RE: [LinkSec] Fwd: Re: IESG question on Ethernet related to-be-RFC
replace internet by Ethernet !
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 7:21 PM
> To: Tony Jeffree; stds-802-1@xxxxxxxx; stds-802-linksec@xxxxxxxx
> Cc: RPRWG
> Subject: 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
>
>
>