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

Re: [EFM] reflector usage

Roy,  I support your concerns.  Regards, Keith 281-583-9903
On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 23:34:22 -0500 Roy Bynum <rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Howard,
> In the past, within the EFM Task Force, it has been noted that one 
> group 
> does not know what is going on in another group, sometimes to the 
> detriment 
> of the project as a whole.  Perhaps it would be best to bring most 
> of the 
> work back to the TF as a whole.
> For example, the issue of security has been raised time and again in 
> the 
> different subgroups, perhaps without the other subgroups being aware 
> of it, 
> or knowing what those other subgroups had made as a determination 
> regarding 
> the topic of "security".  This is an on-going issue that keeps 
> getting 
> brought up again and again in first one group and then another.  It 
> is as 
> if some one small group wants to do it, but can not find a home for 
> it.
> It would have been much better for the TF as a whole to be aware of 
> the 
> "conversations" that went on in OAM, because much of the same topic 
> and 
> issues are being repeated in P2MP.  I don't doubt that they were 
> also 
> brought up in copper.  It is my perception that in OAM it was 
> decided that 
> "security" was not part of the domain of 802.3.  Since OAM is above 
> the 
> PCS, then any security would also be above the PHY encoding, at or 
> above 
> the MAC, in which case it would not be an issue within EFM.
> This continuing resurrecting the issue of "security" has me 
> concerned.  If 
> security was going to be such an issue, then it should have been 
> part of 
> the original objectives.  As late as the last meeting, the provision 
> of any 
> form of security was not part of the objectives.  If providing 
> security is 
> not part of the objectives, then why is it being "pushed" so hard to 
> that 
> we continue to have to deal with it?  Should it be made an 
> objective?  Should it fail to make it as an objective, can the TF, 
> as a 
> group agree to "drop" the issue?
> Personally, I am not sure what the long term 802.3 voters would be 
> willing 
> to agree to at this late date regarding adding a "security" 
> objective.  Along with some of the other issues, EFM seems to be 
> suffering 
> from "feature creep".  As long as "new features" keep getting added, 
> the TF 
> will not be able to set and adhere to a schedule.  Perhaps it would 
> be best 
> to get the simple "things", that are already part of the objectives, 
> resolved.  This will allow individuals within the group to make 
> personal 
> resolutions to open some of these "new features" as new study groups 
> and 
> allow the TF as a whole to get back into a schedule of some sort.
> Thank you,
> Roy Bynum
> At 08:44 PM 8/13/2002 -0700, Howard Frazier wrote:
> >Dear Members of the IEEE 802.3ah EFM Task Force,
> >
> >as you know, we have multiple email reflectors available
> >for our use.  We have the
> >reflector, which is used for announcements and discussions
> >of general interest.
> >
> >We also have reflectors for each of our sub task forces,
> >such as the reflector
> >and the reflector for
> >the optical PMD and point to multipoint protocol sub
> >task forces, respectively.
> >
> >Some task force members find it annoying to receive
> >multiple copies of email messages.  This is often caused
> >by the unnecessary inclusion of multiple email reflector
> >addresses on the distribution list.  As an example, there
> >is no need to send a message to both,
> >and ANY of the sub task force reflectors, since 99% of the
> >folks on a sub task force reflector are also on the primary
> >task force reflector.  Please try to limit the distribution of
> >messages to the extent possible.  Many of us are inundated
> >with email messages, and even the simple chore of deleting
> >a bunch of duplicate messages wastes time unnecessarily.
> >
> >Thanks for your cooperation.
> >
> >Howard Frazier
> >Chair, IEEE 802.3ah EFM Task Force