doc.: IEEE /0778r1 Submission July 2009 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell), Jon Rosdahl (CSR)Slide 1 Feedback on New WG PARs from WG11 for July Plenary Date: Authors:

doc.: IEEE /0778r1 Submission July 2009 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell), Jon Rosdahl (CSR)Slide 2 Other Guidelines for IEEE WG Meetings All IEEE-SA standards meetings shall be conducted in compliance with all applicable laws, including antitrust and competition laws. –Don ’ t discuss the interpretation, validity, or essentiality of patents/patent claims. –Don ’ t discuss specific license rates, terms, or conditions. Relative costs, including licensing costs of essential patent claims, of different technical approaches may be discussed in standards development meetings. –Technical considerations remain primary focus –Don ’ t discuss or engage in the fixing of product prices, allocation of customers, or division of sales markets. –Don ’ t discuss the status or substance of ongoing or threatened litigation. –Don ’ t be silent if inappropriate topics are discussed … do formally object See IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, clause and “Promoting Competition and Innovation: What You Need to Know about the IEEE Standards Association's Antitrust and Competition Policy” for more details. Slide #4 – March 08

doc.: IEEE /0778r1 Submission July 2009 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell), Jon Rosdahl (CSR)Slide 3 Abstract This document contains the comment responses received from members of WG. The WG11 requested that a submission be used as the WG response to the new 802 PARs that were under consideration for July 2009 Plenary.

doc.: IEEE /0778r1 Submission July 2009 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell), Jon Rosdahl (CSR)Slide 4 Pars under consideration by 802 EC July New standard for Support for Emergency Services, PAR and 5C PAR and 5C 802.1Qbc, Provider Bridging -- Remote Customer Service Interface, PAR and 5CPAR5C 802.1Qbe, MIRP, PAR and 5CPAR5C 802.1Qbf, PBB-TE Infrastructure Protection, PAR and 5CPAR5C PAR extension request for P802.1AR, PARPAR PAR extension request for P802.11n, PARPAR

doc.: IEEE /0778r1 Submission July 2009 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell), Jon Rosdahl (CSR)Slide Qbc, Provider Bridging -- Remote Customer Service Interface, PAR and 5CPAR5C WG11 has no comments or questions

doc.: IEEE /0778r1 Submission July 2009 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell), Jon Rosdahl (CSR)Slide Qbe, MIRP, PAR and 5CPAR5C WG11 has no comments or questions

doc.: IEEE /0778r1 Submission July 2009 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell), Jon Rosdahl (CSR)Slide Qbf, PBB-TE Infrastructure Protection, PAR and 5C PAR5C WG11 has no comments or questions

doc.: IEEE /0778r1 Submission July 2009 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell), Jon Rosdahl (CSR)Slide 8 PAR extension request for P802.1AR, PARPAR WG11 has no comments or questions

doc.: IEEE /0778r1 Submission July 2009 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell), Jon Rosdahl (CSR)Slide 9 PAR extension request for P802.11n, PARPAR WG11 has no comments or questions

doc.: IEEE /0778r1 Submission July 2009 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell), Jon Rosdahl (CSR)Slide 10 The WG has developed questions related to the proposed Emergency Services project –The WG has proposed a PAR and 5 criteria for Emergency Services r6 PAR and 5CPAR and 5C –The WG has reviewed these documents and have developed variety of questions for consideration by the WG –This document lists those questions

doc.: IEEE /0778r1 Submission July 2009 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell), Jon Rosdahl (CSR)Slide 11 What are the specific requirements being addressed (by regulatory domain)? Situation –5.4 defines a purpose for the proposed standard that includes references to requirements related “Next Generation E911”, “Emergency Alert Broadcast” and “Authority to Authority” Complication –However, nowhere does the PAR or 5 criteria provide references to any documents that specify these requirements or associated regulations –This makes it difficult to measure the success of the project. Question/comment –What are the specific requirements or regulations that this project is proposed to satisfy? –How do these requirements or regulations vary in different regulatory domains?

doc.: IEEE /0778r1 Submission July 2009 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell), Jon Rosdahl (CSR)Slide 12 Is a new MAC and PHY in scope … or not? Situation –5.2 defines the scope of the proposed standard, including a statement that the project will not include a new MAC and PHY Complication –However, 5.5 states that they will provide new PHY and MAC functionality Question/comment –WG21 proposed changes to the WG11 PHY are not acceptable. Remove suggested or implied PHY changes from the PAR scope and purpose.

