RE: [802SEC] Re: OID arcs & procedures
Ack.
-Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Jeffree [mailto:tony@jeffree.co.uk]
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 11:35 AM
To: Geoff Thompson
Cc: Geoff Thompson; stds-802-sec@ieee.org; a.ricketts@ieee.org;
c.k.berger@ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Re: OID arcs & procedures
Geoff -
Sounds good to me. Bob (O'Hara) - looks like this should go on the agenda
for July.
Regards,
Tony
At 11:11 11/04/2002 -0700, Geoff Thompson wrote:
>Tony-
>
>We are in violent agreement here.
>I propose to co-sponsor this as an Exec item at the July Plenary.
>I would like to see the proposed text live in back of the LMSC Operating
>Rules as a "Procedure" with a note to the following effect:
> (This material is published here on a temporary basis until the
> formal adoption of material of equivalent scope in IEEE 802. When such
> material is approved this procedure may be deleted without ballot.)
>
>We will probably need to also propose a "transition plan" that
>acknowledges that we are scattered at the moment and gives "guidance" on
>how to transition to the "universal plan". I would expect such a plan
>should indicate the appropriateness of an Informative Annex containing:
>(a) obsolete root information and (b) discussion that the only difference
>is the "it is only a matter of whether you are going from London to
>Edinburgh via Manchester or York" issue.
>
>Geoff
>
>At 09:01 AM 4/11/02 +0100, Tony Jeffree wrote:
>
>>Geoff -
>>
>>
>>At 17:42 10/04/2002 -0700, Geoff Thompson wrote:
>>>Tony-
>>>
>>>It seems to me that this should go into the next revision of the 802
>>>Overview and Architecture with appropriate pointers to web pages where
>>>the most up to date table can be found. Rationale being that this is
>>>technical material.
>>
>>It's a fair point - section 9 of the current O&A seems like a reasonable
>>precedent.
>>
>>
>>>In addition, it would seem that adherence to this procedure would need
>>>to added to the 802 Five Criteria.
>>
>>If it was included in the O&A, then it would already be covered by the
>>6.2 "Compatibility" criterion in the existing operating rules.
>>
>>
>>>I believe that the current situation, due largely to obscurity of this
>>>issue and lack of communication, is that 802.3 cleaned up its situation
>>>of mixed use but became consistent in the wrong direction.
>>
>>True.
>>
>>
>>>It should be further noted in your treatise that it is perfectly
>>>acceptable (and much more desirable than actually changing things) to
>>>have multiple root paths into the "pile of leaves", that is:
>>>{iso(1)member-body(2)us(840)ieee802dot3(10006)csmacdmgt(30)attribut
>>>{iso(1)member-body(2)us(840)ieee802dot3(10006)csmacdmgt(30)attribute(7)fr
>>>a me sTransmittedOK(2)};
>>>gets you to exactly the same uniquely defined point as:
>>> {iso(1) std(0) iso8802(8802)
>>> csma(3)csmacdmgt(30)attribute(7)framesTransmittedOK(2)};
>>>it is only a matter of whether you are going from London to Edinburgh
>>>via Manchester or York.
>>
>>Absolutely - that should certainly be pointed out.
>>
>>
>>>Is it your intention to act on this via a e-mail ballot of the SEC or
>>>put it on the agenda for action in July?
>>
>>What I would like to see is a formal acceptance by the SEC that this is
>>the right way to go with regard to doing future OID allocations, so that,
>>in advance of it reaching the pages of the O&A (~ 1-2+ years hence) we
>>have an agreed position as to what should be done in the interim.
>>
>>I would be happy to do it either way - as an SEC Email ballot or as an
>>agenda item for July.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Tony
>>
>>
>>>Geoff
>>>
>>>
>>>At 04:51 PM 4/10/02 +0100, Tony Jeffree wrote:
>>>>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
>>>>
>
>