[802SEC] Re: OID arcs & procedures
The discussion of .15's need for OID registration arcs (see below) has
reminded me that we have yet to take a position regarding the suggested
procedures for future OID arc registrations as documented in my paper of
March 2001 (attached to this email). As I have had no negative feedback on
this document, I propose that we adopt the suggested procedure as
documented, and would like to make an SEC motion to that effect.
Regards,
Tony
At 21:26 09/04/2002 +0100, you wrote:
>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