doc.: IEEE 802.15-<492> <month year> November 2015 802.15 Responses to PAR/CSD Comments Received includes: Comment from a NesCom Member Comments from 802.3 Comments from 802.11 Comments from James P K Gilb Bob Heile, Wi-SUN Alliance <author>, <company>

November 2015 NesCom comment on 802.15.4u (from Osama Aboulmagd) Amendment for use of the Indian 865-867 MHz band. PAR: The title includes; "Amendment for use of the Indian 865-867 MHz band". I believe the scope language is more appropriate and I suggest using it in the title, "use of the 865-867 MHz band in India". There is nothing Indian about the band mentioned :-). Response: Agree. Change made Bob Heile, Wi-SUN Alliance

Comments from Dr. Gilb on 802.15.4t November 2015 Comments from Dr. Gilb on 802.15.4t PAR: 5.2.b - The scope does not specify a target range for the resulting standard. Is it 1 m, 1 km, 1 lightyear? Please specify a target range with numerical distance target. Response: Noted. “Target range should be at least 10 meters.” added to scope CSD: 1.1.1 - Adding a new PHY mode will likely require defining new managed objects (i.e., PIB entries) to control the use of the PHY. Modify a) to say: "While no new managed objects are anticipated, any managed objects that are required will be defined as part of the project.“ Response: Agree. 1.1.1a modified to reflect the suggested language Bob Heile, Wi-SUN Alliance

Comments from Dr. Gilb on 802.15.4u November 2015 Comments from Dr. Gilb on 802.15.4u PAR: 5.2.b - The scope does not specify a target range or data rate for the resulting standard. Is the range 1 m, 1 km, 1 lightyear? Is the data rate 1 kb/s or 10 Gb/s? Please specify a target range with numerical distance target and target data rates with numerical values. Response: Noted. “The supported data rate should be at least 40 kbits per second and the typical Line of Sight (LOS) range should be on the order of 5 km using omni directional antennae.” CSD: 1.1.1 - Adding a new PHY mode will likely require defining new managed objects (i.e., PIB entries) to control the use of the PHY. Modify a) to say: "While no new managed objects are anticipated, any managed objects that are required will be defined as part of the project.“ Response: Agree. 1.1.1a modified to reflect the suggested language CSD: Editorial: 1.2.1 a) and 1.2.3, use a space between 867 and MHz. Response: Space added Bob Heile, Wi-SUN Alliance

November 2015 Comments from 802.3 on 802.15.4t Amendment for a Higher Rate Physical (PHY) Layer PAR: The use of “High(er)” is problematic. We believe it will be unacceptable to NesCom and that publication editors will not accept that form for a standard title. Please pick one (High or Higher), Response: agree. We picked “Higher” CSD: Managed Objects — Is it really the case that 802.15.4 does not include any attribute that indicates to local STA what the capabilities of the wireless device are?  If there is a capabilities attribute, then the new capability would have to be added. If there is no attribute the current answer is self contradictory, it say Yes but it has already been done by other projects. Response: noted. 1.1.1a has been changed to read: “While no new managed objects are anticipated, any managed objects that are required will be defined as part of the project.” Bob Heile, Wi-SUN Alliance

November 2015 Comments from 802.3 on 802.15.4t Amendment for a Higher Rate Physical (PHY) Layer CSD: Technical Feasibility — There is nothing in the answer to a) that answers the question of b).  Therefore, the answer to b) is insufficient. Response: Replaced the answer to b) with “Bluetooth is probably the most visible example of similar technology in terms of speed and complexity. In addition, there are other 15.4 modes in volume shipment that deliver these speeds, just not with the modulation and backward compatibility required by this project neither of which require any technical innovation to achieve.” Bob Heile, Wi-SUN Alliance

November 2015 Comments from 802.3 on 802.15.4t Amendment for a Higher Rate Physical (PHY) Layer CSD: Economic Feasibility — There is nothing in the answer to a) that answers the question of d), but it is lightly addressed in Technical Feasibility a). Response: Answers have been updated to the following: b) Known cost factors: Devices of similar functionality are in high volume shipment today, so cost factors are well known and acceptable c) Consideration of installation costs: No special manufacturing requirements for use of these devices are needed d) Consideration of operational costs (e.g., energy consumption): These are low energy consumption components which are part of a larger product. The increased functionality will actually enable a decrease in the overall energy consumption of both the device and the product. Bob Heile, Wi-SUN Alliance

November 2015 Comments from 802.3 on 802.15.4u Amendment for use of the 865-867 MHz band in India PAR: Full stop after title is not IEEE Style. Response: Agree. Period has been removed CSD: Managed Objects — Is it really the case that 802.15.4 does not include any attribute that indicates to local STA what the capabilities of the wireless device are?  If there is a capabilities attribute, then the new capability would have to be added. If there is no attribute the current answer is self contradictory, it say Yes but it has already been done by other projects Response: Noted. 1.1.1a has been changed to read: “While no new managed objects are anticipated, any managed objects that are required will be defined as part of the project.” Bob Heile, Wi-SUN Alliance

