Re: IEEE International Code Designator and P802.15.3
Geoff -
As it happens, I believe I have the most recent paper on this subject - you
may recall that I raised the issue of a generalized scheme in the SEC some
while back. Anyhow, I generated the attached document as a result. I
believe that using the 8802 arc is the "no brainer" route for
802.15. However, one aspect of what they are asking for concerns me -
namely the potential that "...others will want to "register" additional
optional schemes that will require OIDs ". I would like to understand
better how 802.15 envisage this working - is this a small number of
additional arcs that would be vetted and approved for inclusion in the
standard, or is this essentially a means whereby proprietary extensions to
the standard will be defined? In other words, is this going to become a
registration activity that the RAC should be concerned about with a view to
the RA administering it?
Regards,
Tony
At 11:35 09/04/2002 -0700, Geoff Thompson wrote:
>Anita-
>
>In 802.3 there are a couple of roots used in 802.3 that I know of.
>They are:
> {iso(1)member-body(2)us(840)802dot3(10006)... (Current)
> {iso(1) std(0) iso8802(8802) csma(3)... (Obsolete)
>
>In addition we reference 802.1F which has (at least) the following root
> {iso(1)member-body(2)us(840)ieee802dot1partF(10011)
>
>I believe that there is a system is place for arc assignments within 802.
>The keeper of the registry for that is Hal Keen. Tony can get you in touch
>with him.
>
>While it is fine for the RAC to "do the right thing" in terms of new
>assignments, this is one of those times when you are supposed to be VERY
>careful about changing things. What we don't particularly want is every
>standard to have a different scheme just because it started in a different
>year.
>
>Geoff
>
>At 01:08 PM 4/9/02 -0400, a.ricketts@ieee.org wrote:
>
>>Hello All,
>>
>>As you may know, in 1997 the IEEE RAC secured an ICD (0111) from the
>>British Standards Institute. This ICD allows the RAC to assign an OID as
>>deemed appropriate.
>>
>>Recently, I was contacted by P802.15.3. I have included the message below.
>>They are in the last stages of standards development and require an OID
>>(for the unique identification of a security suite) for the standard. At
>>least one OID would be included in the standard with the possibility of an
>>additional optional OID. In addition, after the standard is published,
>>there is a real possibility that others will want to "register" additional
>>optional schemes that will require OIDs.
>>
>>Here is the issue: the WG is at the point of getting the node from IANA
>>and working out the long-term operational issues later. Personally, since
>>this standard has a registration component, I would prefer to see the node
>>assigned from the existing ICD assigned to the IEEE, (via the RAC). There
>>seem to be a plethora of OID assignments around with no real central
>>understanding of how many are actually affiliated with some IEEE activity.
>>
>>Here is the question: what would be the sub-node assignment? The ICD is
>>"iso (1) iso-identified-organization (3) ieee (0111)"
>>
>>The WG needs to know what would come next in order to help their decision
>>making process. Unfortunately, they are very short on time and need to
>>make their decision before the end of the week, (hence the urgent email).
>>
>>If I have not made any sense, my apologies in advance. Please advise and I
>>will do my best to make this more clear. Regardless, any assistance you
>>can offer is much appreciated.
>>
>>Best Regards,
>>Anita
>>
>>Forwarded Message:
>>----- Forwarded by Anita Ricketts/STDS/STAFF/US/IEEE on 04/09/2002 01:04 PM
>>-----
> >
> "James D.
> Allen" To: <a.ricketts@ieee.org>,
> <y.hosang@ieee.com>
>> <james.d.allen cc: <gilb@appairent.com>,
>> "Daniel Bailey" <DBailey@ntru.com>,
>> @ieee.org> <asinger@ntru.com>, "John
>> Barr" <John.Barr@motorola.com>, "Robert
>> Heile" <bheile@ieee.org>,
>> "Rasor Gregg-ECPP04"
>> 04/04/2002 <Gregg.Rasor@motorola.com>
> >
> 10:17 AM Subject:
> Please respond
> to
> james.d.allen
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>Hi Anita
>>
>>I understand you are in charge of the IEEE Registration Authority.
>>
>>I am the Vice chair of 802.15 and 802.15.3 and we have a few questions we'd
>>like to ask.
>>
>>
>>
>>Background:
>>In our draft standard (due for Sponsor ballot in July), we have the ability
>>to use optional security suites. The architecture of the draft standard is
>>such that each suite has it's own identification number (called an Object
>>Identifiers or OID). We have put several reserved, but unspecified, OIDs
>>into the standard as place holders.
>>
>>
>>Questions:
>>
>>1- Is there already a numbering system for security options anywhere else
>>in
>>the IEEE that we could use as a reference to this standard?
>>
>>2- If we asked the IEEE to maintain the registry of suites, is that
>>possible, how would we do it, who would we work with, and what is the cost
>>implication?
>>
>>3- How is it done now and if it is, can you point us to a application and
>>procedure?
>>
>>
>>Thanks! We are trying to get all of this text for the current letter
>>ballot
>>re-circulation done before the 12th so your rapid response would be very
>>helpful.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Jim Allen
>>
>>VP Research & Engineering
>>Appairent Technologies
>>150 Lucius Gordon Dr.
>>Rochester, NY 14586
>>
>>585-214-2465.
>>
>>
>>
>>___________________________________________
>>Anita C. Ricketts
>>Manager, Business Programs and Services
>>IEEE Standards
>>445 Hoes Lane
>>Piscataway, NJ 08854-1331
>>+1 732 562 3847
>>+1 732 562 1571 (Fax)
>>a.ricketts@ieee.org
>
>
Object ID procedures.doc