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

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

Mike,

Another point that I missed was that the IEEE/RAC sells IABs,
which are (in essence) an IEEE assigned 24-bit OUI followed by
a 12-bit unique subassignment, for a total of 36 bits.

This works well and is cost effective, for EUI-48 specified
standards. It doesn't work in your proposed applications. 

With respect to:
>> That's up to the body that does each standardisation.
The IEEE/RAC assumes some of this responsibility by default.

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 8:38 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,
>> 
>> I don't think that assigning an OUI to "the body that standardises the
>> protocol in which the OUI is used" means that the IEEE/RAC needs to
>> understand the different contexts.  That's up to the body that does each
>> standardisation.
>> 
>> For example, 802.11 know that they are the only people who define the
>> cipher suite selector field in the 802.11i RSN information element, so
>> it's reasonable for them to make use of this value for pre-defined
>> values of that field.  It wouldn't be reasonable for any other body to
>> make use of that value in that field, but it would be reasonable for
>> them to make use of it in a field they defined in one of their own
>> messages.
>> 
>> However, if people prefer unique to be really unique then fine.  I was
>> just pointing out that it wasn't theoretically necessary.
>> 
>> What I was saying about the TGi use is that in practice the OUI can be
>> followed by an almost arbitrary length byte stream (I'm glossing over
>> the detail) in a format defined by the owner of the OUI.  That means
>> that if an OUI owner wants to have a sub-structure of identifiers within
>> the byte stream, then it's up to them.  But equally, if another OUI
>> owner wants no sub-structure, and just a single byte, that will work as
>> well.
>> 
>> The mechanism is inefficient for the unusual case where a sub-structure
>> is required, but efficient for the common case where no sub-structure is
>> needed.  I think that's quite a desirable characteristic.
>> 
>> Mike Moreton
>> Synad Technologies Ltd.
>>  
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David V James [mailto:dvj@alum.mit.edu] 
>> Sent: 06 October 2003 16:10
>> To: Mike Moreton; 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
>> 
>> 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
>> >> >>
>> >> 
>> >> 
>>