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

[802SEC] FW: BOUNCE Non-member submission from []

Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 09:35:26 -0400
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on Buzz/US/IEEE(Release 5.0.8 |June 18,
2001) at 04/10/2002
 09:35:28 AM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii


Thank you for the response. I did suggest the 802.3 arc to my contact as I
was aware of it.  However, he seemed to be under the impression that unless
the arc was specifically for all of 802, as opposed to "just" 802.3, then
it did not make sense for 802.15 to use it.  He also mentioned 802.1 and
rejected it for the same reason.

I was not in a position technically to dispute or argue the point, so I
opened discussion of the IEEE ICD.  If what you recommend is the preferred
method, I would suggest that perhaps there is a communication issue for 802
as to which groups within 802 can and should access the arcs.

Just a thought.

Thanks again for the quick response,

PS Given your email and the email from Tony, I will forward the suggestion
to 802.15 and indicate that they should contact Hal Keen for a node.  I
will also, per Tony's email, ask 802.15 to flesh out in greater detail the
post-publication plans for additional optional suites and any expected
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)


                    Geoff Thompson

                    <gthompso@nortelnet       To:

          >                cc:,,                          
                    04/09/2002 02:35 PM       Subject:     Re: IEEE
International Code Designator and P802.15.3       



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

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
>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
>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

                     Allen"               To:     <>,
>                     <james.d.allen       cc:     <>,
> "Daniel Bailey" <>,
>           >            <>, "John Barr"

> <>, "Robert
>                                           Heile" <>,
> "Rasor Gregg-ECPP04"
>                     04/04/2002            <>
AM             Subject:




>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
>like to ask.
>In our draft standard (due for Sponsor ballot in July), we have the
>to use optional security suites.  The architecture of the draft standard
>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)