Re: [ieee-ietf-coord] requesting an EtherType
Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Mon, 13 February 2017 16:43 UTC
Return-Path: <akatlas@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ieee-ietf-coord@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ieee-ietf-coord@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B03D91296DD; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 08:43:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bv9ts16807FI; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 08:43:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr0-x22d.google.com (mail-wr0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CBC53129614; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 08:43:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id o16so154510855wra.1; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 08:43:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ULXhKbAzoupzQrCsEUW4tY2rkXXlYB0sJ5sEvm+PV2A=; b=ThFTPtavvw59MUFQhPkdESvCZlBOQqHeZwJV9Sq4jFsjzJNJjIF+YQTh5UCiYFbAEY KvOa7PSTjOGWeAmXYVOuB4fH/oVw8JiiUdNm4lMJpkYjBe/UD0DbeaC3h7hrjh2UiLbd OnkRFOlxJLJ+Twz+OJlly/q+5nW1gpFSMP0ZshkPh/4inRwXcP9upcmpuGvYLKANC9H4 1vzubIoS30x82WmjvkQGKKF8x0VTUMnE69tsxRlffKclYyJ0QmS6dw0vOLok+eljY2uQ 4Vkzu7gKudoRYXlRVjZ/v/C0ATiA08BtQdNYlH7sBNTxsIizJ8pEvF3cs25bKHBIVeny vbVw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ULXhKbAzoupzQrCsEUW4tY2rkXXlYB0sJ5sEvm+PV2A=; b=Pha2Sdjb9ygFDD5yn5o5T0RGtlyRLDjlw9HMNcAOksZuU2uEV5sSjjPDIu7KZB7wb0 E67AlgA5YDfETpOba3lnNy4V2+5h12vJF9YAMrtgyw5S/R8p9gQLbQDGbV1/kg9066ry TQq5/MsYiq9evCQWrlhouY6PoKc+hWkI78jGUFNexiAquz2eD44BUMTwqOwlK9UbjSux +NptjDhUnUXn4PZ6SJ1hDA7tGCNxBPIFSIrMc3ND3tAj8wmC3qxZOwamUR4hS9XcTLJZ TnOfe6GBRkTZxTc/K8ckrJNtBOEpiu6MRVH6dJhqhhh+D1m3u6N/ZR3xugln1vMfEpJo 8Pzw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39n8Yha276iCrPQFIlNfBATVt6y+4qTpLrgLiVfuYk2+H1dUpY0Y2/o1hILpT4rd0LmFCTqqM28lWTfH2w==
X-Received: by 10.223.164.151 with SMTP id g23mr21201657wrb.86.1487004210167; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 08:43:30 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.142.108 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 08:43:29 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <0D118A7A-2B04-463F-B6B6-0F81D2384ADB@cox.net>
References: <CAG4d1rcF9PfaAJnJ2Rp85sMwgk1TiHXSXmFLthLwfqj-wR889g@mail.gmail.com> <CAF4+nEGM+opEw8NT2KQZRtF8tOPe_g8-NdUpiPaOQYDo0zm7dg@mail.gmail.com> <84ADCFD6-FDBC-4927-A88C-9BB699D081AB@cox.net> <CAFgnS4VEc_dgr4aV=x6zYayS4Z5ZdSKFGZh+ss5-D_=GMYb2SQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAF4+nEGusH7kC8wnShLRVDea8=eUDYwynS9bCuaH4cpu1WMhMA@mail.gmail.com> <CC583034-73B4-48DC-9F62-EFBDB6F1FB4A@cox.net> <0D118A7A-2B04-463F-B6B6-0F81D2384ADB@cox.net>
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:43:29 -0500
Message-ID: <CAG4d1rf4L-5OpMCQYko=QnnjbFu5cKy1sbbBUrg7AV0UGg1mBg@mail.gmail.com>
To: ROBERT GROW <bobgrow@cox.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045f1508ba06d505486c2534"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ieee-ietf-coord/3kMKe84gU_R4lf6P_9OUA7X3ITI>
Cc: "draft-ietf-forces-interfelfb@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-forces-interfelfb@ietf.org>, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>, "ieee-ietf-coord@ietf.org" <ieee-ietf-coord@ietf.org>, Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>, Dan Romascanu <dromasca@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [ieee-ietf-coord] requesting an EtherType
X-BeenThere: ieee-ietf-coord@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Management-level discussions between IEEE and IETF on topics of interest to both SDOs <ieee-ietf-coord.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ieee-ietf-coord>, <mailto:ieee-ietf-coord-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ieee-ietf-coord/>
List-Post: <mailto:ieee-ietf-coord@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ieee-ietf-coord-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieee-ietf-coord>, <mailto:ieee-ietf-coord-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:43:34 -0000
Hi Bob, Dan, and others, I put in a request for an Ethertype (reference # RA1474660860969) around Sept 24. I have heard absolutely nothing. It is now almost 5 months. This is for RFC 8013 <draft-ietf-forces-interfelfb-06.txt> which was approved before I put the request in. Could you please investigate what is going on?? Thanks, Alia On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 11:09 AM, ROBERT GROW <bobgrow@cox.net> wrote: > Dan: > > Your suggestion is consistent with what the RAC has encouraged both > IEEE-SA projects and the RA to do on Ethertype, Group Address and similar > assignments for IEEE standards. We resist providing the assignment early > in the process, but are happy to make the assignment for inclusion in the > draft for initial IEEE-SA Sponsor ballot. Up to that point the RAC prefers > the value to be listed in the draft in a way indicating the value will be > assigned for Sponsor ballot. Perhaps we have done a poor job in > communicating that concept to the IETF for inclusion in the draft