On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 18:09:43 +0100, R.S. wrote:
>[...]
>> The Right Solution would be to enlarge the VOLSER name space, so you
>> could use, e.g. "BT2092.dasdvol.SOGEI.IT".
>
>IMHO it doesn't change to much.
>In your example there is still no warranty of name uniqueness, only it
>would be less likely. What about "ZOS.VERSION1.REL9.CAT8" ? Or
>"ZOS.DATA.INTERCHANGE.1" ?
>
I was taking it to be a URI, with top level qualifers registered
with ICANN or its designated registrar. By analogy:
BT2092.dasdvol.BREMULTIBANK.COM.PL
(I'm shamelessly borrowing the idea from Apple's use of a similar
scheme.)
Enforcement? Any supplier who infringed on another organizations
registered name space would face the wrath of customers.
>In fact there is some kind of solution: WWID for tapes. Each cart has
>
>Last, but not least: system support!
>Without support any ID would be useless. I can imagine the following idea:
>we still use 6-character volsers, however system (SMS, RMM, other
>components) recoginzez WWID.
>In case of volser conflict there is a way to provide "extended volser",
>i.e. BT2092.wwid-number.
Thanks for the discussion of WWIDs. From an ISV's viewpoint, the
drawback is customizing the installation instructions for the
WWIDs differing from customer to customer, although the WWID
part is only a fallback in case of conflict.
-- gil
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
