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

[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.


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?
>At 11:35 09/04/2002 -0700, Geoff Thompson wrote:
>>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.
>>At 01:08 PM 4/9/02 -0400, 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,
>>>Forwarded Message:
>>>----- Forwarded by Anita Ricketts/STDS/STAFF/US/IEEE on 04/09/2002 01:04 PM
>> >
>>                     "James D.
>>                     Allen"               To:     <>, 
>> <>
>>>                     <james.d.allen       cc:     <>, 
>>> "Daniel Bailey" <>,
>>>           >            <>, "John 
>>> Barr" <>, "Robert
>>>                                           Heile" <>, 
>>> "Rasor Gregg-ECPP04"
>>>                     04/04/2002            <>
>> >
>>                     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.
>>>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.
>>>1- Is there already a numbering system for security options anywhere else
>>>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
>>>3- How is it done now and if it is, can you point us to a application and
>>>Thanks!  We are trying to get all of this text for the current letter
>>>re-circulation done before the 12th so your rapid response would be very
>>>Jim Allen
>>>VP Research & Engineering
>>>Appairent Technologies
>>>150 Lucius Gordon Dr.
>>>Rochester, NY  14586
>>>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)

Object ID procedures.doc