1. March 2017
Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)
Submission Title: f PAR/CSD Comments Responses
Date Submitted: 15 March 20117
Source: Benjamin A. Rolfe
Company: Blind Creek Associates
Address: PO Box 798 Los Gatos CA 95031
Voice: , blindcreek.com
Re: f PAR and CSD
Abstract: Responses to comments received.
Purpose: Progress the PAR.
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
Benjamin Rolfe, Blind Creek Associates

2. 802.15 Responses to PAR/CSD Comments Received on 802.15.3f PAR and CSD
doc.: IEEE <492>
<month year>
March 2017
Responses to PAR/CSD Comments Received on f PAR and CSD
Benjamin Rolfe, Blind Creek Associates
<author>, <company>

3. Summary Comments received from 802.3 Comment received from James Gilb
March 2017
Summary
Comments received from 802.3
Comment received from James Gilb
Comments from PAR Review (11-17—253r1)
Benjamin Rolfe, Blind Creek Associates

4. Comment #1 from 802.3: General
March 2017
Comment #1 from 802.3: General
Comment: General: The frequency numbers do not make sense. The base standard specifies the mmWave PHY as operating in the " GHz range". Yet, the amendment title specifies an extension that overlaps with this frequency range (6471 GHz). Documents also frequently indicate the extension adding 7 GHz to the range. The math simply doesn't work. Response: Agree. Amendment title has been amended to read “Extending the Physical layer (PHY) specification for millimeter wave to operate from 57.0 GHz to 71 GHz".
Benjamin Rolfe, Blind Creek Associates

5. Comment #2 from 802.3 PAR Title
March 2017
Comment #2 from PAR Title
Comment: PAR 2.1 Title: The title does not have the proper format. The system output will produce Amendment: Extending& The general problem on frequency range confusion could be simplified if the amendment title was Extending the millimeter wave Physical Layer (PHY) to operate from 57.0 GHz to 71 GHz". Response: Agree. Amendment title has been amended to read: “Extending the Physical layer (PHY) specification for millimeter wave to operate from 57.0 GHz to 71 GHz".
Benjamin Rolfe, Blind Creek Associates

6. Comment #3 from 802.3: PAR 4.x Project Schedule
March 2017
Comment #3 from 802.3: PAR 4.x Project Schedule
Comment: PAR 4.x project dates: Perhaps the specification changes to extend the range are simpler than those not familiar with the detail of the standard would expect, but such aggressive dates typically lead to NesCom comment, and questions from other 802 WGs. The Sponsor ballot date leaves 4 months for draft development and WG balloting, highly unusual. The first concern is that technical decisions have been made before approval of the project in violation of IEEE-SA procedures (excluding potentially interested parties) to enable such aggressive dates. Three months for SB even with conditional submittal is similarly hard to believe. There is no penalty to submitting more conservative dates on the PAR, but working to a more aggressive schedule If all technical changes required are obvious to the experts interested in the project, and participation is sufficient to achieve such aggressive dates. Response: Agree. The project dates section has been revised. The expected date for project completion is 03/2018.
Benjamin Rolfe, Blind Creek Associates

7. Comment #4 from 802.3: PAR 5.1 Number of participants
March 2017
Comment #4 from 802.3: PAR 5.1 Number of participants
Comment: 5.1 expected number active on project The number looks like WG members, not those expected to be active on P f draft development and expert review. Response: Agree. The estimate will be changed to “10”.
Benjamin Rolfe, Blind Creek Associates

