[802SEC] Re: [802.1] Connectivity Fault Management draft PAR
Forwarded for a non-subscriber.
-Bob
-----Original Message-----
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 12:45:38 -0800
From: "Richard Brand" <rbrand@nortelnetworks.com>
Reply-To: rbrand@nortelnetworks.com
Organization: Nortel Networks
To: Norman Finn <nfinn@cisco.com>
CC: Tony Jeffree <tony@jeffree.co.uk>, Mick Seaman
<mick_seaman@ieee.org>,
Bob Grow <bob.grow@ieee.org>,
"Dinesh Mohan" <mohand@nortelnetworks.com>,
Malcom Betts <betts01@nortalnetworks.com>,
Ali Sajassi <sajassi@cisco.com>, stds-802-sec@ieee.org,
"IEEE 802.1" <stds-802-1@ieee.org>, dpannell@marvel.com,
"Malcolm Betts" <betts01@nortelnetworks.com>,
"Raymond Aubin" <aubin@nortelnetworks.com>,
"Brand, Richard [SC2:470:EXCH]" <RBRAND@nortelnetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [802.1] Connectivity Fault Management draft PAR
Norm:
Thank you for your reply. In answer to your inquiry about my position,
no I only
represent myself as a participating member of 802 as I stated in my
response to Mick
last month. In fact as you probably noticed last night when you walked
by, my
colleagues from Nortel talk to me regularly regarding my position.
However, after
re-reading the Connectivity Fault Management PAR and then listening
closely to the
Working Group reviews in the Monday 802 Plenary, I maintain my position
that 802.1 needs
to host a Tutorial on the subject prior to receiving a PAR approval.
In the Monday
reports, you would have heard many of the wireless groups from .11 to
.21 mention
connectivity (or lack thereof) work items that specifically match the
Scope statement in
the 802.1 PAR. Many if not most of these wireless LAN's and networks
will pass through
an 802.1 compatible bridge and I am a firm believer that the works of
all 802 Working
Groups should be co-ordinated as they relate to the domain of 802.1.
Tutorials and
Study Groups are the recognized procedures for this, and since I was
aware of your time
element, I did respond to Mick in time for 802.1 to request a Tutorial
slot at this
(March) plenary.
I am well aware of the work going on in ITU, both in SG15/Q12 where I am
a member of the
USA Delegation and where Malcolm Betts is rapporteur, and also in
SG13/Q3, and I am in
full agreement that service providers are quite active in those bodies.
However ITU is
an accredited body which operates with differing rules than does IEEE
802. My
(individual) position is not that the work as defined by the PAR is not
relevant and
should not be ultimately moved forward within 802.1. Quite the
contrary. My position
is only that the Connectivity Fault Management PAR as it is presently
written needs to
be socialized within all of 802. Earlier in the year I did my research
on the bridging
needs for the emerging wireline and wireless projects and then sent my
note out to Mick
with a copy to you in time to allow the scheduling of an 802 Tutorial or
Technical
Plenary at this meeting.
Since I still hold that there is a strong need for the socialization of
the 802.1
project in a time slot when any/most members of the other dot groups can
attend, I
remain opposed to the granting of a PAR at this Plenary.
Again, this is my position as an 802.3 voter and not a Nortel position.
When I attend
SG15 next month, I will support the need for such work within SG15, but
will also
verbalize the need for the ITU-R (Wireless) Working Groups to take a
part in the work
via a strong liaison.
Sincerely,
Richard Brand
Norman Finn wrote:
> Richard,
>
> Is this your company position? Dinesh Mohan, Malcom Betts, Ali
Sajassi, and I have
> been working in close cooperation for some time in order to make sure
that the
> excellent work being done in ITU-T Q.3/13, where there is an excellent
understanding
> of providers and their needs, is complemented by work in IEEE 802.1,
which has a
> correspondingly acute understanding of the Ethernet MAC service in
general, and of
> bridges, in particular. For either group to progress without the
other would be
> dangerous to the industry and to the progression of "Metro Ethernet"
standards. It
> is essential that both groups work together. This is my understanding
of the
> positions of the above individuals, of our respective companies, and
of the two
> Working Groups. This has been the subject of considerable discussion
and, I firmly
> believed, agreement among us all. I copy all of the above, of course;
I wouldn't
> want to put words in their mouths.
>
> -- Norm
>
> Richard Brand wrote:
> > Tony:
> > Having read the draft, seeing a portion of the very large slide
presentation made
> > at the January interim, and then rereading the scope of this PAR
covering
> > "transport fault management", I would offer that this is major new
work effort
> > for 802.1 that could have a major effect on many if not all 802
members. Fault
> > management has potential applicability to all 802 LANs.
> > Given this scope, I would strongly recommend that an 802.1 Study
Group be formed
> > for this activity before the requesting of a PAR, in order to give
notice for all
> > 802 members of your intentions. However, in line with the contents
of Procedure
> > 2, I would settle for an evening tutorial presentation in March as
is "highly
> > recommended" in the Procedure. This would allow all 802 members the
opportunity
> > to participate/provide input for a potential PAR in July.
> > In this case, I am speaking for myself as a member and not for the
802.3 Working
> > Group, however I will bring it up to my group at our March plenary.
FYI, 802.3
> > ran thru many study group meetings in arriving at an acceptable
scope for our OAM
> > segment of P802.3ah and we only had one MAC to deal with.