doc.: IEEE /0778r1 Submission July 2009 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell), Jon Rosdahl (CSR)Slide 13 How can the project goals be achieved without changing 802.3/11/15/16/20/22 Situation –5.5 states that the project will provide new PHY and MAC functionality, presumably in 802.3/11/15/16/20/22 Complication –However, it is not within the scope of to make changes to any of these standards Question/comment –How is it intended that the project accomplish the provision of new PHY and MAC functionality without changing any existing MAC or PHY, or defining a new MAC and PHY?

doc.: IEEE /0778r1 Submission July 2009 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell), Jon Rosdahl (CSR)Slide 14 What does “parity with traditional emergency service transport functions” mean? Situation –5.5 states that the project will achieve “parity with traditional emergency service transport functions” Complication –However, it is unclear what this means given “traditional emergency service transport functions” is not defined –It is also not clear that parity can even be achieved between a system based on in unlicenced spectrum (for example) and traditional wire-line and cellular systems Question/comment –How is “traditional emergency service transport functions” defined? –What does “parity” mean in this context? We suggest “sufficiency” as a substitute because providing parity with circuit switched or licensed band services is not achievable when using unlicensed spectrum.

doc.: IEEE /0778r1 Submission July 2009 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell), Jon Rosdahl (CSR)Slide 15 What about ECRIT … ? Situation –7.1 states that there are no other projects or standards with similar scope Complication –However, IETF ECRIT is a project with a scope that is arguably greater that the proposed scope of this project Question/comment –Why was ECRIT not referenced? –Have the layer 2 requirements implied by ECRIT been considered in developing this project proposal? –Please identify any functionality or interfaces that ES could provide at layer 2 that would support ECRIT at layer 3?

doc.: IEEE /0778r1 Submission July 2009 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell), Jon Rosdahl (CSR)Slide 16 Does the project have measurable goals that can be achieved within three years? Situation –It is “best practice” to define a project for a new standard such that it is able to be meet measurable goals within three years Complication –However, this PAR and 5 criteria does not define any measurable goals and it is unclear whether it can be done within three years Question/comment –Please define measurable goals? –Please explain how the scope of the project is such that it can be completed within three years? –Given the vagueness of the goals of the proposed project, why haven’t you considered defining a recommended practice?

doc.: IEEE /0778r1 Submission July 2009 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell), Jon Rosdahl (CSR)Slide 17 What work is the WFA undertaking? Situation –In the 5 criteria in the broad market potential section it is claimed “This proposed standard may simplify changes currently under consideration by external organization such as IETF ECRIT, WiFi Alliance and WiMAX Forum Complication –However, the WFA has not announced any such work Question/comment –Please justify the claim? –Have the WMF announced any such work?

doc.: IEEE /0778r1 Submission July 2009 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell), Jon Rosdahl (CSR)Slide 18 PAR Project Scope Situation –The current PAR scope is too broad and should focus on the highest priority, shortest to market objective Complication –It is believed that addressing “citizen-to-authority (e.g. packet data encoded 911/112 calls), authority-to-citizen (e.g. emergency alert broadcasts for weather or tsunami) and authority-to-authority (e.g. priority override)” (Scope 5.2) in the same project is too grand an undertaking. Question/comment –We support pursuing exclusively the citizen-to-authority project only in this PAR

doc.: IEEE /0778r1 Submission July 2009 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell), Jon Rosdahl (CSR)Slide 19 PAR Wording The current wording of the scope statement reads: 5.2 Scope of Proposed Standard: This standard will define mechanisms that support compliance within IEEE 802 to civil authority requirements for local and national emergency services such as citizen-to- authority (e.g. packet data encoded 911/112 calls), authority-to-citizen (e.g. emergency alert broadcasts for weather or tsunami) and authority-to-authority (e.g. priority override). This project does not propose a new MAC and PHY. Wording normally acceptable to NesCom /Standards Board might be: 5.2 Scope of Proposed Standard: This standard defines mechanisms that support compliance within IEEE 802 to civil authority requirements for local and national emergency services such as citizen-to- authority (e.g. packet data encoded 911/112 calls), authority-to-citizen (e.g. emergency alert broadcasts for weather or tsunami) and authority-to-authority (e.g. priority override). 5.2 & 5.4 should address the document specifically. 5.5 should address the need for the project and may include restrictions on the group.

doc.: IEEE /0778r1 Submission July 2009 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell), Jon Rosdahl (CSR)Slide 20 Where should the work be done? Situation –The WG current scope and name is limited to handover Complication –It is recognised that the proposed emergency services project is outside the scope of as currently named and understood Question/comment –Is the proposed emergency services project within the scope of ? –Would the proposed work better suited to some other 802 WG?