8. Comment #5 from 802.3: CSD: Broad Market Appeal
March 2017
Comment #5 from 802.3: CSD: Broad Market Appeal
Comment: 1.2.1, a) Broad Market As previously pointed out, the frequency numbers don't add up, with the extension range overlapping the specified operational range already in Std If the FCC didn't allow operation over the complete range supported in the existing standard, that should not be confused with the extension of the specified operating range in the standard. The current standard shows the fourth channel referenced in this item as being GHz to GHz so the 7 GHz and 64 GHz numbers appear to be wrong. If the FCC doesn't allow operation in the fourth channel, then the justification here doesn't seem to be right. Mixing up the number of channels being added to the standard and the channels that will be usable in the US with the amendment. Please make the math work, and make the changes to the standard clearly distinct from the changes made by the FCC extending the range that can be used by Response: Agree. The text has been revised, replacing “Application use cases, such as those listed in b), currently using the existing 4 channels, would also utilize the 2 additional channels to achieve higher performance and reduced interference” with “Application use cases, such as those listed in b), will be able to use the expanded channel plan to achieve higher performance and reduced interference.”
Benjamin Rolfe, Blind Creek Associates

9. Comment #6 from 802.3: CSD: Distinct Identity
March 2017
Comment #6 from 802.3: CSD: Distinct Identity
Comment: 1.2.3: The answer to the question is not really a responsive answer. The amendment is distinct because operation is not currently specified from 66 GHz to 71 GHz. Response: Agree. The text in has been replaced with: “This amendment updates the channel plan for the PHY specification for millimeter wave in IEEE Std to comply with the updated FCC band extents. The millimeter wave PHY defined in IEEE Std is substantially similar. However IEEE Std serves multimedia network applications rather than local area network applications.”
Benjamin Rolfe, Blind Creek Associates

10. Comment #1 from James Gilb: PAR Schedule
March 2017
Comment #1 from James Gilb: PAR Schedule
Comment: Change the completion date to 03/2018 to avoid RevCom comments. It will still finish early, but this avoids having to explain this. Response: Agree. The project dates section has been revised. The expected date for completion is 3/2018.
Benjamin Rolfe, Blind Creek Associates

11. Comment #1 from 802.11: PAR 4.3 Schedule
March 2017
Comment #1 from : PAR 4.3 Schedule
Comment: 4.3: Typically the minimum for the time between 4.2 and 4.3 is 6 months (see instruction notes). Is there justification for the shorter time? If not suggest 6 months minimum. Response: Agree. The project dates section has been revised. The expected date for completion is 3/2018.
Benjamin Rolfe, Blind Creek Associates

12. Comment #2 from 802.11: PAR 5.2/5.5 Channel plan consistency
March 2017
Comment #2 from : PAR 5.2/5.5 Channel plan consistency
Comment: 5.2b/5.5: Is the Channelization plan consistent with existing plan (ITU adopted M )? Concern that deviation from the agreed channel plan will cause bifurcation in the industry. Response: Agree in principle. The expectation is for the channel plan to be the same as the 60 GHz channelization plan in IEEE Std , which includes channelization up to 71 GHz.
Benjamin Rolfe, Blind Creek Associates

13. Comment #3 from 802.11: PAR 5.5 Need for the Project
March 2017
Comment #3 from : PAR 5.5 Need for the Project
Comment: 5.5 Need for the project should indicate the benefit of what the amendment will accomplish. What is the market need for extension of the band? Response: Agree. The following text has been added to 5.5: Applications using multi-Gbps data transfer currently supported by the IEEE Std need additional spectrum as it enables higher effective throughput, enhances coexistence characteristics, and maintains channel plan consistency with IEEE Std
Benjamin Rolfe, Blind Creek Associates

14. March 2017
Comment #4 from : PAR 5.2 b
Comment: 5.2b: Beside channelization, other parameters should be considered, i.e power (EIRP), beam-width. Please include the constraints for parameters for these other parameters. A Suggested change: “This amendment extends the RF channelization of the millimeter wave PHY to allow for use of the spectrum from 64 to 71 GHz, including power and antenna constraints.” Response: Disagree. The intention of the WG is to limit the scope of the project to only extending the channel plan allowed by the FCC to be the same as that used in IEE Std and IEE Std e-2017 PHYs using the 60 GHz band and not allow any other changes.
Benjamin Rolfe, Blind Creek Associates

