1. doc.: IEEE 802.15-<doc#>
<month year>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
March 2017
Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)
Submission Title: Reply to comments against new PAR/CSD for MG OWC
Date Submitted: March 14, 2017
Source: Volker Jungnickel
Company: Fraunhofer Heinrich Hertz Institute
Address: Einsteinufer 37, Berlin, Germany
Voice:
Re: Comments against new PAR/CSD for MG OWC
Abstract: This document provides reply to comments against new PAR and CSD for MG OWC
Purpose: Response
Notice: This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE P It is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein.
Release: The contributor acknowledges and accepts that this contribution becomes the property of IEEE and may be made publicly available by P
Volker Jungnickel, Fraunhofer HHI
<author>, <company>

2. March 2017
Comments from 802.3
General
Q: The project documents do not give any indication why this project should be done in   There is no indication that there is any scope commonality with the rest of  There is no indication of the  project having similarities to leverage from other projects.
A: Work is already ongoing in Experts are in Work is to be continued in
We just restructuring the work already done in to continue more efficiently. (no change needed)
Q: It gives no indication of distance the optical communications are to address,
A: Rephrase as : “at distances of m. The standard may leverage previous work in m and introduce MIMO, OFDM, relaying, and mechanisms enabling heterogeneous operation with existing RF wireless data communications standards. ”
Volker Jungnickel, Fraunhofer HHI

3. March 2017
Comments from (2)
Q: From the documents, it is impossible to make the determination if the new PAR should be assigned to the WG, another WG, or a new WG. 
A: see first answer
Q: The documents do not provide any indication to a reader if they are an interested party (e.g., as a manager, should I send one of my employees to the Meetings).
A: This information is actually included in CSD, please, check section b)
PAR
Q: 2.1 Title: The title could apply to any 802 standard.  In the past, people even discussed doing an optical wireless PHY for  Though optical is distinctive, there should be more distinctive information in the title, e.g., something about range of the wireless communication PAN.  
A:  Leave as Multi-Gigabit/s Optical Wireless Communications
Nikola: If anything changes include „Specialty“ in the title
Volker Jungnickel, Fraunhofer HHI

4. March 2017
Comments from (3)
Q:  5.1 expected number active on project: The number looks like WG members, not those expected to be active on P draft development and expert review. 
A:  Numbers should be changed to 20.
Q: 5.2  Scope: The scope does not align with the title (1 Mb/s is not multi Gb/s). The range of communication should be specified in the scope.  The purpose describes industrial applications as the driving application, yet requirements of automation islands are very different from communication across a factory floor that can be a range in kilometers. There is not enough information to understand the technical problems that will need to be
addressed (e.g., how bad are the multi-path, cross talk and other issues).
A: The title usually contains the fastest speed. The lower limit 1 Mb/s was introduced as a clear identity of MG OWC against OCC work to be continued in m. Rephrase the Scope as “and 10 Gbit/s at typical distances between m in the presence of impairments such as multi-path and interference.” The range in kilometers is put in question, several 100 m should be the max. The factory floor will be covered by multiple networked MG OWC links.  
Volker Jungnickel, Fraunhofer HHI

5. March 2017
Comments from (4)
Q: 5.6 Stakeholders: The stakeholders do not appear to align with the purpose statement.  Without reach information, are the stakeholders the manufacturers of the manufacturing equipment used to make aircraft and other transportation devices, or is the industry simply the users of the equipment that includes the proposed optical communication capabilities? 
A: Further clarification the range has been given that should clarify the stakeholders as well.
Q: 6.1, b)  registration activity: If the standard is expected to specify the use of OUI, CID EUI-48 or EUI-64, it does have registration activity. 
A: Bob H. will provide an answer.
Volker Jungnickel, Fraunhofer HHI

6. March 2017
Comments from (5)
CSD
Q: 1.2.1, a) Broad Market:  has industrial applications and is familiar with shorter range automation islands and longer factory floor requirements, but has no idea what a "personalized manufacturing cell" is other than jargon.  
A: Rephrase in CSD as “control of mobile robots in a more flexible manufacturing cell or at an assembly line for personalized products where fixed connections will be replaced by wireless in the future,”  
Q: Though less important, what relevance the speed of a train has for internal communications is not clear. 
A: Remove “high-speed” in front of trains
Volker Jungnickel, Fraunhofer HHI

