Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

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?


At 11:35 09/04/2002 -0700, Geoff Thompson wrote:

>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 
>At 01:08 PM 4/9/02 -0400, 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,
>>Forwarded Message:
>>----- Forwarded by Anita Ricketts/STDS/STAFF/US/IEEE on 04/09/2002 01:04 PM
> >
>                     "James D.
>                     Allen"               To:     <>, 
> <>
>>                     <james.d.allen       cc:     <>, 
>> "Daniel Bailey" <>,
>>           >            <>, "John 
>> Barr" <>, "Robert
>>                                           Heile" <>, 
>> "Rasor Gregg-ECPP04"
>>                     04/04/2002            <>
> >
>                     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.
>>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.
>>1- Is there already a numbering system for security options anywhere else
>>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
>>3- How is it done now and if it is, can you point us to a application and
>>Thanks!  We are trying to get all of this text for the current letter
>>re-circulation done before the 12th so your rapid response would be very
>>Jim Allen
>>VP Research & Engineering
>>Appairent Technologies
>>150 Lucius Gordon Dr.
>>Rochester, NY  14586
>>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)

Object ID procedures.doc