[802SEC] Re: [802.1] Connectivity Fault Management draft PAR
Forwarded for a nonsubscriber.
-Bob
-----Original Message-----
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 10:12:36 -0500
From: Norman Finn <nfinn@cisco.com>
To: rbrand@nortelnetworks.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>
Subject: Re: [802.1] Connectivity Fault Management draft PAR
Thanks for clarifying this, Richard. I understand, now. It is always
difficult for those participating in writing a PAR, which is required
to be very, very brief, to convey all of the assumptions that they
shared when writing that PAR. Those assumptions, which are not shared
by all readers, are often not apparent, and cause great confusion. I
trust that the .3 ad-hoc meeting, yesterday, served to satisfy your
concerns.
-- Norm
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/
>> >
>>