Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

[802SEC] RE: [EFM-P2MP] FW: P2MP Voting Vancouver


By "If the IEEE reads ..." I trust you mean IEEE 802.
There already exists an 802 Working Group for Security. It is the 802.10 SILS (Standard for Interoperable LAN/MAN
Security) which was last revised in 1998. The work of the group was oriented to government needs rather than commercial. The group is in hibernation as it has no active PARs nor a currently active Working Group chair.

The group could form a reasonable foundation for an architecture of security and perhaps a basis to build upon for further work. The most essential thing that would be needed for further work is people to actually do the work. If a reasonable body of volunteers were to step up to the task I feel confident that 802 would be willing to reactivate the group.

Best regards,


At 05:38 PM 7/13/02 +0300, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
Exactly because security is a high concern in the eyes of customers and of the whole industry, the IEEE 802 needs to build its own structure to deal with security in a consistent manner, and not leave the security issues be dealt at different levels of rigor and expertise in the different 802 Working Groups. I think that the IEEE finds itself, as result of the extension of the applicability space of its standards and increase demand of real security from customers, at the same point where IETF was a few years ago. The result was in the IETF the creation of the Security Area, and the fact that all IETF standard track documents include a security section, and are scrutinized by security experts as part of the approval process. If the IEEE reads the writing on the wall, it should not delay the creation of a Security Working Group, that would take similar responsibilities.
-----Original Message-----
From: Mccammon, Kent G. []
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 10:49 AM
To: '';
Subject: RE: [EFM-P2MP] FW: P2MP Voting Vancouver

Thanks to you and the P2MP subtask force for working to bring some level of security to EPON to make a practical solution for the access market.  I want to emphasize that carriers will not deploy a shared system in a public network that does not have some level of security. In my companies case, we want PON to be very secure. The vote against the motion for added security today in the 802.3 Plenary was very disappointing.  Some people think that 802.3 is not the right place for this work. I would ask those who think 802.3 is not the right place for that work, what other group should do this work if not 802.3?  Alot of hard work and energy was put into working out that security in P2MP is needed and its only fair to those trying to crack the tough problems to know if their work to make a product for the access network (not the enterprise market) will be ruled out of scope in the end. 
-----Original Message-----
From: Gerry Pesavento []
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 10:54 PM
Subject: [EFM-P2MP] FW: P2MP Voting Vancouver

A few people asked me about P2MP Vancouver voting.
I posted my Baseline voting notes in
the file "p2mpvoting_1_0702.pdf", here:
Official minutes will appear on EFM website here:
In a nutshell, for P2MP:
- Clause 56, D0.9 passed
- EPON Layer Model passed
- Security objective did not pass
We will now move primarily to Drafting mode.  Open topics for conference calls will be FEC, # LLIDs per ONU, Clause 56/57 comments, etc.
Gerry Pesavento