RE: [802.1] TGi use of OUI 00-00-00
Mike-
I have been late getting into this discussion because I haven't sat down to
read all of the messages carefully.
I will jump in now because some of the things that have been said have been
completely inappropriate and I strongly feel that they needs correction.
You have said some of them.
I am not longer the Chair of the RAC but I believe that my following
statements are immutable facts and not opinions that wax and wain with
various chairs.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1) If an IEEE Standard or draft includes a value that it labels as an "OUI"
then the ONLY entity that has the right to determine a new value to be
included in that draft or standard is the IEEE Registration Authority. If
the value is an already assigned value, then the right to determine its use
in any application belongs to the entity to whom the ownership of the value
has been assigned. The above statement is complete and absolute.
2) If, by some screw-up, #1 has been violated then the screw-up should be
fixed. Any proposed repair that proposes to continue an incursion into the
use of an assigned OUI by an entity other than the entity that owns that
OUI without the express written permission of the current appropriate
designated agent of the owner of the OUI is not OK!
3) If there is something in the universe that appears to the uninitiated to
be an instance of a violation of #1 that instance provides no justification
whatsoever for any violation of #1.
4) If a corporate owner of an OUI chooses to make use of that OUI available
to the standards community or the public, then such use should be
specifically limited to whatever use the owner grants. The grant should be
in written form. To preserve the terms and conditions of any such grant, it
is a very good idea for that grant to be registered with the IEEE
Registration Authority. However, whether or not an OUI owner chooses to do
so is their own business.
5) It is a VERY BAD IDEA for standards organizations to put OUI values into
a draft before:
a) their use of an established value has been approved by the owner
b) their use of a proposed (supposedly unassigned) value has been
assigned
(The RAC has a policy against assigning desired values.)
c) the content of the draft has stabilized (Submission to Sponsor
Ballot is considered to be the appropriate point.)
The entire point of having values come from a registration authority is to
have values come from one and only one entity who assigns them
unambiguously in a consistent manner and that the users respect those
assignments. Any discussion or action to the contrary is not constructive
to the very most very basic goals of having a registration authority in the
first place.
Sincerely,
Geoff Thompson
1st Vice Chair, 802
Former Chair, IEEE RAC
At 09:53 AM 10/2/2003 +0100, Mike Moreton wrote:
>Tony,
>
>We can define a field any way we like. In this case it contains either
>0:0:0 or an OUI. It can't contain an OUI of 0:0:0.
>
>OK, so Xerox can't use one of their many OUI values in this particular
>context. So what? There's no Act of Parliament that says they have to
>be able to.
>
>Are they complaining? No.
>
>Can we see any potential problems? No.
>
>Do we have lots of real problems to solve? Yes.
>
>Will changing this value reduce interoperability problems, or increase
>them? Definitely increase.
>
>If people want to fix this problem for the future, then great. But
>leave well alone for TGi.
>
>
>Mike Moreton
>Synad Technologies Ltd.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tony Jeffree [mailto:tony@jeffree.co.uk]
>Sent: 02 October 2003 09:16
>To: Mike Moreton
>Cc: Johnston, Dj; David Halasz; stds-802-11@ieee.org; IEEE 802.1
>Subject: RE: [802.1] TGi use of OUI 00-00-00
>
>Mike -
>
>Some observations:
>
>- Xerox clearly don't have the right to use the sequence 00-00-00
>"...anywhere in the world", any more than (for example) Datapoint Corp
>has
>the right to use the squence 00-00-15
>"...anywhere in the world". However, they do have a legitimate right to
>use
>those sequences anywhere in the world that an OUI value is called for,
>as
>they respectively own the OUI values 00-00-00 and 00-00-15.
>
>- We (the standards community) don't have the right to arbitrarily
>assign
>new meaning to an OUI value that has been legitimately allocated,
>without
>regard to the needs/wishes of the owner of that OUI value.
>
>- We don't have the right to reach any conclusions about what will or
>will
>not do Xerox any harm. Only Xerox has that right.
>
>- As DJ observes, the fact that 00-00-00 has been misused in previous
>cases
>does not create a valid precedent for us to further misuse the value.
>
>- Given the above, I believe there are (at least) the following
>legitimate
>solutions to this problem:
>
>1) Use some other OUI value to achieve the end that you have in mind
>here -
>possibly one specifically allocated by the RAC with the semantics "Null
>OUI
>value".
>2) Use some other encoding to carry the semantics "this field does not
>contain an OUI value". For example, given that OUIs will presumably not
>be
>allocated that would have the I/G bit set when used to generate MAC
>addresses (this is the LS bit of first octet ), maybe this could be used
>to
>achieve the desired goal (comments please?).
>
>Regards,
>Tony
>
>
>At 08:15 02/10/2003 +0100, Mike Moreton wrote:
>
> >Dj,
> >
> >I can't accept that Xerox are the only company with the right to use
>the
> >sequence 00-00-00 for any purpose in any piece of software or hardware
> >anywhere in the world.
