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

[Pat Thaler <[e-mail]>]

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
>
>