from the IETF 95 presentation. The minutes then capture the following dialog:

I think that there was/is a fundamental misunderstanding. We're not here discussing the format of the filesystem for the device itself, that is completely out of scope. Instead, we're just discussing the format of the filesystem for the removable storage device (e.g., a USB flash drive), and/or the names of the files that the device might look for on the storage device.

My view is that we should let each vendor decide for themselves. If they want to support ext3, msdos, ntfs, hff+, or whatever - it's up to them to decide. Further, they should be allowed to define the file names and formats as well. My thought its that there is little need to plug a specific removable storage device instance into more than one device, thus the multi-vendor aspect of this it not very strong, and so we should declare it as out-of-scope.

Thoughts?

Kent

kwatsen commented 8 years ago

On May 12, Juergen wrote:

I think it is useful to have a format that is readable and writable by 'regular' computers; if vendors start to produce storage sticks that can't be read or copied using 'regular' computers, I would be somewhat unhappy. That said, I am not sure a standard can really prevent this from happening but giving some advice that using open formats is a good thing may be useful. (An open format may allow me to create combined boot sticks that can boot more than a single device type.)

kwatsen commented 8 years ago

Kent writes today:

Picking up on this thread, per Juergen’s recommendation, I added a recommendation:

OLD: Note: details such as the format of the filesystem and the naming of the files are left to the device's manufacturer to define.

NEW: Note: details such as the format of the filesystem and the naming of the files are left to the device's manufacturer to define. However, in order to facilitate interoperability, it is RECOMMENDED to support open/standards based filesystems and to have a file naming convention that is not likely to have collisions with files from other vendors.

Thoughts?

kwatsen commented 8 years ago

On 8/11/16, 8:43 PM, "Netconf on behalf of Kent Watsen" <netconf-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of kwatsen@juniper.net> wrote:

This issue was discussed in Berlin.  No issues were raised then or on list.   
Hence this change is confirmed and the issue will be closed.

Thanks,
Kent

On 6/29/16, 12:45 PM, "Netconf on behalf of Kent Watsen" <netconf-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of kwatsen@juniper.net> wrote:

    Picking up on this thread, per Juergen’s recommendation, I added a recommendation:

    OLD:
       Note: details such as the format of the filesystem and the naming of
       the files are left to the device's manufacturer to define.

    NEW:
       Note: details such as the format of the filesystem and the naming of
       the files are left to the device's manufacturer to define.  However,
       in order to facilitate interoperability, it is RECOMMENDED to support
       open/standards based filesystems and to have a file naming convention
       that is not likely to have collisions with files from other vendors.

    Thoughts?

    Kent

    On 5/12/16, 1:55 AM, "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:

    On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 11:41:13PM +0000, Kent Watsen wrote:
    > https://github.com/netconf-wg/zero-touch/issues/14
    > 
    > The current draft says: "Details such as the format of file system and the naming of the files are left to the device's manufacturer to define",  but an on-list review recommends that the draft be more normative about this.
    > 
    > The above is essentially slide #12 from the IETF 95 presentation.  The minutes then capture the following dialog:
    > 
    >   - JH: storage formats have changed immensely over the years.  Fixing them in the model will likely just make the model obselete quickly . Maybe a registry ?
    >   - KW: What would be the motivation?
    >   - MCR: Not that we define them, we should just refer to them.
    >   - RT: what are we trying to achieve here ?  Just basic booting ?  or more ?
    > 
    > I think that there was/is a fundamental misunderstanding.  We're not here discussing the format of the filesystem for the device itself, that is completely out of scope.  Instead, we're just discussing the format of the filesystem for the removable storage device (e.g., a USB flash drive), and/or the names of the files that the device might look for on the storage device.
    > 
    > My view is that we should let each vendor decide for themselves.  If they want to support ext3, msdos, ntfs, hff+, or whatever - it's up to them to decide. Further, they should be allowed to define the file names and formats as well.   My thought its that there is little need to plug a specific removable storage device instance into more than one device, thus the multi-vendor aspect of this it not very strong, and so we should declare it as out-of-scope.
    >

    I think it is useful to have a format that is readable and writable by
    'regular' computers; if vendors start to produce storage sticks that
    can't be read or copied using 'regular' computers, I would be somewhat
    unhappy. That said, I am not sure a standard can really prevent this
    from happening but giving some advice that using open formats is a
    good thing may be useful. (An open format may allow me to create
    combined boot sticks that can boot more than a single device type.)

    /js

    -- 
    Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
    Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
    Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

    _______________________________________________
    Netconf mailing list
    Netconf@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf

_______________________________________________
Netconf mailing list
Netconf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf