Re: [EFM] reflector usage
Roy, I support your concerns. Regards, Keith 281-583-9903
On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 23:34:22 -0500 Roy Bynum <rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
writes:
>
> Howard,
>
> In the past, within the EFM Task Force, it has been noted that one
> group
> does not know what is going on in another group, sometimes to the
> detriment
> of the project as a whole. Perhaps it would be best to bring most
> of the
> work back to the TF as a whole.
>
> For example, the issue of security has been raised time and again in
> the
> different subgroups, perhaps without the other subgroups being aware
> of it,
> or knowing what those other subgroups had made as a determination
> regarding
> the topic of "security". This is an on-going issue that keeps
> getting
> brought up again and again in first one group and then another. It
> is as
> if some one small group wants to do it, but can not find a home for
> it.
>
> It would have been much better for the TF as a whole to be aware of
> the
> "conversations" that went on in OAM, because much of the same topic
> and
> issues are being repeated in P2MP. I don't doubt that they were
> also
> brought up in copper. It is my perception that in OAM it was
> decided that
> "security" was not part of the domain of 802.3. Since OAM is above
> the
> PCS, then any security would also be above the PHY encoding, at or
> above
> the MAC, in which case it would not be an issue within EFM.
>
> This continuing resurrecting the issue of "security" has me
> concerned. If
> security was going to be such an issue, then it should have been
> part of
> the original objectives. As late as the last meeting, the provision
> of any
> form of security was not part of the objectives. If providing
> security is
> not part of the objectives, then why is it being "pushed" so hard to
> that
> we continue to have to deal with it? Should it be made an
> objective? Should it fail to make it as an objective, can the TF,
> as a
> group agree to "drop" the issue?
>
> Personally, I am not sure what the long term 802.3 voters would be
> willing
> to agree to at this late date regarding adding a "security"
> objective. Along with some of the other issues, EFM seems to be
> suffering
> from "feature creep". As long as "new features" keep getting added,
> the TF
> will not be able to set and adhere to a schedule. Perhaps it would
> be best
> to get the simple "things", that are already part of the objectives,
>
> resolved. This will allow individuals within the group to make
> personal
> resolutions to open some of these "new features" as new study groups
> and
> allow the TF as a whole to get back into a schedule of some sort.
>
> Thank you,
> Roy Bynum
>
>
> At 08:44 PM 8/13/2002 -0700, Howard Frazier wrote:
>
>
> >Dear Members of the IEEE 802.3ah EFM Task Force,
> >
> >as you know, we have multiple email reflectors available
> >for our use. We have the stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
> >reflector, which is used for announcements and discussions
> >of general interest.
> >
> >We also have reflectors for each of our sub task forces,
> >such as the stds-802-3-efm-p2p@ieee.org reflector
> >and the stds-802-3-efm-p2mp@ieee.org reflector for
> >the optical PMD and point to multipoint protocol sub
> >task forces, respectively.
> >
> >Some task force members find it annoying to receive
> >multiple copies of email messages. This is often caused
> >by the unnecessary inclusion of multiple email reflector
> >addresses on the distribution list. As an example, there
> >is no need to send a message to both stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org,
> >and ANY of the sub task force reflectors, since 99% of the
> >folks on a sub task force reflector are also on the primary
> >task force reflector. Please try to limit the distribution of
> >messages to the extent possible. Many of us are inundated
> >with email messages, and even the simple chore of deleting
> >a bunch of duplicate messages wastes time unnecessarily.
> >
> >Thanks for your cooperation.
> >
> >Howard Frazier
> >Chair, IEEE 802.3ah EFM Task Force
>
>