> >
> >They may have been allocated that sequence when used as an OUI in a MAC
> >address, but that doesn't mean they have any legal claim on the
>sequence
> >when used for a different purpose.
> >
> >The proposed use is a method for uniquely identifying proprietary
> >security algorithms. Given Xerox have 11 other OUIs they could use for
> >this purpose, I don't really think we need to worry about them running
> >out any time soon.
> >
> >Using 00-00-00 doesn't do anyone (including Xerox) any harm. So why
> >don't we just leave well alone and get on with more important issues?
> >
> >Mike Moreton
> >Synad Technologies Ltd.
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Johnston, Dj [mailto:dj.johnston@intel.com]
> >Sent: 01 October 2003 19:35
> >To: David Halasz
> >Cc: stds-802-11@ieee.org; IEEE 802.1
> >Subject: RE: [802.1] TGi use of OUI 00-00-00
> >
> >
> >I think Xerox would be the people to answer that.
> >
> >Just because it was done before doesn't mean its right. OUI 00-00-00 is
> >assigned to Xerox, we don't have the right to just go and use it.
> >
> >DJ
> >
> >
> >David Johnston
> >Intel Corporation
> >Chair, IEEE 802 Handoff ECSG
> >
> >Email : dj.johnston@intel.com
> >Tel : 503 380 5578 (Mobile)
> >Tel : 503 264 3855 (Office)
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: David Halasz [mailto:dhala@cisco.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 11:23 AM
> > > To: Walker, Jesse; tony@jeffree.co.uk
> > > Cc: Floyd Backes; mick_seaman@ieee.org; Johnston, Dj;
> > > stds-802-11@ieee.org; IEEE 802.1
> > > Subject: RE: [802.1] TGi use of OUI 00-00-00
> > >
> > >
> > > I wasn't convinced yet that a new OUI was needed. I fail to
> > > see how 802.11i
> > > usage would be confused with RFC1042 or RFC1390. To the contrary, it
> > > appears consistent that 00 00 00 be used.
> > >
> > > Stated another way, why wasn't it a problem for Xerox, when
> > > 00 00 00 was
> > > used in RFC1042?
> > >
> > > Dave H.
> > >
> > > At 01:08 PM 10/1/2003, Walker, Jesse wrote:
> > >
> > > >Floyd,
> > > >
> > > >No disagreement. My question is what OUI should we be using.
> > > What is there
> > > >in the spec was put there trhough our collective ignorance,
> > > and we need to
> > > >fix the problem.
> > > >
> > > >-- Jesse
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Floyd Backes [mailto:fbackes@propagatenet.com]
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 8:48 AM
> > > > > To: Walker, Jesse; mick_seaman@ieee.org; Johnston, Dj;
> > > > > stds-802-11@ieee.org
> > > > > Cc: 'IEEE 802.1'
> > > > > Subject: RE: [802.1] TGi use of OUI 00-00-00
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I would rather TGi not use 00-00-00 because that OUI has
> > > > > special meaning
> > > > > in other uses, most notably RFC1042.
> > > > >
> > > > > I know that TGi has nothing to do with RFC1042. This fact
> > > > > could be used
> > > > > either as an argument in favor of, or against its use by TGi.
>The
> > > > > architect in me says it's a stronger argument against.
> > > > >
> > > > > Let's keep it clean and not overload 00-00-00 with yet
> > > > > another meaning.
> > > > > Why not ask the RAC to allocate another OUI specifically for
>this
> > > > > purpose?
> > > > >
> > > > > Floyd
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: owner-stds-802-1@majordomo.ieee.org
> > > > > [mailto:owner-stds-802-1@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of
> > > > > Walker, Jesse
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 9:44 AM
> > > > > To: mick_seaman@ieee.org; Johnston, Dj; stds-802-11@ieee.org
> > > > > Cc: IEEE 802.1
> > > > > Subject: RE: [802.1] TGi use of OUI 00-00-00
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Mick,
> > > > >
> > > > > 802.11i uses OUI 00-00-00 as a prefix indicating the
> > > cipher suites and
> > > > > authenticated key management suites it defines. What do
> > > you suggest we
> > > > > 802.1 as a replacement?