at a > similar point of stability. Perhaps a little more formal process > description will help to spread the knowledge a bit broader. > > —Bob > > > > On Sep 25, 2016, at 8:21 AM, Dan Romascanu <dromasca@gmail.com> wrote: > > Bob, > > Thank you very much for your detailed answer, which helps to clarify many > issues. > > I have only two comments. > > 1. The IETF definitely respects and appreciates the challenges in managing > number spaces, and the process put in place by the RAC to best administrate > the spaces under its responsibility. We face similar issues with numbers > under our responsibilities, and you may be sure that the IETF WGs and the > IESG make all that is possible and we know to do in order to avoid > submitting frivolous applications. > > 2. This being said, mistakes can happen, and applications may not include > from the beginning all required information. What I would suggest that we > do in the spirit of cooperation between the IETF and the IEEE 802 is to > avoid as possible the errors and at the same time do best effort to shorten > processing time. That is why when a document is sent to the ieee-ietf > coordination list with a clear indication that it includes some kind of > request for assignment from the RAC, it would be useful to be reviewed as > early as possible - desirably at WGLC or IETF LC, and not after the > document approval by the IESG (which is roughly equivalent to passing an > IEEE Sponsor Ballot). Also, after the application is submitted, it would be > good to have some confirmation that it was received and is under > processing, and when possible an answer earlier than three months. Note > that this time is from the IETF publication process a complete freeze in > waiting for the answer, which impacts the 'time-to-market'. > > Regards, > > Dan > > > On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 11:18 AM, ROBERT GROW <bobgrow@cox.net> wrote: > >> IETF folk will appreciate the challenges that occur as a result of >> exhausting a number space. The Ethertype field does not provide a huge >> number space and consequently, conservative assignments for new >> applications is considered important. Avoiding the need to come back for >> additional assignments is the major focus of what the review process looks >> for. These design items could certainly be examined early in the >> development of a draft. Highlighting that the protocol was designed with >> these considerations will accelerate the review of an application. >> >> The Ethertype tutorial (http://standards.ieee.org/dev >> elop/regauth/tut/ethertype.pdf) asked some of the questions that will be >> asked if not answered on the application. This includes use of a previous >> assignment, with its sub typing capability, and certainly designing the new >> protocol to include sub typing. Simply pointing the Registration Authority >> (RA) to the draft isn’t going to be as easy to review as an application >> that either explains the important characteristics of the protocol, or >> points to where in the draft the information can be found. >> >> 1. For example, explaining that the protocol was prototyped using IEEE >> Std 802-2014, sub clause 9.2 answers most of the questions that would be >> asked about the protocol (with the assurance the the sub typing illustrated >> in that standard’s Figure 12 has been preserved). >> >> 2. Absent that using that familiar format for subtype information, help >> the reviewer understand how similar capabilities are provided. (E.g., how >> versions of the protocol will be identified, etc.) >> >> 3. Explaining that the protocol is unrelated to other IETF protocols >> previously having received an assignment is helpful. >> >> 4. Knowing the status of the protocol development/standardization is >> helpful, and can help with timely application review. There will be >> reluctance to make an early assignment (e.g., we want to design a protocol >> to …); because we want a high probability of the protocol being “real” >> rather than burning an Ethertype assignment for something that may not go >> anywhere. >> >> The application review isn’t supposed to be a protocol review (though if >> a reviewer see a possible fault, they may point that out). The IEEE RA and >> the RAC certainly respect the consensus process of the IETF. Just convince >> the RA that the application isn’t frivolous. >> >> —Bob >> >> >> On Sep 24, 2016, at 7:03 AM, Dan Romascanu <dromasca@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Can we maybe try to cut a little bit from the clerical process and make >> the earlier review of such requests part of our coordination, at least in >> what concerns the technical aspects? The Internet-Drafts were written with >> the purpose of providing the required technical documentation. They went >> through the IETF consensus process, with its principal milestones (LCs) >> also announced on this (ieee-ietf) list. I would suspect that if any >> important information was missing or the request was not targeting the >> right level, this would have been already flagged up. If something was >> somehow missed, we should know