November 2015 Comments from 802.3 on 802.15.4u Amendment for use of the 865-867 MHz band in India CSD: Economic Feasibility — There is nothing in the answer to a) that answers the question of d).  Perhaps 802.15.4 being low power consumption focused already leads the WG to intellectually ignore this question. Response: The answers to c) and d) have been updated to: c) Consideration of installation costs: Implementation of this PHY requires no change to current manufacturing methods d) Consideration of operational costs (e.g., energy consumption): There are already 15.4 devices in volume shipment operating in nearby frequency bands. Complying with the regulatory requirements of this band has zero impact on these well-known operational costs. Bob Heile, Wi-SUN Alliance

November 2015 Comments from 802.11 on 802.15.3d 100Gb/s wireless switched point-to-point physical layer 2.1, 5.2a, 5.2b and 5.5: Use of “Mbps” or “ Gbps” should be “Mb/s” and “Gb/s” Response: Editorial correction made 5.2a and 5.2b seem to be orders of magnitude different in the expected speeds and bands covered. Should the Scope be amended by this amendment to include the extra bands and speeds? An Amendment is a good time to adjust the scope of the base standard. Response: We do not agree that action is needed now. 5.2a is the scope of the base standard as it appears in the current 15.3 Revision and in amendment 15.3e. As such, it is not something that can be changed predictably via an amendment especially since it is dependent on the order of completion of the amendments. While the speed is significantly higher, it is still above above 200 Mb/s specified in the base standard scope, so there no misstatement. The proper place to make this update is in the next revision. Bob Heile, Wi-SUN Alliance

November 2015 Comments from 802.11 on 802.15.3d 100Gb/s wireless switched point-to-point physical layer  5.5 – missing comma “In data centers wireless links ----” 5.5 – extra comma “…with high probability, is ----” 8.1 – 5.2b – delete “the” in “intended the frequency bands” 8.1 – 5.5 - missing comma in “kiosk-downloading the link” Response: Editorial corrections made Bob Heile, Wi-SUN Alliance

November 2015 Comments from 802.11 on 802.15.4t Standard: Amendment for a Higher Rate Physical (PHY) Layer PAR: 2.1 Need to include range for “High(er)” (See NesCom Conventions: “6. Quantification of the Ranges of Numeric Values For PARs for new projects, standards developers who use general terms to represent ranges (e.g. high, medium, low) within the title, scope, or purpose, shall numerically define such ranges where they first appear (title, scope, or purpose, as applicable”). Response: Noted. “Target range should be at least 10 meters.” added to scope PAR: 5.2a – change “devices operating various license-free” to “devices operating in various license-free” Response: Agree in Principal. Hard to predict whether this typo correction will stick since the order of 15.4 amendment completion is unknown. In any event we will make the correction in the next revision. Bob Heile, Wi-SUN Alliance

November 2015 Comments from 802.11 on 802.15.4t Standard: Amendment for a Higher Rate Physical (PHY) Layer PAR: 5.2a – What is the battery consumption requirements (car battery or coin cell for example)? Response: Base standard scope is not something we can reliably modify through an amendment. We will address this in the scope of the next revision. PAR: 5.2.b Change “Mbps” to “Mb/s” Response: Change made Bob Heile, Wi-SUN Alliance

November 2015 Comments from 802.11 on 802.15.4t Standard: Amendment for a Higher Rate Physical (PHY) Layer CSD Title page: should it include the name of the amendment? Response: No reason why not. Amendment title added CSD: 1.1.1 change “Definitions were already and part of this standard “ to “Definitions were already a part of this standard. Response: This comment is no longer relevant. 1.1.1a was changed to read: “While no new managed objects are anticipated, any managed objects that are required will be defined as part of the project.” to satisfy other comments received Bob Heile, Wi-SUN Alliance

November 2015 802.11 comments on the 802.15.4u PAR/CSD Amendment for use of the 865-867 MHz band in India 2.1 Change “the Indian 865-867 MHz band” to “the 865-867 MHz band in India.” Response: Agree. Change made 5.5 – Suggest use “W” for “watts” Response: We appreciate the suggestion but feel using the full word is clearer 5.5 – Change: “released a draft an Internet of Things Policy” to “released a draft Internet of Things Policy” Bob Heile, Wi-SUN Alliance

November 2015 802.11 comments on the 802.15.4u PAR/CSD Amendment for use of the 865-867 MHz band in India CSD: Title page: should it include the name of the amendment? It would help the reader when looking at CSD to be self-defined. Response: No reason why not. Title added CSD: 1.1.1 change “Definitions were already and part of this standard “ to “Definitions were already a part of this standard” Response: This comment is no longer relevant. 1.1.1a was changed to read: “While no new managed objects are anticipated, any managed objects that are required will be defined as part of the project.” to satisfy other comments received Bob Heile, Wi-SUN Alliance

November 2015 802.11 comments on the 802.15.4u PAR/CSD Amendment for use of the 865-867 MHz band in India CSD: 1.2.5 a) change “This project can be implement with “ to “This project can be implemented with “ Response: Accepted, correction made 1.2.5 a) Add comma prior to “which” Bob Heile, Wi-SUN Alliance