On Sun, 2005-09-11 at 20:54 +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > From: Ming Zhang <mingz at ele.uri.edu> > Subject: Re: [Stgt-devel] stgt & IBM virtual SCSI Target Driver > Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 14:01:31 -0400 > > > > > > > I also think about rename IET something generic like istgt or isstgt > > > > > > (iSCSI software target). After all, the code will be really very from > > > > > > the original IET code. Any suggestions? > > > > > > > > istgt is better. is(csi) + tgt > > > > > > I'm not sure because we'll support multiple iSCSI target drivers. > > > > there are mpt, qla. maybe we use IETTGT to indicate it is originated > > from iet? > > This implementation is a new project. It is a fork of IET. I think > that calling two different implementations a same name causes > unnecessary confusion (e.g. sfnet and open-iscsi). my understanding is when tgt get matured, IET will be merged here soon. iet always wants to have a better layer split and now tgt comes. so iet of course will follow this path. i do not think we need to maintain 2 open source iscsi software target code. > > > > We already registered IET in T10 as a vendor id. so it is a > > formal name. > > The new project can get it easily if necessary. yes, of course. but the reality is once this one gets matured, i do not think there are still many people use IET. :P Ming |