fyi
From: Tony Jeffree
[mailto:tony@jeffree.co.uk]
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008
8:30 AM
To: Gupta, Vivek G
Cc: M.Patterson@ieee.org;
david.cypher@nist.gov; david_law@ieee.org; d.ringle@ieee.org;
M.Kipness@ieee.org; yhcheng@research.telcordia.com; m.d.turner@ieee.org;
gthompso@nortel.com; a.n.weaver@ieee.org; p.nikolich@ieee.org
Subject: FW: P802.21 Submission to
RevCom: Ethertype change Technical/Editorial
Vivek –
I believe that the basis
for editorial staff deciding that the change was technical is basically:
-
My comment was labelled as technical and a required change;
and
-
802.21 made the change.
I don’t believe that they
made that decision on anything other than a procedural basis; neither do I
believe that the staff concerned would feel qualified to make a determination
on any other (than procedural) basis, as the reasons why it might/might not be
considered to be a technical change *other
than* on a procedural basis aren’t in their particular area of
expertise. I am sure they will correct me if I am wrong.
So maybe I can be of some
help here.
The reason I made my
comment on the draft 13 text, as I stated in my comment, is that the notation
you used in Draft 13 was indeed ambiguous, and I considered it highly likely
that two implementers looking independently at the specification would reach
entirely different conclusions as to what the Ethernet type value was and how
it was to be represented in protocol. Therefore, to me, and I believe also to
some of my RAC colleagues that I discussed the issue with, that piece of
notification was a technical error in your draft. I proposed a solution, based
on using an existing notation for hexadecimal values, as defined in IEEE Std
802, subclause 3.1.8. The particular utility of that notation is that it not
only tells you how to write down the number as hexadecimal numerals, but also
what the order of significance of the hexadecimal numerals is, and the mapping
of them onto octet values in a protocol data unit. If you don’t appreciate the
reasons why those steps are important, then I will tell you the story of the
debacle that occurred with the DA/SA in 802.5 frames sometime and the amount of
pain that it caused.
You are right that Clause
10 of Std 802 fails to use its own notation in the one place that it could – as
Std 802 is currently open for revision, I will note that as something that
needs fixing as we go through the revision. However, that fact, while
interesting, is irrelevant with regard either to the utility of the Std 802
subclause 3.1.8 notation as a vehicle for addressing my comment (please note
that I referred to Std 802 subclause 3.1.8 in my comment, not Clause 10) or to
whether or not this should be considered to be a technical change.
You are also right that
the registration authority assignment letters should have been clearer, and
that is something that has already changed; the letters do now make it clear
that the value is hexadecimal.
For what it is worth, my
personal analysis of whether this is a technical or an editorial change goes as
follows:
-
The notation in Draft 13 (0x89 0x17) was ambiguous, and could
have led to more than one different, and justifiable, interpretation, both of
of what the type value actually is and what should appear in protocol octets.
-
The new notation in Draft 14(?) (89-17), using the
hexadecimal representation specified in Std 802 3.1.8, is unambiguous, and
clearly specifies both what the type value is in hex numerals and how those
numerals should be represented in protocol octets.
-
The change from D13 to D14 is therefore a technical change,
because the change makes a material difference to what implementers might
actually do in an implementation.
Regards,
Tony
From:
a.n.weaver@ieee.org [mailto:a.n.weaver@ieee.org]
Sent: 08 September 2008 14:44
To: tony@JEFFREE.CO.UK
Subject: Fw: P802.21 Submission to
RevCom: Ethertype change Technical/Editorial
Hi Tony,
I was forwarded this e-mail because there is a question
regarding the possible recirculation of P802.21. Although the EtherType
Field template has been updated so that it contains "hexadecimal" in
it, there seems to be a question regarding an assignment that was previously
issued. I do see that the tutorial contains references to hexadecimal.
Is this something that you have already addressed or can address
to resolve the issue before October?
Please advise. Thank you.
Regards,
Angela
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Angela N. Weaver
Senior Administrator, Business Programs
IEEE - Standards Activities
445 Hoes Lane, Piscataway, NJ 08854 USA
Phone: +1 732-562-3813
Fax: +1 732-562-1571
E-mail: a.n.weaver@ieee.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Visit our web site at: http://standards.ieee.org/
IEEE. Fostering technological innovation and excellence for the benefit
of humanity.