7. March 2017
Comments from (6)
Q: Distinct Identity:  What is the phrase in transparent media supposed to mean? Wouldn’t the fiber optic cable used by be transparent—yes? There is no indication if the optics are free space multidirectional or focused line of sight optics. If the requirement is to be only free space, line of sight, then the airplane environment would be very difficult to satisfy without reflective (i.e., non-transparent) transmission. 
A: Please replace by “With the exception of , this project is distinguishable from all other IEEE 802 standards due to the fact it utilizes optical wireless communications (OWC) instead of RF.” no changes needed w.r.t. fiber optics, both kinds of optics are within the scope but not mentioned explicitly to avoid too much detail
Volker Jungnickel, Fraunhofer HHI

8. March 2017
Comments from (6)
Q: Technical Feasibility – Because there are virtually no technical restrictions on what the standard will specify, this response has little credibility (e.g., does the answer about devices being available hold for the entire frequency range specified for the standard, for all the unrestricted transmission modes, the range of operational speeds, etc.).
A: We agree. Modify as „Devices are available in the entire frequency range; tests, demonstrations, measurements and simulations have been conducted for selected wavelengths from UV to IR and for distances in the entire specified range both academic and commercial, verifying that optical wireless communication capabilities needed for this standard are feasible.”
Volker Jungnickel, Fraunhofer HHI

9. Comments from 802 Paul Nikolich
March 2017
Comments from 802 Paul Nikolich
PAR
Q: a) 5.2 Scope uses the vague term "mobility" which leaves much room for interpretation, I think it would help to define the term more precisely. Â Within this project's scope, please provide a specific definition of "mobility" (or reference a well known more specific definition).
A: Add „The standard includes adaptation to varying channel conditions and maintaining connectivity during mobility when associated to a peer coordinator or moving between peer coordinators.”.
Q: b) 5.2 Scope: what is the rationale for an estimate of 80 participants? Â It is optimistic, please try to be realistic.
A: Number should be 20.
Q: c) 5.2 Scope: please specify what "heterogeneous operation" means
A: The term „heterogeneous networking“ is commonly known in mobile communications. If still an issue, please replace by „networking in parallel with existing RF…”
What is heterogeneous networking? Simultaneous use of optical and RF wireless communications in the same network
Volker Jungnickel, Fraunhofer HHI

10. Comments from 802 Paul Nikolich (2)
March 2017
Comments from 802 Paul Nikolich (2)
Q: d) 5.2 Scope: please consider adding a link range objective (1m? 10m? more? less?) under simply described nominal channel conditions (e.g., unobstructed line-of-sight)
A: Range has been already specified.
Q: e) 5.2 Scope: please consider adding a bit error rate objective for the above channel condition
A: Rephrase as „ data rates between 1 Mbit/s and 10 Gbit/s at typical distances of m open field unobstructed line-of-sight conditions.” This includes no errors.
Q: f) 5.4 Purpose: Â The purpose reads more like the description of a the applications of network product family that embodies interfaces that conform to the (eventual) standard than the purpose of the the technical specifications the standard defines. Â This text is good, but reads like it belongs in 5.5 Need, not 5.4 Purpose. Â Please consider reworking the purpose along the lines of something like this: The purpose of the standard is to define free space optical interface specifications to establish high data rate transfer among end points.
A: Rephrase as “The purpose of the standard is to define optical wireless communication specifications in optically transparent media to establish high data rate transfer among end points at data rates between 1 Mbit/s and 10 Gbit/s which is non-interfering with existing RF systems capable of meeting the needs of industrial applications requiring, secure, high performance, high data rate communications and similar classes of applications.”
Volker Jungnickel, Fraunhofer HHI

11. Comments from 802 Paul Nikolich (3)
March 2017
Comments from 802 Paul Nikolich (3)
Q: 7.1) Other standards/projects: Â We know has a Light Communication Technical Interest Group that may result in a project, this should be noted as a possibility even though it isn't definite. Â What research have you done to identify similar standards activities within the IEEE or external to the IEEE?
A: There are two other activities
ITU-T SG15 Q18 G.vlc: ITU-T defines a new recommendation for visible light communications (i.e. no IR and UV) and focusing on indoor networking. The group is currently aligning its objectives according work done previously in IEEE m.
IEEE TIG LC: Main differentiation is that SG MG OWC continues work already done in m in a new framework and targets the needs of specialty applications while early work is ongoing in LC TIG towards widening the scope for the mass market.
Q: h) 4.2 Sponsor Ballot by March 2018 seems unrealistically optimistic for a new standard with this scope, please explain.
A: Was taken over from m. Work is largely done. This is not a fresh TG but a continuation in a new structure intended to accelerate the work.
Volker Jungnickel, Fraunhofer HHI

