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

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

Mick,

I appreciate your detailed rationale, but I don't understand
your position.

The best that I can tell is that Mick throught DVJ advocated an
UOI for each dot group, which DVJ did not.

DVJ simply noted that each group (802 and MSC, for example) can
own OUIs and assign EUI-48 numbers to subgroups as needed.

DVJ knows that MSC has a number to do this, DVJ believes that
802 does also.

Is Mick's position the same as DVJ's?
If not, can you summarize your position, without reference to
past email (the links are hard to follow) and decoupled the
position statement from the rationale? Until then, I'm clueless.

(This gets harder with another Dave in the loop, so I'm using
DVJ to clarify the distinction between authors).

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]On Behalf Of Mick Seaman
>> Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 11:42 AM
>> To: 'David V James'; 'CONGDON,PAUL (HP-Roseville,ex1)'; 'Mike Moreton';
>> '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 disagree (handing OUIs to every dot group for each group to
>> individually
>> perform suballocation). An unnecessary plethora of suballocations in the
>> standards space is a recipe for assigning the same number to something
>> twice. If a few values are to be assigned then checking the value against
>> criteria for assignment (approved standard/developed by an accredited
>> standards organization/use well described in specification). 802.1 has
>> provided this technical service for Standard Group MAC Addresses for some
>> time, there is no reason why the same process can't cope with the modest
>> number of allocations required. Of course if a dot group needs
>> an OUI for a
>> well defined, non-colliding purpose then it should by all means
>> acquire one,
>> but simply broadcasting this facility is unwise.
>>
>> A few years back we had a political disaster due to the assignment of two
>> different LSAP vales to the same network protocol. At one stage
>> there was a
>> serious suggestion that a third value be assigned so that "nobody won".
>> While it seems very nice for a dot group to be able to assign
>> numbers from a
>> pool without ever bothering anyone else there can be
>> considerable shock when
>> it is found that in fact the application of the number is slightly larger
>> than first thought.
>>
>> Of course dot groups don't get to assign numbers outside a process of
>> documenting the numbers in a standard. The actual 802.1
>> procedure was that
>> formally ISO assigned the number and documented it in a technical report
>> following an 802.1 recommendation, based on an OUI previously
>> assigned for
>> this (and similar purposes). Now the recording function is
>> performed by the
>> IEEE RA. Any dot group that has an allocation function that
>> cannot be fixed
>> for all time by writing the numbers in a standard prior to standards
>> approval needs a way of publishing the numbers - this is not an ad hoc
>> process.
>>
>> Mick
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-stds-rac@majordomo.ieee.org
>> [mailto:owner-stds-rac@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of David V James
>> Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 9:09 AM
>> To: CONGDON,PAUL (HP-Roseville,ex1); Mike Moreton; 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
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul,
>>
>> Your proposal sounds good, with a small refinement.
>> A revised possibility is:
>>
>> "IEEE 802 should allocate an OUI for 802 protocols,
>> and then assign EUI-48s to each of the dot groups so
>> that each attribute can be uniquely defined."
>>
>> This avoids the overheads and complexities of
>> subassignments within each dot group.
>>
>> An upside of this is that any group (not just the
>> dot groups) can assign attribute identifiers, and
>> can use the more convenient and less costly
>> Individual Address Block (IAB)for this purpose.
>>
>> FYI, the IAB is effectively a subset of an OUI,
>> assigned by the IEEE/RAC, for the purposes of
>> defining a small number of MAC address and/or
>> EUI-48 identifiers.
>> http://standards.ieee.org/regauth/oui/pilot-ind.html
>>
>> 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: CONGDON,PAUL (HP-Roseville,ex1) [mailto:paul.congdon@hp.com]
>> >> Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 8:45 AM
>> >> To: 'David V James'; 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
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Given this discussion and with respect to LLDP (802.1AB) and the
>> >> Organizationally Specific Attributes structure we are defining,
>> >> perhaps IEEE
>> >> 802 should allocate an OUI for 802 protocols, and then assign an
>> >> EUI-48 for
>> >> each of the dot groups so their sets of attributes can be
>> >> uniquely defined.
>> >> The downside of this is the extra overhead being passed around.
>> >>
>> >> The single, "body that standardizes the protocol in which the
>> >> OUI is used"
>> >> alternative to each dot group having their own OUI doesn't
>> work for LLDP
>> >> where multiple sets of attributes may appear in the same frame.
>> >>
>> >> Paul
>> >>
>> >> > -----Original Message-----
>> >> > From: David V James [mailto:dvj@alum.mit.edu]
>> >> > Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 8:10 AM
>> >> > 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
>> >> > >> >>
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>>
>>
>>