----- Forwarded by Angela
Weaver/STDS/STAFF/US/IEEE on 09/08/2008 09:41 AM -----
----- Forwarded by Michelle
Turner/STDS/STAFF/US/IEEE on 09/05/2008 01:47 PM -----
|
From:
|
"Gupta, Vivek G" <vivek.g.gupta@intel.com>
|
|
To:
|
"M.Patterson@ieee.org"
<M.Patterson@ieee.org>
|
|
Cc:
|
David Cypher <david.cypher@nist.gov>,
"david_law@ieee.org" <david_law@ieee.org>,
"d.ringle@ieee.org" <d.ringle@ieee.org>,
"M.Kipness@ieee.org" <M.Kipness@ieee.org>, Paul Nikolich
<paul.nikolich@att.net>, "'Yuu-Heng Alice Cheng'"
<yhcheng@research.telcordia.com>, "m.d.turner@ieee.org"
<m.d.turner@ieee.org>, Geoff Thompson <gthompso@nortel.com>
|
|
Date:
|
09/05/2008 12:38 PM
|
|
Subject:
|
RE: P802.21 Submission to RevCom: Ethertype change
Technical/Editorial
|
Dear Moira,
We are not clear as to why this ethertype
change is treated as Technical and not Editorial.
As per the formal cover letter sent by
Angela N.Weaver / IEEE Registration Authority (See Attachment) the ethernet
type number is #8917. This letter did not designate any hexadecimal or decimal
notation or representation. Instead it pointed to an html tutorial.
From an audit trail perspective of 802.21
drafts:
- In draft D11 We had the ethertype value
"to be assigned".
- In draft D12 We had it as 8917. The
formal cover letter did not designate any hexadecimal or decimal notation or
representation.
There was no comment from Tony
Jeffree on D12 about the value being ambiguous. Instead we got a comment
from Clint Chaplin.
- In draft D13 We had this as 0x89 0x17 as
per conversations with Clint Chaplin to resolve his comment about the
ambiguities of the value from D12.
On D13 Tony Jeffree commented that
this change was ambiguous and that yet another method for representing an
Ethernet Type to remove ambiguity is needed.
Our Technical Editor (David Cypher)
followed the information provided in the cover letter from Angela N. Weaver /
IEEE Registration Authority.
#8917 was given. No where on either the
cover letter or the html tutorial uses the 89-17 notation.
Instead to find this "dashed"
notation one must follow 802.3 3.2.6, then follow a footnote 19 to footnote 18
then to 802 and then 3.1.8 and then to 9.2.1.
However at this point the hexadecimal
representation is used for MAC addresses and OUIs, not ethernet type values.
802-2001 10.4 covers ethernet types and no
where does it use the "dashed" notation.
If changing 0x89 0x17 to 89-17 is a
technical change,then the editorial staff is going to have to convince that
89-17 is technically different from 0x89 0x17 and
that 89-17 is the correct notation for
ethernet type values.
We do not see how one can make such an
argument over an Ethernet Type and call it technical or say that this
"dashed" notation is correct.
As per the text of 802-2001 10.4:
"An Ethernet type value is a sequence
of two octets, interpreted as a 16-bit numeric value with the first octet
containing the most significant 8 bits and the second octet containing the
least significant 8 bits. Values in the range 0–1535 are not available for
use."
0x89 0x17 represents a sequence of two
octets. Not 89-17 which is not even clear if it applies to ethernet type.
It seems that there is no definitive way
of writing this value without appropriate context.
The context is given as Ethernet type and
therefore it is clear and is hence this should not be a technical issue.
Can you please point us to the IEEE
Editorial staff who don’t consider the below ethertype change as Editorial and
can they
clarify their line of reasoning for
treating this change as Technical?
Thanks
-Vivek
From:
M.Patterson@ieee.org [mailto:M.Patterson@ieee.org]
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 3:29 PM
To: Gupta, Vivek G
Cc: David Cypher; david_law@ieee.org; d.ringle@ieee.org;
M.Kipness@ieee.org; Paul Nikolich; 'Yuu-Heng Alice Cheng'; m.d.turner@ieee.org
Subject: RE: P802.21 Submission to RevCom
Vivek,
I understand that it is disappointing, but unfortunately we cannot accept late
submittals at this time. (This is not the only submittal that was received over
the weekend.)
Also, there is a comment that might prove problematic if not recirculated. In
response to comment #2 from Recirc 6, the WG states:
Resolution Detail: Clause 5.7.2, page 33, line 23, Table 2, value column; 1) Change
"0x89 0x17" to "89-17” 2) Insert table footnote for this
value
"This Ethertype value is expressed using the hexadecimal representation
defined in IEEE Std. 802." This comment is treated as
Editorial."
