Tuesday, March 16, 2010

What the Letters on 802.1 Ethernet Standards Stand For

November 3, 2009 by Greg Ferro · Leave a Comment 

In a recent blog post Paul Congdon from HP talks about his twelve years on the 802.1 stand­ards body and cur­rent focus. I’m not sure that boast­ing of 12 years on the IEEE 802.1 com­mit­tee is a worth­while accom­plish­ment because I tend to the view that that the IEEE is worst pos­sible stand­ards body for stew­ard­ship of Ethernet as meet­ing are privately con­duc­ted, attendees pay for mem­ber­ship and they can’t make up their minds about any­thing, prob­ably because of the money involved and the ves­ted interests at stake. 

For example, LLDP took years to get done, and recently com­pleted 802.11 for wire­less eth­er­net is a com­plete debacle. The new DCB stand­ards are now 1 year behind the ori­ginal prom­ise, and get­ting fur­ther and fur­ther out. 

Anyway, can’t be changed. I’ll just have to bite down on that.

The Letters in 802.1 Standards

IEEE 8021. logo.jpg

The 802.1 web­site at http://​www​.ieee802​.org/1/ (You really have to check out this web­site to believe it, straight from 1996!!) says the following:

Project nam­ing: 802.1 pro­jects are iden­ti­fied using pro­ject names such as 802.1Q, 802.1ad, and 802.1Qat. Following the “802.1″ are one, two, three or even four let­ters. Upper case let­ters identify (stan­dalone) stand­ards, and lower-​​case let­ters identify amend­ments (pre­vi­ously called sup­ple­ments) to exist­ing stand­ards. There should never be two pro­jects dif­fer­ing only in the case of these let­ters! The three– and four-​​letter forms have been intro­duced to bet­ter identify amend­ments. In this scheme, the first one or two let­ters (always upper­case) identify the stand­ard being amended, and the last two (always lowecase) identify the pro­ject doing the amend­ing. The nota­tion 802.1Q-REV is used to identify a revi­sion of an exist­ing stand­ard: these are more extens­ive changes to the exist­ing text than can be under­taken in an amend­ment. Previously, revi­sions also had their own pro­ject names.

Not really help­ful, eh.

More detail from Paul Congdon

The money quote from the party polit­ical piece on HP’s website:

“First of all, the let­ters them­selves don’t have any spe­cific mean­ing and are just incre­men­ted alpha­bet­ic­ally as we start a new stand­ard. After 802.1z we rolled to 802.1aa, then 802.1ab and so on. It was just pure coin­cid­ence that 802.1p was the stand­ard for “priority.”

Now for the more con­fus­ing part: the cap­it­al­iz­a­tion. Historically, a cap­ital let­ter denoted a “stand-​​alone” doc­u­ment and a lower-​​case let­ter denoted an update to an exist­ing stand-​​alone doc­u­ment. For example, 802.1AB is a stand-​​alone stand­ard — you should be able to simply pick up that doc­u­ment and start imple­ment­ing. A stand­ard such as 802.1s — mul­tiple Spanning Trees — was a sup­ple­ment to the VLAN stand­ard 802.1Q to add mul­tiple span­ning trees.

Recently we have adop­ted a new nota­tion with even more inform­a­tion in the name. The lower-​​case let­ters still denote an update to another stand-​​alone stand­ard, but we now list that stand-​​alone stand­ard in the name, as well. For example, 802.1Qaw is an update to 802.1Q to add man­age­ment of data-​​driven and data-​​dependent con­nectiv­ity faults.

Finally, if a stand-​​alone stand­ard is being com­pletely revised, then we put the nota­tion REV in the name. For example, 802.1X-REV is the next gen­er­a­tion of 802.1X that will be pro­duced. When the stand­ard is finally com­pleted, we add the year to the end. So IEEE 802.1AE-2006 is the com­pleted stand­ard for MACSec.

And that appears to be it. Logical, coher­ent and eas­ily worked out — eh?. Man, I just love work­ing with ‘professionals’.

PS: IEEE Membership

I did sign up to the IEEE last year as a mem­ber (not the 802.1 com­mit­tee, I don’t have that much money). However, when I went to renew my mem­ber­ship they didn’t take online payments.

I can­celled my membership.

Please rate this post:

  Why Rate Posts?
1 Star - It\\\'s Crud2 Stars - It\\\'s Tosh3 Stars - Something\\\'s missing4 Stars - Needs works5 Stars - Good Enough6 Stars - Good7 Stars - Excellent8 Stars - Brilliant9 Stars - Astonishing10 Stars - Awesomely Godlike? (3 votes, average: 4.33 out of 10)
Loading ... Loading ...

Speak Your Mind

Tell us what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!