RE: [802.1] TGi use of OUI 00-00-00
Mick,
>> Opinions of other RAC members may differ,
>> I don't believe we have resolution on this point.
I agree, no full consensue on this. I believe there
is resolution of (1) and (2), while (3) is in debate.
1) Resolution that EUI-48 would be OK to identify protocols
(these tutorials have been stable for years).
2) Observation that (1) would allow use of IABs for this
purpose.
3) Future use of EUI-XX, where XX is a different use,
has no current consensus in IEEE/RAC (I, for one,
believe EUI-48 and EUI-64 are sufficient).
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: owner-stds-rac@majordomo.ieee.org
>> [mailto:owner-stds-rac@majordomo.ieee.org]
>> Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 11:49 AM
>> To: 'Johnston, Dj'; 'Hal Keen'
>> Cc: stds-802-11@ieee.org; 'IEEE 802.1'; stds-rac@ieee.org;
>> stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>> Subject: RE: [802.1] TGi use of OUI 00-00-00
>>
>>
>>
>> DJ,
>>
>> The EUI in general is a relatively recent invention, a logical
>> abstraction of the EUI-64. The precise terminology is due to
>> David James, he has been working to tidy up and give form to the
>> whole subject. The tutorials are still under discussion by the
>> RAC. They are the best gudelines we have to the entire thought
>> procedure of use and derivation of new identifiers.
>>
>> Until recently information describing the OUI and the derivation
>> of MAC Addresses has been thought sufficient. Other derived
>> identifiers have been addressed on a case by case basis. There
>> is a 40 bit identifier, for example, in IEE Std 802.2 for the "SNAP SAP".
>>
>> I for one, as a RAC member and from a technical point of view,
>> can see no reason why a cipher suite could not be identified by
>> a valid OUI (3 octets) concatenated with a single further octet.
>> As I understand it the number of further values is exceedingly
>> small - 4 so far (skipping over an escape value and a reserved
>> value, but including all grandfathered in values), and with
>> every prospect that the rate of addition to the numbers will be
>> exceedingly small (less than one every 3 years) and declining. I
>> can see no reason why a further 24 bit field would be required
>> to encode the 6 code points. Opinions of other RAC members may
>> differ, I don't believe we have resolution on this point.
>>
>> 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: Monday, October 06, 2003 10:34 AM
>> To: Hal Keen
>> Cc: stds-802-11@ieee.org; IEEE 802.1; stds-rac@ieee.org;
>> stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>> Subject: RE: [802.1] TGi use of OUI 00-00-00
>>
>>
>>
>> Hal,
>>
>> I think I know the answer to this one. Two things need fixing.
>>
>> 1) There is a complete absense of a useful OUI/EUI/whatever to enable
>> standards to create selection tables with vendor proprietary entries. I
>> certainly hope that the RAC assign one for this purpose at the next
>> meeting since it's the least messy route to a solution for .11i, LinkSec
>> and anything else comes along.
>>
>> 2) The extreme cunning with which the information on the use and nature
>> of OUIs and EUIs has been hidden needs to be undone. Around the time
>> that this thread started, I went searching the IEEE site to educate
>> myself. I found the 802 document describing MAC addresses and OUIs and
>> the RAC pages which provided a submission form and a list of assigned
>> OUIs and not much else.
>>
>> What I never found was any reference to an EUI or the rules for OUIs and
>> EUIs. In fact I didn't know an EUI existed until David James posted the
>> http://standards.ieee.org/regauth/oui/tutorials/UseOfEUI.html address.
>> An hour searching with google and the IEEE search tool didn't reveal
>> this little gem.
>>
>> So a link on the RAC pages to 'What the actually rules are' would at
>> least empower us (standards writers) to know the rules of the game we
>> are playing without invoking Sherlock Holmes mode.
>>
>> 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)
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Hal Keen [mailto:Hal.Keen@att.net]
>> > Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 7:53 AM
>> > To: Geoff Thompson; David Halasz
>> > Cc: Mike Moreton; Tony Jeffree; Johnston, Dj;
>> > 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
>> >
>> >
>> > Dave:
>> >
>> > Okay, I'll bite; I'm one (actually half) of the 802.2 committee in
>> > hibernation and a longtime student of the evolution of the
>> > O&A. (Not by any
>> > means the most senior; quite a number of us in 802.1 remember
>> > when the "OUI"
>> > term was invented.)
>> >
>> > What do you imagine needs to be fixed, with regard to this
>> > matter, in 802.2?
>> > and, for that matter, in the O&A?
>> >
>> > Hal Keen
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "David Halasz" <dhala@cisco.com>
>> > Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 7:38 AM
>> > Subject: RE: [802.1] TGi use of OUI 00-00-00
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Thanks Geoff,
>> > >
>> > > I trust you will proceed to fix 802.2 and the 802 Overview and
>> > Architecture
>> > > document.
>> > >
>> > > Dave H.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
winmail.dat