Naming conventions. Picking the right naming convention is easy if you are all by yourself, but hard when you need to agree upon the conventions in a larger group. Everybody has an opinion on naming conventions, and once you decide on it, you do expect everybody to follow through on it.
Let's consider why naming conventions are (not) important and consider a few examples to help in creating a good naming convention yourself.
Naming conventions imply standardization
When you settle on a naming convention, you're effectively putting some standardization in place which you expect everybody to follow, and which should also cover 100% of the cases. So, when assessing a possible naming convention, first identify what standards you need to enforce and are future proof.
Say you are addressing database object naming conventions. Are you able to
enforce this at all times? You might want to start tables with
tbl_ and views
vw_, but when you are dealing with ISV software, they generally do not
allow such freedom on 'their' database definitions. Your DBAs thus will learn
to deal with setups that are more flexible anyway.
Using a naming convention for internal development is of course still a possible path to pursue. But in that case, you will need to look at the requirements from the development teams (and related stakeholders).
Standardization does not imply naming conventions
The inverse isn't true: even though you might have certain standards in place, it doesn't mean that the object names need to reflect the standards. If your company standardizes on two operating systems (like Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Microsoft Windows), it doesn't mean that server names have to include an identifier that maps to Linux or Windows.
I personally often fall into this trap - I see standards, so I want to see them fixed in the naming convention because that allows better control over following the standards. But naming conventions aren't about control, they are about exposing identifiable information.
Structure it for readability
Trying to add too much information in a naming convention makes it more complex for users to deal with. You might be able to read and understand the naming convention immediately upon seeing it, but are all the other stakeholders equally invested in understanding the naming conventions?
Say that you have a hostname that looks like so:
While I can tell you that this name comes from the following convention, it might be overdoing things:
- s to identify it is a server
- p to identify it is a physical server
- p to identify it is hosted in a production environment
- c to identify it is a cattle-alike managed server
- hypk to identify the ownership (in this case, hypervisor usage, KVM)
- c05 to identify it is the fifth cluster
- m01 to identify it is the first master node
- reg1 to identify the first region (location)
Even if you still want to include this information, using separators might make this more obvious. For instance, for the given name, I would suggest splitting this as follows:
The first two parts are then global naming convention requirements, with the first set being about the type of system whereas the second is about ownership, and the third is then a naming convention specific to that owner.
Choose what information to expose easily
Assets that follow a certain naming convention provide information about that asset that a reader can immediately assume, without having to do additional lookups. The intention here is that you want to define important information that many stakeholders will need immediately to support their work (and thus their efficiency). Insights that are useful for a select set of stakeholders might not be suitable for a naming convention (or at least not a global one).
You should consider every stakeholder that comes in contact with the name of the asset, and how that stakeholder would obtain the information they need. If you have a central, easily accessible configuration management system, it might be possible to have many structured insights exposed through that interface, but is that useful when you are dealing with lists of assets?
Suppose you do not include the host class for hostnames, with the host class being what class of system the host is (server, workstation, router, firewall, appliance, ...). Does your SOC team need this insight every time they are going through events? Does your helpdesk need that information? What about the resource managers?
If all these stakeholders do need that information over and over again, it might be sensible to include it in the naming convention. If, however, only a few stakeholders need that information, you might want to expose that easily through different means. For instance, resource managers might be able to easily join that information with the asset management system information.
Choose what information NOT to expose easily
Sometimes, you want to have some information about objects easily available, but not for everybody. It might be information that can be abused for nefarious purposes. In that case, you want this information to be shielded and only offered to authenticated and authorized users. For instance, if you use separate accounts for administering systems, you might not want to add information about what type of admin account it is, as account enumeration might reveal too much immediately and provide attackers with better insights.
So, rather than having
ken_adadmin for Ken's Active Directory administration
account, stick to a nonsensible account identification like
account 1503). Stakeholders that need information about accounts, in this case,
can still notice it is a user account rather than a system or machine account
and will need to query the central repositories for more information (such as
AD to get information about the user - and don't forget to add sensitive users
to, for instance, the
Protected Users group in AD).
Use layered naming conventions
With "global naming convention" I am suggesting the ability to add naming conventions for specific purposes, but leave that open in general. A server name could, for instance, require an indication of the environment (production or not) and the fact that it is a server (and not a workstation), but leave a part of the name open for the administrators. The administrators can then add their local naming convention to it.
An active directory group, for instance, might have a standard global naming convention (usually the start of the group name) and leave the second part open, whereas specific teams can then use that part to add in their local naming convention. Groups that are used for NAS access might then use a naming convention to identify which NAS share and which privileges are assigned, whereas a group that is used for remote access support can use VPN naming conventions.
The University of Wisconsin has their Campus Active Directory - Naming
Convention published online, and
the workstation and server object part is a good example of this: while the
objects in AD have to follow a global naming convention (because Active
Directory is often core to an organization) it leaves some room for local
department policies to assign their own requirements:
<department><objectfunction>-<suffix> only has the first two fields
standardized globally, with the
<suffix> field left open (but within certain
Consider the full name for your naming conventions
If you do want to add information in a naming convention, do not consider this purely on a single object type, but at the full name. A hostname by itself is just a hostname, but when you consider the fully qualified hostname (thus including domain names) you know that certain information points can be put in the domain name rather than the hostname. The people over at Server Density have a post titled "Server Naming Conventions and Best Practices" where they describe that the data center location (for the server) is a subdomain.
Another example is for databases, where you not only have a table, but also the database in which the table is located. Hence, ownership of that table can easily be considered on the database level.
Learn from mistakes or missing conventions
As you approach naming conventions, you will make mistakes. But before making mistakes yourself, try looking out for public failures that might have been due to (bad or missing) naming conventions. Now, most public root cause analysis reports do not go in-depth on the matter completely, but they do provide some insights we might want to learn from.
For instance, the incident that AWS had on February 28th, 2017, has a Summary of the Amazon S3 Service Disruption in the Northern Virginia (US-EAST-1) Region. While there is no immediate indication about the naming conventions used (mainly that a wrong command input impacted more servers than it should), we could ask ourselves if the functional purpose of the servers was included in the name (or, if not in the name, if it was added in other labeling information that the playbook should use). The analysis does reveal that AWS moved on to implement partitions (which they call cells), and the cell name will likely become part of the naming convention (or other identifiers).
Also internally, it is important to go over the major incidents and their root causes, and see if the naming conventions of the company are appropriate or not.
Still need examples?
While most commercial companies will not expose their own naming conventions
(as there is no value for them to receive, and it exposes information that
malicious users might abuse), many governmental agencies and educational
institutions do have this information publicly available, given their
organization public nature. Hence, searching for "naming convention" on
*.edu already reveals many examples.
Personally, I am still a stickler for naming conventions, but I am slowly accepting that some information might be better exposed elsewhere.