RE: [802.1] TGi use of OUI 00-00-00

["David V James" <dvj@alum.mit.edu>]

Mike,

A couple of refinements:


>> (1) I don't think that 802 need to be allocated an OUI.  All that needs
>> happen is that an OUI be allocated for use by "the body that
>> standardises the protocol in which the OUI is used".  So in this case,
>> TGi could make use of the OUI, as the field in question is in a TGI
>> defined message, while the IETF could use exactly the same value in a
>> message that they defined.  The context means that there is no chance of
>> confusion.

Unique numbers should be unique, period. Reuse of the same number,
in a different context, would require the IEEE/RAC and requesters
to become experts at defining distinct "context". Such expertist is not
necessary if all unique numbers are unique, despite the context.
The applicable IEEE/RAC policy statement is online:

http://standards.ieee.org/regauth/oui/tutorials/UseOfEUI.html
However, duplication within each of these spaces is forbidden.
For example, the EUI-48 values that specify I/O driver software interfaces,
language codes, and hardware model numbers shall never overlap.
This no-overlap strategy is expected to reduce unintentional duplication
of EUI-48 values, by elimination of subjective application-class judgments,
although a few more EUI-48 values may be consumed.



>> (2) With the TGi format it is possible for an organisation to use an
>> (almost) arbitrarily long internal structure that is not limited to one
>> byte, or even five.  It's not obvious, and it's not terribly efficient,
>> but I would say that's a reasonable trade-off if it makes all the most
>> likely uses more efficient.

Relying on the organisation to define the proper subassignment
authorities is a risky business and has already resulted in several
failures. The applicable IEEE/RAC policy statement is online:

http://standards.ieee.org/regauth/oui/tutorials/UseOfEUI.html
The 24-bit OUI/company_id value is intended to identify the
organization that administers the remaining bits in
EUI-48 and EUI-64 values. The OUI/company_id value should not
be used (in isolation) to identify a vendor or the format of
vendor-dependent information. When necessary to identify the
vendor of a hardware device, an EUI-48 identifier should be used.
This allows large organizations to assign distinct EUI-48
identifiers, so that each division can be identified as a
distinct "vendor". Alternatively, small groups within an SDO
(standards development organization) could be identified by
distinct EUI-48 identifiers administered by their sponsoring body.


Also, please note that the OUI of an EUI-48 or EUI-64 is not
necessarily the OUI of the company that build the product.
Its simply the OUI of the company that assigned the remaining
dependent bits. Thus, your original statement that the IEEE 802
group doesn't need an OUI to define standards is true: a standard
only needs to find an OUI-assigned group willing to assign one
of their EUI-48 identifiers for this purpose. 


Respectfully,
DVJ


David V. James
3180 South Ct
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Home: +1.650.494.0926
      +1.650.856.9801
Cell: +1.650.954.6906
Fax:  +1.360.242.5508
Base: dvj@alum.mit.edu  

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mike Moreton [mailto:Mike.Moreton@synad.com]
>> Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 2:35 AM
>> To: David V James; CONGDON,PAUL (HP-Roseville,ex1); Geoff Thompson
>> Cc: Tony Jeffree; Johnston, Dj; David Halasz; stds-802-11@ieee.org; IEEE
>> 802.1; stds-rac@ieee.org; stds-802-sec@ieee.org;
>> millardo@dominetsystems.com
>> Subject: RE: [802.1] TGi use of OUI 00-00-00
>> 
>> 
>> David,
>> 
>> A couple of comments on your points:
>> 
>> (1) I don't think that 802 need to be allocated an OUI.  All that needs
>> happen is that an OUI be allocated for use by "the body that
>> standardises the protocol in which the OUI is used".  So in this case,
>> TGi could make use of the OUI, as the field in question is in a TGI
>> defined message, while the IETF could use exactly the same value in a
>> message that they defined.  The context means that there is no chance of
>> confusion.
>> 
>> (2) With the TGi format it is possible for an organisation to use an
>> (almost) arbitrarily long internal structure that is not limited to one
>> byte, or even five.  It's not obvious, and it's not terribly efficient,
>> but I would say that's a reasonable trade-off if it makes all the most
>> likely uses more efficient.
>> 
>> Mike Moreton
>> Synad Technologies Ltd.
>>  
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David V James [mailto:dvj@alum.mit.edu] 
>> Sent: 06 October 2003 06:26
>> To: CONGDON,PAUL (HP-Roseville,ex1); 'Geoff Thompson'; Mike Moreton
>> Cc: Tony Jeffree; Johnston, Dj; David Halasz; stds-802-11@ieee.org; IEEE
>> 802.1; stds-rac@ieee.org; stds-802-sec@ieee.org;
>> millardo@dominetsystems.com
>> Subject: RE: [802.1] TGi use of OUI 00-00-00
>> 
>> Paul,
>> 
>> There are sort-of two questions here, I think.
>> 
>> 1) Can an organization/standard get an OUI?
>>    Yes. One should be sufficient for all of 802.
>>    I know the MSC has one, I suspect that 802
>>    already has one.
>> 
>> 2) Is a single OUI sufficient to identify the
>>    format and function of organizationally-specific data?
>>    (if this happens to be applicable).
>>    No. An EUI-48 or EUI-64 serves this need.
>>    See extact below.
>> 
>> http://standards.ieee.org/regauth/oui/tutorials/UseOfEUI.html
>> The 24-bit OUI/company_id value is intended to identify the
>> organization that administers the remaining bits in
>> EUI-48 and EUI-64 values. The OUI/company_id value should not
>> be used (in isolation) to identify a vendor or the format
>> of vendor-dependent information. When necessary to identify
>> the vendor of a hardware device, an EUI-48 identifier
>> should be used. This allows large organizations to assign
>> distinct EUI-48 identifiers, so that each division can be
>> identified as a distinct "vendor". Alternatively, small groups
>> within an SDO (standards development organization) could be
>> identified by distinct EUI-48 identifiers administered by
>> their sponsoring body.
>> 
>> DVJ
>> IEEE/RAC member
>> 
>> 
>> David V. James
>> 3180 South Ct
>> Palo Alto, CA 94306
>> Home: +1.650.494.0926
>>       +1.650.856.9801
>> Cell: +1.650.954.6906
>> Fax:  +1.360.242.5508
>> Base: dvj@alum.mit.edu
>> 
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: owner-stds-rac@majordomo.ieee.org
>> >> [mailto:owner-stds-rac@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of CONGDON,PAUL
>> >> (HP-Roseville,ex1)
>> >> Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 10:07 PM
>> >> To: 'Geoff Thompson'; Mike Moreton
>> >> Cc: Tony Jeffree; Johnston, Dj; David Halasz; stds-802-11@ieee.org;
>> IEEE
>> >> 802.1; stds-rac@ieee.org; stds-802-sec@ieee.org;
>> >> millardo@dominetsystems.com
>> >> Subject: RE: [802.1] TGi use of OUI 00-00-00
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Throughout this discussion, there has been suggestion of allocating a
>> >> 'no-vendor' OUI?  Why is this necessary?  Why doesn't OUI imply
>> >> 'Organizational Unique Identifier' such as 802.11 or 802.1 or 802.3?
>> Why
>> >> can't these 'Organizations' have an OUI?   I keep hearing words about
>> >> commercial entities (aka businesses) having to be responsible
>> >> for OUIs.   It
>> >> would seem to make sense to me for 802.11 to ask for an OUI that
>> >> they could
>> >> use to identify cipher suites (and other things) that they define.
>> >>
>> >> Paul
>> >>
>> 
>>