RE: [LinkSec] Fwd: Re: IESG question on Ethernet related to-be-RFC
By the time the 'separate identity' criteria was discussed wrt. IEEE 802.17, the issue of being capable of connecting internet bridges in a ring and providing 'SONET-like' protection capabilities was mentioned. I think that this protocol proposal is an illustration of how this can be done. To the question asked by the IETF folks, IMO there is no work in the IEEE 802 on such a protection scheme for bridges with Ethernet interfaces. 802.17 took a different path by defining a MAC of its own, with a much richer functionality. If there is any place doing a somehow similar kind of work, this may be the MEF.
However, two issues draw my attention:
- the use of a 'Control VLAN' - which is a VLAN with special semantics. I assume all bridges in the ring should be synchronized to the same Control VLAN ID, but no mechanism is specified for this purpose (dare I say LLDP can be used for this purpose?).
- the 'Security Considerations' section mentions 'existing IEEE standards for link-layer encryption' - well this may be not that stable with the current status of the LinkSec SG work.
Until these two issues are clarified and specified, I think that interoperability based on this proposed protocol will be limited at best.
Regards,
Dan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Jeffree [mailto:tony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 4:38 PM
> To: stds-802-1@xxxxxxxx; stds-802-linksec@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: [LinkSec] Fwd: Re: IESG question on Ethernet related
> to-be-RFC
>
>
>
> F.Y.I.
>
> Please feed any comments on this to the list.
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
>
>
> >Envelope-to: tony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Reply-To: "Paul Nikolich" <p.nikolich@xxxxxxxx>
> >From: "Paul Nikolich" <paul.nikolich@xxxxxxx>
> >To: "Erik Nordmark" <Erik.Nordmark@xxxxxxx>,
> > <p.nikolich@xxxxxxxx>,
> > "Tony Jeffree" <tony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > "Mike Takefman" <tak@xxxxxxxxx>,
> > <bob.grow@xxxxxxxx>
> >Cc: <erik.nordmark@xxxxxxx>
> >Subject: Re: IESG question on Ethernet related to-be-RFC
> >Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 08:30:06 -0400
> >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
> >
> >Erik,
> >
> >Via this email, I will ask the chairs of the Working Groups
> most likely to
> >be affected by this work (Tony Jeffree 802.1, Bob Grow 802.3 and Mike
> >Takefman 802.17) to look at the RFC and provide comment to
> you. Our next
> >plenary session is scheduled for the week of July 21st, so
> it will be a
> >while before any 'official' feedback can be provided. In
> the interim,
> >perhaps Tony, Bob, or Mike can provide 'un-official'
> feedback--I will leave
> >it up to them.
> >
> >Tony, Bob, Mike--please review the below referenced document and, if
> >appropriate, put it on your agenda for discussion in July.
> Also, if another
> >WG in 802 should be included in the review/comment that I
> missed, please let
> >me know and I'll give them instructions to review it.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >--Paul Nikolich
> >Chairman, IEEE 802
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Erik Nordmark" <Erik.Nordmark@xxxxxxx>
> >To: <p.nikolich@xxxxxxxx>
> >Cc: <erik.nordmark@xxxxxxx>
> >Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 4:47 PM
> >Subject: IESG question on Ethernet related to-be-RFC
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Paul,
> > > I'm one of the IETF Area Directors and Russ Housley
> suggested I contact
> >you.
> > >
> > > The issue is a document which the IESG has on its plate:
> > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-shah-extreme-eaps-03.txt
> > >
> > > The authors have requested by the RFC editor that this be
> published as
> > > an INFORMATIONAL RFC and the RFC editor has asked the IESG whether
> > > this conflicts with any active work in the IETF.
> > > Since the document is about "Ethernet protection switching" it
> > > makes sense for the IESG to ask your advise.
> > >
> > > If case you are not aware of the RFC editor and
> informational document
> > > it is worth-while for me to mention that the RFC editor routinely
> >publishes
> > > informational and experimental RFCs that are unrelated to the
> >standardization
> > > activities in the IETF.
> > > Some of these provide documentation of proprietary
> solutions, as is
> > > the case in hand. An older example of such a document is RFC 1761.
> > >
> > > Note that the IESG can only provide advise to the RFC
> editor, which will
> > > make their independent evaluation.
> > > But in any case, the IESG is interested in the opinion of IEEE 802
> > > whether this document would conflict with ongoing standardization
> >activities.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > > Erik Nordmark
> > >
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
>
>