[802SEC] Re: [802.1] Connectivity Fault Management draft PAR
- To: rbrand@nortelnetworks.com
- Subject: [802SEC] Re: [802.1] Connectivity Fault Management draft PAR
- From: Tony Jeffree <tony@jeffree.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 14:29:29 +0000
- Cc: Norman Finn <nfinn@cisco.com>, 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>
- In-Reply-To: <40576772.E995E5DB@americasm06.nt.com>
- References: <6.0.1.1.2.20040121094253.021f2978@mail.expressoweb.co.uk><4016DED0.A251BA52@americasm06.nt.com><40560EC2.9080206@cisco.com><40576772.E995E5DB@americasm06.nt.com>
- Sender: owner-stds-802-sec@majordomo.ieee.org
Richard -
Given the wide circulation of your reply to Norm, copied below, I think
it would now be appropriate for you to also widely circulate the fact
that, during the discussions between 802.3 and 802.1 participants in the
802.3 ad-hoc yesterday afternoon, 802.1 offered to present a tutorial in
July (this has now been booked), that you withdrew your objection to
progression of this draft PAR, and that no further objections were raised
by the 802.3 participants in the ad-hoc.
I should note that, as of 5pm yesterday, no written comments on this
draft PAR have been received by me from any 802 WG.
Regards,
Tony
At 20:45 16/03/2004, Richard Brand wrote:
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/
>
Regards,
Tony