> > Regards,
> > Richard Brand
> > Liaison rep from 802.3 to 802.1
> >
> >
> >
> > Tony Jeffree wrote:
> >
> >
> >>This is notification under Procedure 2 - "Procedure for PARs" that
802.1
> >>intends to request SEC approval of the following draft PAR at the
March
> >>2004 closing SEC meeting:
> >>
>
>>http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2004/ConnectivityFaultPAR-v1
.2a.doc
> >>
> >>Regards,
> >>Tony
> >>
> >>=>IEEE 802.1 Email List user information:
> >>http://www.ieee802.org/1/email-pages/
> >
--------------44CA635DACAAF243D55D8BD6
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Norm:
<br>Thank you for your reply. In answer to your inquiry about my
position, no I only represent myself as a participating member of 802 as
I stated in my response to Mick last month. In fact as you
probably
noticed last night when you walked by, my colleagues from Nortel talk to
me regularly regarding my position. However, after re-reading the
Connectivity Fault Management PAR and then listening closely to the
Working
Group reviews in the Monday 802 Plenary, I maintain my position that
802.1
needs to host a Tutorial on the subject prior to receiving a PAR
approval.
In the Monday reports, you would have heard many of the wireless groups
from .11 to .21 mention connectivity (or lack thereof) work items that
specifically match the Scope statement in the 802.1 PAR. Many if
not most of these wireless LAN's and networks will pass through an 802.1
compatible bridge and I am a firm believer that the works of all 802
Working
Groups should be co-ordinated as they relate to the domain of
802.1.
Tutorials and Study Groups are the recognized procedures for this, and
since I was aware of your time element, I did respond to Mick in time
for
802.1 to request a Tutorial slot at this (March) plenary.
<p>I am well aware of the work going on in ITU, both in SG15/Q12 where
I am a member of the USA Delegation and where Malcolm Betts is
rapporteur,
and also in SG13/Q3, and I am in full agreement that service providers
are quite active in those bodies. However ITU is an accredited
body
which operates with differing rules than does IEEE 802. My
(individual)
position is <b>not</b> that the work as defined by the PAR is not
relevant
and should not be ultimately moved forward within 802.1. Quite the
contrary. My position is only that the Connectivity Fault
Management
PAR as it is presently written needs to be socialized within all of
802.
Earlier in the year I did my research on the bridging needs for the
emerging
wireline and wireless projects and then sent my note out to Mick with a
copy to you in time to allow the scheduling of an 802 Tutorial or
Technical
Plenary at this meeting.
<p>Since I still hold that there is a strong need for the socialization
of the 802.1 project in a time slot when any/most members of the other
dot groups can attend, I remain opposed to the granting of a PAR at this
Plenary.
<p>Again, this is my position as an 802.3 voter and not a Nortel
position.
When I attend SG15 next month, I will support the need for such work
within
SG15, but will also verbalize the need for the ITU-R (Wireless) Working
Groups to take a part in the work via a strong liaison.
<br>Sincerely,
<br>Richard Brand
<p>Norman Finn wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Richard,
<p>Is this your company position? Dinesh Mohan, Malcom Betts, Ali
Sajassi, and I have
<br>been working in close cooperation for some time in order to make
sure
that the
<br>excellent work being done in ITU-T Q.3/13, where there is an
excellent
understanding
<br>of providers and their needs, is complemented by work in IEEE 802.1,
which has a
<br>correspondingly acute understanding of the Ethernet MAC service in
general, and of
<br>bridges, in particular. For either group to progress without
the other would be
<br>dangerous to the industry and to the progression of "Metro Ethernet"
standards. It
<br>is essential that both groups work together. This is my
understanding
of the
<br>positions of the above individuals, of our respective companies, and
of the two
<br>Working Groups. This has been the subject of considerable
discussion
and, I firmly
<br>believed, agreement among us all. I copy all of the above, of
course; I wouldn't
<br>want to put words in their mouths.
<p>-- Norm
<p>Richard Brand wrote:
<br>> Tony:
<br>> Having read the draft, seeing a portion of the very large slide
presentation
made
<br>> at the January interim, and then rereading the scope of this PAR
covering
<br>> "transport fault management", I would offer that this is major new
work effort
<br>> for 802.1 that could have a major effect on many if not all
802 members. Fault
<br>> management has potential applicability to all 802 LANs.
<br>> Given this scope, I would strongly recommend that an 802.1 Study
Group be formed
<br>> for this activity before the requesting of a PAR, in order to give
notice for all
<br>> 802 members of your intentions. However, in line with the
contents
of Procedure
<br>> 2, I would settle for an evening tutorial presentation in March as
is "highly
<br>> recommended" in the Procedure. This would allow all 802
members
the opportunity
<br>> to participate/provide input for a potential PAR in July.
<br>> In this case, I am speaking for myself as a member and not for the
802.3 Working
<br>> Group, however I will bring it up to my group at our March
plenary.
FYI, 802.3
<br>> ran thru many study group meetings in arriving at an acceptable
scope
for our OAM
<br>> segment of P802.3ah and we only had one MAC to deal with.
<br>> Regards,
<br>> Richard Brand
<br>> Liaison rep from 802.3 to 802.1
<br>>
<br>>
<br>>
<br>> Tony Jeffree wrote:
<br>>
<br>>
<br>>>This is notification under Procedure 2 - "Procedure for PARs" that
802.1
<br>>>intends to request SEC approval of the following draft PAR at the
March
<br>>>2004 closing SEC meeting:
<br>>>
<br>>><a
href="http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2004/ConnectivityFaultPA
R-v1.2a.doc">http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2004/Connectivity
FaultPAR-v1.2a.doc</a>
<br>>>
<br>>>Regards,
<br>>>Tony
<br>>>
<br>>>=>IEEE 802.1 Email List user information:
<br>>><a
href="http://www.ieee802.org/1/email-pages/";>http://www.ieee802.org/1/em
ail-pages/</a>
<br>></blockquote>
</html>