[802SEC] RE: [EFM-P2MP] FW: P2MP Voting Vancouver
Dan-
By "If the IEEE reads
..." I trust you mean IEEE 802.
There already exists an 802 Working Group for Security. It is the 802.10
SILS (Standard for Interoperable LAN/MAN
Security) which was last revised in 1998. The work of the group was
oriented to government needs rather than commercial. The group is in
hibernation as it has no active PARs nor a currently active Working Group
chair.
The group could form a reasonable foundation for an architecture of
security and perhaps a basis to build upon for further work. The most
essential thing that would be needed for further work is people to
actually do the work. If a reasonable body of volunteers were to step up
to the task I feel confident that 802 would be willing to reactivate the
group.
Best regards,
Geoff
At 05:38 PM 7/13/02 +0300, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
Exactly
because security is a high concern in the eyes of customers and of the
whole industry, the IEEE 802 needs to build its own structure to deal
with security in a consistent manner, and not leave the security issues
be dealt at different levels of rigor and expertise in the different 802
Working Groups. I think that the IEEE finds itself, as result of the
extension of the applicability space of its standards and increase demand
of real security from customers, at the same point where IETF was a few
years ago. The result was in the IETF the creation of the Security Area,
and the fact that all IETF standard track documents include a security
section, and are scrutinized by security experts as part of the approval
process. If the IEEE reads the writing on the wall, it should not delay
the creation of a Security Working Group, that would take similar
responsibilities.
Regards,
Dan
- -----Original Message-----
- From: Mccammon, Kent G.
[mailto:kmccammon@tri.sbc.com]
- Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 10:49 AM
- To: 'gerry.pesavento@teknovus.com'; stds-802-3-efm-p2mp@ieee.org
- Subject: RE: [EFM-P2MP] FW: P2MP Voting Vancouver
Gerry,
Thanks to you and the P2MP subtask force for working to bring some
level of security to EPON to make a practical solution for the access
market. I want to emphasize that carriers will not deploy a shared
system in a public network that does not have some level of security. In
my companies case, we want PON to be very secure. The vote against the
motion for added security today in the 802.3 Plenary was very
disappointing. Some people think that 802.3 is not the right place
for this work. I would ask those who think 802.3 is not the right place
for that work, what other group should do this work if not 802.3?
Alot of hard work and energy was put into working out that security in
P2MP is needed and its only fair to those trying to crack the tough
problems to know if their work to make a product for the access network
(not the enterprise market) will be ruled out of scope in the end.
Thanks
-Kent
-----Original Message-----
From: Gerry Pesavento
[mailto:gerry.pesavento@teknovus.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 10:54 PM
To: stds-802-3-efm-p2mp@ieee.org
Subject: [EFM-P2MP] FW: P2MP Voting Vancouver
A few people asked me about P2MP Vancouver voting.
I posted my Baseline voting notes in
the file "p2mpvoting_1_0702.pdf", here:
http://www.ieee802.org/3/efm/baseline/p2mpbaseline.html
Official minutes will appear on EFM website here:
http://www.ieee802.org/3/efm/public/jul02/index.html
In a nutshell, for P2MP:
- Clause 56, D0.9 passed
- EPON Layer Model passed
- Security objective did not pass
We will now move primarily to Drafting mode. Open topics for
conference calls will be FEC, # LLIDs per ONU, Clause 56/57 comments,
etc.
---------------------------------------------
Gerry Pesavento
Teknovus
---------------------------------------------