12. March 2017
Comments from
Q: Project Number: The Par Number of is potentially confusing, Please change.
Propose
A: Same as suggested by SG MG OWC.
Q:Title – why the “/s” at the end of Gigabit? Strictly speaking “Multi-Gigabit” is a size parameter rather than a speed rate. The /s may have meant “per second” but consider replacing “/s” and spell out the per second.
Suggested title change to “Multi-Gigabit per second Optical Wireless Communication”
A: To be discussed.
Q: 5.2 – Is the scope an overlap with the existing standard? The use of the word Optical seems to confuse this standard with the previous standard. 7.1 include description of differences to similar project
A: We have addressed these questions by a note in 8.1:
There is no other standard with a similar scope. The commonality is that optical frequencies are used. Please, check Distinct identity in CSD. None of these is supported.
Volker Jungnickel, Fraunhofer HHI

13. March 2017
Comments from (2)
Q: General CSD Comment: When citing standards, add “IEEE std” throughout CSD.
A: We will go through CSD and change this, accordingly.
Q: Distinct Identity,
Consider including some of this to the need statement of the PAR to show the need for the project.
Typo “mutli” should be “multi”
Starting the statement with “With the exception” seems an odd way to start a statement of Distinct Identity. Suggest deleting the phrase.
Add “IEEE std” before when referring to the standard, and add 802 before 15.7 when meaning
A: We agree with all of this.
Volker Jungnickel, Fraunhofer HHI

14. Comments from James Gilb
March 2015
Comments from James Gilb
Q:  - (5.2) "The standard adheres to applicable eye safety regulations." The standard cannot adhere to safety regulations (unless some really bad writing makes it through the process).  Devices compliant to the standard could adhere to applicable eye safety regulations. Will the people developing the standard review all eye safety regulations for all countries? I would suggest deleting the sentence.
Also note, that in the Style manual it says "The word safety should be avoided if it is being used to address a set of conditions or practices that have not been established for the purpose of promoting safety under all situations in which such conditions or practices will be employed. For example, 'the following 10 safety considerations should be reviewed before implementing this practice' should not be used." A: We agree, sentence is deleted.
Hsin-Mu (Michael) Tsai , NTU

15. Comments from James Gilb
March 2015
Comments from James Gilb
Q: - (5.2) The Scope statement needs to be written in past tense, hence "may" is not correct in the sentence "For coordinated topologies, there may be one or more coordinators with the possibility of a global controller."  Also, "global" is probably not correct, there will not be one controller for every system on the planet. Instead, I would suggest "For coordinated topologies, more than one peer coordinator is supported as well as topologies with multiple peer coordinators with master coordinator."
A: Rephrase as „For coordinated topologies with more than one peer coordinator there will be a master coordinator.”
Hsin-Mu (Michael) Tsai , NTU

16. Comments from James Gilb
March 2015
Comments from James Gilb
Q: - (5.2) The Scope statement needs to be written in past tense, hence "may" is not correct in the sentence "The standard may include MIMO, relaying, and mechanisms enabling heterogeneous operation with existing RF wireless data communications standards" Also, relaying is out of scope, this should be handled by 802.1, not by creating a new bridging method. The best bet here is to delete the sentence.
A: Move that sentence to 8.1
Hsin-Mu (Michael) Tsai , NTU

17. Comments from James Gilb
March 2015
Comments from James Gilb
Q: - (5.4) "to provide a global solution initially", is confusing and too limiting.  Is it only one solution for the entire globe? It would be better to say "to provide a solution initially"
A: We agree, remove “to provide a global solution”
Q: - (5.4) "unlicensed" change to "license exempt"
A: We agree.
Q: - (5.4) "(ii) inherent communication security due to inability to penetrate through optically opaque wall" would be true only if it is operated in an area completely enclosed with optically opaque materials, i.e., no windows, vents, etc. This is a pretty weak claim and should be deleted.
A: We agree. Rephrase w/o „inherernt“
Q: (5.4) editorial: "low latency data transferring that meet" should be "low latency data transfer that meets"
A: Agree. 
Hsin-Mu (Michael) Tsai , NTU

18. Comments from Benjamin Rolfe
March 2015
Comments from Benjamin Rolfe
Q: (5.2) "The standard adheres to applicable eye safety regulations." All 802 standards include the following disclaimer: IMPORTANT NOTICE: IEEE Standards documents are not intended to ensure safety, security, health, or environmental protection, or ensure against interference with or from other devices or networks. Implementers of IEEE Standards documents are responsible for determining and complying with all appropriate safety, security, environmental, health, and interference protection practices and all applicable laws and regulations. the statements in 5.2 directly contradict this prohibition.  Delete the sentence.
A: We agree.
Hsin-Mu (Michael) Tsai , NTU