> > > > >
> > > > > -- Jesse
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: owner-stds-802-1@majordomo.ieee.org
> > > > > > [mailto:owner-stds-802-1@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf
> > > Of Mick Seaman
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 6:11 PM
> > > > > > To: Johnston, Dj; stds-802-11@ieee.org
> > > > > > Cc: 'IEEE 802.1'
> > > > > > Subject: RE: [802.1] TGi use of OUI 00-00-00
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > David,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The authority over the allocation of 00-80-C2 is 802.1. This
> > > > > > OUI is and has been used to allocate standard group MAC
> > > > > > addresses on request from any standards defining group
> > > > > > (subject to certain procedural and status criteria which I
> > > > > > won't go into here). In the past these allocations were
> > > > > > published by ISO in a TR (Technical Report). They are now
> > > > > > published by the IEEE and requests can be made to the IEEE
> > > > > > RAC (Registration Authority Committee) which vectors (or
> > > > > > rather the IEEE assigned staff do) the request to 802.1. If
> > > > > > 802.1 ceased to exist then a replacement technical
> > > > > > verification committee would be found and the assignment
> > > > > > moved. Strictly speaking the allocation is not to "IEEE 802
> > > > > > COMMITTEE" but to 802.1 for the purposes of 802. Tony and I
> > > > > > discussed the fine print of the detail here during the course
> > > > > > of last meeting, and he is straightening the record. The
> > > > > > address given is for the previous chair of 802.1, Bill
> > > > > > Lidinsky. It should be "802.1 chair" so the record does not
> > > > > > need revisiting if and when the chair changes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All this means that you can't use 00-80-C2 as a dumy entry.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't know what 00-50-C2 does, and I should. I am sure it
> > > > > > is not a dummy entry. Tony??
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Geoff and I discussed 00-00-00, following my suggestion that
> > > > > > it could be held to mean "no OUI present in this field".
> > > > > > Geoff was reasonably concerned that this might infringe on
> > > > > > Xerox's rights to fully use the value. On the other hand the
> > > > > > value has already been assumed to have limited applicabiulity
> > > > > > by its incorporation into the LLC SNAP SAP designator as the
> > > > > > key for "an Ethertype follows". Don't expect further
> > > > > > authorative clarification until the RAC meets again (probably
> > > > > > November) and examines the precise wording of past
> > > > > > correspondence on this subject.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mick
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: owner-stds-802-1@majordomo.ieee.org
> > > > > > [mailto:owner-stds-802-1@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
> > > > > Johnston, Dj
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 5:05 PM
> > > > > > To: stds-802-11@ieee.org
> > > > > > Cc: IEEE 802.1
> > > > > > Subject: [802.1] TGi use of OUI 00-00-00
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm a little concerned about the use of OUI 00-00-00 in
> > > 802.11i. The
> > > > > > IEEE OUI list http://standards.ieee.org/regauth/oui/oui.txt
> > > > > shows this
> > > > > > as belonging to Xerox.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 00-00-00 (hex) XEROX CORPORATION
> > > > > > 000000 (base 16) XEROX CORPORATION
> > > > > > M/S 105-50C
> > > > > > 800 PHILLIPS ROAD
> > > > > > WEBSTER NY 14580
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There appears to be no OUI set aside to mean
> > > "Everyone", "No OUI" or
> > > > > > "Not Organizationally Specific".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are the following two IEEE OUIs. Their purposes are a
> > > > > mystery to
> > > > > > me:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 00-50-C2 (hex) IEEE REGISTRATION AUTHORITY
> > > > > > 0050C2 (base 16) IEEE REGISTRATION AUTHORITY
> > > > > > 445 HOES LANE
> > > > > > PISCATAWAY NJ 08855
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 00-80-C2 (hex) IEEE 802 COMMITTEE
> > > > > > 0080C2 (base 16) IEEE 802 COMMITTEE
> > > > > > FERMI NAT'L ACCELERATOR LAB
> > > > > > M/S 368 P.O. BOX 500
> > > > > > BATAVIA IL 60510
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Unfortunately, the IEEE list does not give a pointer to
> > > > > > whatever defines
> > > > > > the use of allocated OUIs, nor does it come with a
> > > driver's manual.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If either of these IEEE OUIs are appropriate, we should use
>it.
> > > > > > Otherwise we should either attach a bit to signify the
> > > > > validity of the
> > > > > > OUI in the table entry, or we should request an OUI for non
> > > > > > organizationally specific uses in 802 standards. This is
> > > > > assuming that
> > > > > > Xerox do mind us using their OUI.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 00-80-C2 appears to be used elsewhere to identify 802 frame
> > > > > > types. E.G.
> > > > > > RFC 1483
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So asking the following series of questions might resolve
> > > > > the issue..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1) Is it OK to use 00-00-00 to mean "Non Organizationally
> > > > > Specific" ?
> > > > > > 2) If not, should we use 00-80-C2 instead?
> > > > > > 3) If not, is there an OUI we should use for the purpose?
> > > > > > 4) If not, then can we have an OUI for the purpose please?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > DJ
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > David Johnston
> > > > > > Intel Corporation
> > > > > > Chair, IEEE 802 Handoff ECSG
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Email : dj.johnston@intel.com
> > > > > > Tel : 503 380 5578 (Mobile)
> > > > > > Tel : 503 264 3855 (Office)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Dave Halasz
> > > Cisco Systems, Inc.
> > > 4125 Highlander Parkway
> > > Richfield, OH 44286
> > >
> > >
>
>Regards,
>Tony
>