Re: [ieee-ietf-coord] requesting an EtherType

[Alia Atlas <[e-mail]>]

Pat,

Thank you very much!  I just got the assignment.

Regards,
Alia

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Pat Thaler <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I'm looking into it.
>
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 8:43 AM, Alia Atlas <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]>
>>>> 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 <[e-mail]>
>>>>> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>> 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 <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>> 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 <[e-mail]> 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
>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieee-ietf-coord
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> ieee-ietf-coord mailing list
>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieee-ietf-coord
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> ieee-ietf-coord mailing list
>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieee-ietf-coord
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> ieee-ietf-coord mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieee-ietf-coord
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ieee-ietf-coord mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieee-ietf-coord
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ieee-ietf-coord mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieee-ietf-coord
>>
>>
>