Editorial staff
reviewed this comment and does not view this proposed change as editorial in
nature, therefore it cannot be made without a recirculation.
RevCom Convention 2 states that "If, during the review process, RevCom
perceives that post-balloting changes are proposed (e.g., changes from
mandatory coordination bodies) which are both non-editorial and required, the draft
and proposed changes shall be returned to the Sponsor for appropriate
action."
As is, this proposed change seems to fall under this convention. Since this is
a Must Be Satisfied comment and appears to have been in scope, a recirc might
be necessary.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Best regards,
Moira
|
From:
|
"Gupta, Vivek G" <vivek.g.gupta@intel.com>
|
|
To:
|
"M.Patterson@ieee.org"
<M.Patterson@ieee.org>
|
|
Cc:
|
David Cypher <david.cypher@nist.gov>, Paul Nikolich
<paul.nikolich@att.net>, "'Yuu-Heng Alice Cheng'"
<yhcheng@research.telcordia.com>, "david_law@ieee.org"
<david_law@ieee.org>, "d.ringle@ieee.org"
<d.ringle@ieee.org>, "M.Kipness@ieee.org" <M.Kipness@ieee.org>
|
|
Date:
|
08/18/2008 02:43 PM
|
|
Subject:
|
RE: P802.21 Submission to RevCom
|
Dear Moira,
This is most unfortunate.
If there is anything I can do to get this on RevCom’s agenda for Sept 25th
meeting please do let me know.
I had to leave for a 3GPP meeting (to Budapest Hungary)
on Friday and hence this issue.
This is my first time of submitting something to RevCom….can I be granted a
first time grace?
Kind Regards
-Vivek
From: M.Patterson@ieee.org [mailto:M.Patterson@ieee.org]
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 11:32 AM
To: Gupta, Vivek G
Cc: David Cypher; Paul Nikolich; 'Yuu-Heng Alice Cheng';
david_law@ieee.org; d.ringle@ieee.org; M.Kipness@ieee.org
Subject: Re: P802.21 Submission to RevCom
Dear Vivek,
I received your submittal. Unfortunately, the submittal form needed to be
submitted by 15 August in order for the project to be placed on the September
agenda.
RevCom will be holding an Early Consideration telecon in late October, and I
will place the project on the agenda for that meeting. The RevCom
recommendations will then be confirmed by the Standards Board by early to
mid-November through an email ballot. I will let you know the date for the
meeting once it is determined.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Best regards,
Moira Patterson
Administrator, Governance; IEEE-SA
445 Hoes Lane
Piscataway, NJ 08854
Phone: (732) 562-3809
Fax: (732) 796-6966
Email: m.patterson@ieee.org
IEEE. Fostering technological innovation and excellence for the benefit of
humanity.
|
From:
|
"Gupta, Vivek G" <vivek.g.gupta@intel.com>
|
|
To:
|
"m.patterson@ieee.org"
<m.patterson@ieee.org>
|
|
Cc:
|
Paul Nikolich <paul.nikolich@att.net>, David Cypher
<david.cypher@nist.gov>, "'Yuu-Heng Alice Cheng'"
<yhcheng@research.telcordia.com>
|
|
Date:
|
08/16/2008 08:44 PM
|
|
Subject:
|
P802.21 Submission to RevCom
|
Dear Moira,
This is with regard to submission of P802.21 to RevCom.
The deadline was yesterday Aug-15, but since our last ballot got done on
Aug-14, I could only post this today.
I hope that’s Ok.
Please find attached for your reference:
-
Cover letter which has
rebuttals to remaining comments, WG roster and 802.21 PAR information
-
Summary of ballot
information,
-
Copy of final draft, and
-
IEEE-SA Standards Board
'Form for Submittal of Proposed Standards'.
I will sign the IEEE-SA Standards Board Form for Submittal of Proposed Standards
and fax it to you as well.
The WG Editor, David Cypher will forward the draft source files to IEEE-SA
people as well.
If I have missed anything please do let me know.
Kind Regards
-Vivek
[attachment "Cover_Letter_RevCom.doc" deleted by Moira
Patterson/STDS/STAFF/US/IEEE] [attachment "P802.21 Ballot
Summary.zip" deleted by Moira Patterson/STDS/STAFF/US/IEEE] [attachment
"P802-21-D13-0.pdf" deleted by Moira Patterson/STDS/STAFF/US/IEEE]
[attachment "sub17624.pdf" deleted by Moira Patterson/STDS/STAFF/US/IEEE]