RE: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BLLOT +++ MOTION: Authorize the Link Security Exec SG to become an 802.1 SG
I believe that I had previously voted "Approve."
In light of this new information, I feel the need
to give this further discussion and consideration,
and therefore I hereby change my vote to DISAPPROVE.
(With the idea that this will be resolved at the
plenary, rather than via this e-mail ballot.)
Carl
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:paul.nikolich@att.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 9:01 PM
> To: Ken Alonge; Geoff Thompson; Paul Nikolich; IEEE802
> Cc: Russ Housley; Dolors Sala (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BLLOT +++ MOTION:
> Authorize the Link
> Security Exec SG to become an 802.1 SG
>
>
>
> Dear SEC,
>
> Attached is a message from Ken Alonge, the Chairman of the hibernating
> 802.10 Security WG, on the ECSG Motion.
>
> (Bob O'Hara, please add Ken to the SEC reflector list.)
>
> Regards,
>
> --Paul Nikolich
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ken Alonge" <kenneth.alonge@verizon.net>
> To: "Geoff Thompson" <gthompso@nortelnetworks.com>; "Paul Nikolich"
> <p.nikolich@ieee.org>
> Cc: "Russ Housley" <housley@vigilsec.com>; "Dolors Sala (E-mail)"
> <dolors@ieee.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 4:46 PM
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BLLOT +++ MOTION:
> Authorize the Link
> Security Exec SG to become an 802.1 SG
>
>
> > Paul and Geoff-
> >
> > I couldn't agree with Geoff's position more. I think it is a grave
> mistake
> > to vote (at this point) to put the study group into 802.1.
> >
> > It seems to me (and was voiced to you by Russ Housley) that
> the deck was
> > stacked by the fact that the LinkSec study group meeting was held in
> > conjunction with an 802.1 interim meeting. Some of the other working
> groups
> > that have an interest in the SG had conflicting meetings
> during or near
> the
> > time of the SG meeting and therefore could not attend. It's
> obvious that
> the
> > recommendation coming out of that meeting would be to move
> the SG into .1
> > since most of the attendees were from .1, and it seems that
> members of .1
> > are the ones driving this e-mail ballot.
> >
> > The other problem that I have with this is that it appears
> that this SG,
> > which is focused on critical 802 security issues, will wind up in a
> > MAC-oriented working group rather than in a non-biased
> security-oriented
> > working group, such as .10. We clearly see, and the
> industry is still
> > feeling, the result of the .11 security fiasco. Can 802
> afford another
> > oops?
> >
> > Russ is pursuing funding from Government sponsors for both
> himself and me
> so
> > that we can unhibernate .10, if need be, in order to deal
> with the 802
> > security issues. My guess is that we will be successful in
> getting the
> > required funding if 802 decides that .10 is where these
> issues should be
> > handled. It is also a possibility that the other two key
> .10 members
> (Dick
> > McAllister and Joe Maley) could get funding to participate,
> if .10 comes
> out
> > of hibernation.
> >
> > There is a possibility that I might be able to attend the
> March plenary to
> > discuss this further in person, but that depends on
> contractual issues
> that
> > are currently in the works and which probably won't get
> resolved until
> late
> > this week or early next week.
> >
> > Ken Alonge
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Geoff Thompson" <gthompso@nortelnetworks.com>
> > To: "Paul Nikolich" <p.nikolich@ieee.org>
> > Cc: "IEEE802" <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>; "Dolors Sala (E-mail)"
> > <dolors@ieee.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 11:36 AM
> > Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BLLOT +++ MOTION:
> Authorize the Link
> > Security Exec SG to become an 802.1 SG
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Colleagues-
> > >
> > > I vote DISAPPROVE
> > > Further, were this vote to come up on the agenda for
> Monday morning, I
> > > would move to defer the decision until Friday.
> > >
> > > By conducting this as an e-mail ballot we are taking a
> vote of the SEC.
> By
> > > conducting this vote at the closing plenary as I consider
> proper, we
> would
> > > (hopefully) have the input of the body of the Working Groups.
> > >
> > > It is my opinion that this sort of 802 structural
> decision will have far
> > > reaching consequences for each/all of the Working Groups
> and should not
> be
> > > taken lightly.
> > >
> > > Respectfully,
> > >
> > > Geoff
> > >
> > >
> > > At 02:04 PM 2/12/2003 -0500, Paul Nikolich wrote:
> > >
> > > >Dear SEC,
> > > >
> > > >This is a 10 day SEC email ballot to make a
> determination on the below
> > SEC
> > > >motion to authorize the Link Security Executive Study
> Group to become
> an
> > > >802.1 Study Group. Moved by Tony Jeffree, seconded by Bob Grow.
> > > >
> > > >The email ballot opens on Wednesday February 11 2PM EST
> and closes
> Friday
> > > >February 21 2PM EST.
> > > >
> > > >Please direct your responses to the SEC reflector.
> > > >
> > > >Regards,
> > > >
> > > >--Paul Nikolich
> > > >Chairman, IEEE 802 LMSC
> > > >
> > > >MOTION: "The SEC resolves that the Link Security Study Group will
> become
> > a
> > > >study group of the 802.1 HiLi working group, effective
> from the start
> of
> > > >the March 802 Plenary meeting."
> > > >
> > > >MOVER: Tony Jeffree
> > > >SECOND: Bob Grow
> > >
> > >
> >
>