15. March 2017
Comment #5 from : PAR 7.1
Comment: 7.1 Similar Scope – please add TGay Response: TGay has been listed in 7.1.
Benjamin Rolfe, Blind Creek Associates

16. Comment #6 from 802.11: General: Extending the band only
March 2017
Comment #6 from : General: Extending the band only
Comment: A General Comment: The current channelization has the last channel at 65Ghz in the standard, are you changing the GHz channels? If not, would changing this to state “65Ghz to 71Ghz”? Response: Agree. The title has been changed as suggested in comment #2 to read: “Extending the Physical layer (PHY) specification for millimeter wave to operate from 57.0 GHz to 71 GHz“.
Benjamin Rolfe, Blind Creek Associates

17. Comment #7 from 802.11: PAR: CSD 1.2.1 a
March 2017
Comment #7 from : PAR: CSD a
Comment: CSD a) typo “64 Ghz to 7 GHz” should be “64Ghz to 71GHz” Response: Agree. The typo has been corrected as suggested.
Benjamin Rolfe, Blind Creek Associates

18. Comment #8 from 802.11: PAR: More than channelization
March 2017
Comment #8 from : PAR: More than channelization
Comment: CSD a) & b) Channelization – if using the current Channelization plan, the new band should give three additional channels, not two as indicated in the text. Response: Agree. The text has been revised, replacing “Application use cases, such as those listed in b), currently using the existing 4 channels, would also utilize the 2 additional channels to achieve higher performance and reduced interference” with “Application use cases, such as those listed in b), will be able to use the expanded channel plan to achieve higher performance and reduced interference.”
Benjamin Rolfe, Blind Creek Associates

19. Comment #9 from 802.11: PAR: More than channelization
March 2017
Comment #9 from : PAR: More than channelization
Comment: CSD Compatibility – “YES” is sufficient, suggest delete the next sentence after “yes”. Response: Agree. Text has been revised as suggested.
Benjamin Rolfe, Blind Creek Associates

20. March 2017
Comment #10 from : CSD b
Comment: CSD b) suggested change: Multiple vendors are already producing devices and systems based on IEEE millimeter wave PHYs. These devices and systems are being used in products such as Audio/Visual consumer electronics, mobile devices, laptops, tablets and related peripherals. Response: Agree. Text has been revised as suggested.
Benjamin Rolfe, Blind Creek Associates

21. Comment #11 from 802.11: PAR: CSD 1.2.4
March 2017
Comment #11 from : PAR: CSD 1.2.4
Comment: CSD Typo? Should 66 GHz be 64GHz? Response: Agree. Text has been simplified by removing “above 66 GHz” as this is extraneous and redundant.
Benjamin Rolfe, Blind Creek Associates

22. March 2017
Comment #12 from : CSD 1.2.3
Comment: CSD – Distinct Identity: Each proposed IEEE 802 LMSC standard shall provide evidence of a distinct identity. Identify standards and standards projects with similar scopes and for each one describe why the proposed project is substantially different. The CSD response is not response to the Criteria. Please provide evidence of a distinct identity for this project. Include a statement to the effect that no other standardization project including those listed in “7.1 Similar Scope:” from the PAR form modify the Standard to support 64 Ghz to 71Ghz. Response: Agree. The text has been changed in response to a comment from to read: “This amendment updates the channel plan for the PHY specification for millimeter wave in IEEE Std to comply with the updated FCC band extents. The millimeter wave PHY defined in IEEE Std is substantially similar. However IEEE Std serves multimedia network applications rather than local area network applications.” .
Benjamin Rolfe, Blind Creek Associates

23. March 2017
Comment #13 from : CSD 1.2.5
Comment: CSD – Rather than have several “See a)”, just put one sentence at the end of the “a) - e)” answering all the questions with a single sentence. Response: Agree. Revised as suggested.
Benjamin Rolfe, Blind Creek Associates