earlier than the three month typical >> response time. >> >> Thanks and Regards, >> >> Dan >> >> >> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 6:07 AM, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I have limited network access right now. >>> >>> As I recall, you have to provide technical documentation (can reference >>> an Internet draft) which should mention sub typing, etc. (There have been >>> cases of tags where subtyping is not required but it's more difficult to >>> get through the system.) Generally there has been a contractor that >>> examines the application. >>> >>> If you want to know if your application is in process, I recommend >>> picking up the phone during business hours in the eastern US time zone and >>> calling the office that handles this. You will get a clerical person but at >>> least they can confirm that the application was received. >>> >>> I believe Pat Thaler has volunteered to informally assist but she may be >>> very busy today and might not get to email for a day or two. >>> >>> Donald >>> from iPhone >>> >>> >>> On Saturday, September 24, 2016, Dan Romascanu <dromasca@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Bob, >>>> >>>> Is there any way to accelerate this process and have responses or >>>> possible further clarification questions in a shorter time than the maximal >>>> 90 days? >>>> >>>> Thanks and Regards, >>>> >>>> Dan >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 3:05 PM, ROBERT GROW <bobgrow@cox.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> It is important to answer the questions on the form clearly, >>>>> especially about sub typing, including indication of why a new Ethertype is >>>>> needed versus using an existing IETF assignment. If the application has >>>>> already been submitted, and not sufficiently answered, you might get a >>>>> request for more information. The application is processed within 90 days. >>>>> >>>>> Bob Grow >>>>> Chair, IEEE-SA Registration Authority Committee. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sep 23, 2016, at 2:29 PM, Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> My recollection is that suresh has taken responsibility here and >>>>> submitted the request. >>>>> >>>>> - Ralph >>>>> >>>>> On Sep 23, 2016, at 3:24 PM, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Last time I did this, you just go to the public Ethertype request >>>>> site, fill out the form saying it is for standards use, indicate you >>>>> are going to pay by wire transfer, and interact with the IEEE office that >>>>> handles this and have the invoice amount set to zero. >>>>> >>>>> Donald >>>>> from iPhone >>>>> >>>>> On Friday, September 23, 2016, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> A document, draft-ietf-forces-interfelfb-06 >>>>>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-forces-interfelfb/>, >>>>>> was approved by the IESG for publication and is in the RFC Editor queue. >>>>>> >>>>>> I had assumed that the EtherType request would be made as part of the >>>>>> processing, as per https://www.ietf.org/iesg/ >>>>>> statement/ethertypes.html. That appears to not be the case. >>>>>> >>>>>> What is the correct procedure for officially requesting the EtherType >>>>>> so that this document can finally be published? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Alia >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> ieee-ietf-coord mailing list >>>>> ieee-ietf-coord@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieee-ietf-coord >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> ieee-ietf-coord mailing list >>>>> ieee-ietf-coord@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieee-ietf-coord >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> ieee-ietf-coord mailing list >>>>> ieee-ietf-coord@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieee-ietf-coord >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ieee-ietf-coord mailing list >> ieee-ietf-coord@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieee-ietf-coord >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > ieee-ietf-coord mailing list > ieee-ietf-coord@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieee-ietf-coord > > >
- [ieee-ietf-coord] requesting an EtherType Alia Atlas
- Re: [ieee-ietf-coord] requesting an EtherType Donald Eastlake
- Re: [ieee-ietf-coord] requesting an EtherType Ralph Droms
- Re: [ieee-ietf-coord] requesting an EtherType Alia Atlas
- Re: [ieee-ietf-coord] requesting an EtherType Ralph Droms
- Re: [ieee-ietf-coord] requesting an EtherType ROBERT GROW
- Re: [ieee-ietf-coord] requesting an EtherType Dan Romascanu
- Re: [ieee-ietf-coord] requesting an EtherType Donald Eastlake
- Re: [ieee-ietf-coord] requesting an EtherType Dan Romascanu
- Re: [ieee-ietf-coord] requesting an EtherType ROBERT GROW
- Re: [ieee-ietf-coord] requesting an EtherType Dan Romascanu
- Re: [ieee-ietf-coord] requesting an EtherType ROBERT GROW
- Re: [ieee-ietf-coord] requesting an EtherType Alia Atlas
- Re: [ieee-ietf-coord] requesting an EtherType Pat Thaler
- Re: [ieee-ietf-coord] requesting an EtherType Alia Atlas