1. WG11 response to Proposed 802 PAR - March Orlando Plenary
doc.: IEEE /0356r1
March 2010
WG11 response to Proposed 802 PAR - March Orlando Plenary
Date:
Authors:
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

2. March 2010
doc.: IEEE /0356r1
March 2010
Abstract
WG comments on the proposed PARs for the 2010 March Plenary.
802.23: – 3 major issues, one suggested change
802.16:– one suggested change, and one issue
802.1: – one comment
802.3:– no comment
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

3. March 2010
ES-ECSG
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

4. March 2010
From the PAR (ES-ECSG)
5.2 Scope: This standard defines a mechanism that supports compliance within IEEE 802 to applicable civil authority requirements for citizen-to-authority emergency services packet data communications. Specifically, it supports the need for consistent data that is required for citizen-to-authority emergency services packet data encoded session initiation requests.
A new MAC or PHY is outside the scope of this effort.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

5. March 2010
From the PAR (ES-ECSG)
5.4 Purpose: The purpose of this standard is to support compliance to civil authority requirements complementary to IETF ECRIT specifications for citizen to authority emergency services functionality. This standard intends to encompass voice, data and multi-media requests across IEEE 802 using a new Layer 2 entity and associated behaviors and provide a uniform Structure of Management Information (SMI) for transferring required data for emergency services requests.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

6. March 2010
From the PAR (ES-ECSG)
5.5 Need for the Project: VoIP emergency calls are currently less effective than those provided by traditional wireline and cellular networks. Emergency calls across IEEE 802 technologies need to support regulatory requirements to assure successful completion (and all associated requirements) of these calls to the correct Public Service Access Point (PSAP), and to do so utilizing the existing set of IEEE 802 PHYs and MACs.
5.6 Stakeholders for the Standard: Emergency Service authorities and government agencies (e.g. National Emergency Number Authority (NENA), and the equivalent bodies in the rest of the world); IETF; other telecom, cellular and emergency services standards development organizations (e.g. IETF, Third generation Partnership Project (3GPP), ETSI-Emergency Telecommunications (EMTEL)). Within IEEE 802, the expected stake holders will be 802.1, 802.3, , , and as potential Layer 2 alternatives and for related handover development.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

7. March 2010
From the PAR (ES-ECSG)
8.1 Additional Explanatory Notes (Item Number and Explanation): There are increasingly uniform regulatory requirements that are being imposed on telephone systems across the world on the handling of calls to Emergency Services (911 calls in the US, for example). These requirements have been extended to cellular telephony and are being further extended to cover all cases of packet based telephony services. Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) is the most common of these. VoIP calls can easily originate on an 802 network. There is a need for such calls to be handled uniformly at the interface between the 802 Layer 2 network and the Internet. IETF-ECRIT is the group tasked with developing the Internet standards to meet these requirements for the upper layers of the protocol stack. This 802 effort will work with ECRIT to develop a complete solution.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

8. Concerns with the Emergency Services Study Group 802.23 PAR (ES-ECSG)
March 2010
Concerns with the Emergency Services Study Group PAR (ES-ECSG)
Missing Requirement definition
Regulatory Authorities’ requirements not listed
ECRIT Requirements and coordination
Support level is insufficient
Timing of moving from SG to WG (TG)
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

9. Missing Requirement definition (EC-ECSG)
March 2010
Missing Requirement definition (EC-ECSG)
Regulatory Authorities’ requirements are not listed
Request for specific requirements that can be identified to be listed in the PAR.
ECRIT Requirements missing from PAR and 5c; Coordination with ECRIT did not occur in SG activities
Specific Requirements from ECRIT for 802 be included in PAR
Specific plan for coordination with ECRIT.
Create a Liaison relationship with ECRIT to ensure close coordination and cooperation with ECRIT.
Please describe the plan for addressing these points.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

10. Support level is insufficient (ES-ECSG)
March 2010
Support level is insufficient (ES-ECSG)
Concern: The participation level at the SG meetings has been fairly light. Concern that for a new project that sufficient support be demonstrated to warrant the new effort. Attendance by practical Experts is also a concern.
Suggestion: delay the start of the WG/TG until more support is garnered.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

11. Timing of moving from SG to WG (TG) (ES-ECG)
March 2010
Timing of moving from SG to WG (TG) (ES-ECG)
Concern: The Study Group should continue to gather the complete set of requirements from Regulatory Authorities and ECRIT before progressing to a WG/TG.
Concern: IEEE-SA expects that the SG is convened for 6 months, and then a project is given opportunity to progress. Without a PAR the group does not have full indemnity.
Concern: Prior to creating a WG, the requirements of the Project should be defined.
Please explain how the SG has evaluated the competing concerns
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

12. Specific Suggested PAR changes (ES-ECSG)
March 2010
Specific Suggested PAR changes (ES-ECSG)
8.1 …(Item Number and Explanation):
The 8.1 clause does not include an “Item Number” suggest “5.2 Scope” be inserted.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

13. ES-ECSG Response March 2010
Per the following OM requirement with respect to PAR/5 Criteria feedback: The proposing WG shall post a response to commenting WG and to the Sponsor together with a Final PAR on a public website and circulate the relevant URL on the Sponsor reflector not later than 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday of the plenary session. My response is herein: Comments were received from:   *     *     * In addition, comments were received from two individuals, Bob Grow and Hugh Barass Most of the comments that affected the submitted documents related to the "Scope" and a new scope was generated that we believe incorporates most of those comments.  There were several other minor changes. The changes are reflected in two attached documents:   - Changes for the PAR (to be entered by the NECSOM Administrator after consideration by the EC)   - Changes to the 5 Criteria These two documents are also available on the ES-ECSG document service site as "PAR 5 Responses" The URL for that site is:     If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to get in touch. Best regards, Geoffrey O. Thompson, Chair, 802 Emergency Services EC Study Group
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

14. ES-ECSG Response packet
March 2010
ES-ECSG Response packet
The file with information to supplement the revised PAR and 5 Criteria wasvuploaded at 4:49 PM Wednesday "Comment responses to WGs" (#33) on our SG document server at:
Double click on the icon to open the ES-ECSG to see PAR and 5C to be delivered to EC
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

15. WG11 response to Proposed 802 PAR - March Orlando Plenary
doc.: IEEE /0356r1
March 2010
WG11 response to Proposed 802 PAR - March Orlando Plenary
Date:
Authors:
This file pruned by Geoff Thompson to only include ES-ECSG content.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

16. Missing Requirement definition (EC-ECSG Response)
March 2010
doc.: IEEE /0356r1
March 2010
Missing Requirement definition (EC-ECSG Response)
Regulatory Authorities’ requirements are not listed
Request for specific requirements that can be identified to be listed in the PAR. Details at that level of specificity are not customary in a PAR.
ECRIT Requirements missing from PAR and 5c; Coordination with ECRIT did not occur in SG activities
Specific Requirements from ECRIT for 802 be included in PAR
Specific plan for coordination with ECRIT.
Create a Liaison relationship with ECRIT to ensure close coordination and cooperation with ECRIT.
Please describe the plan for addressing these points.
Representatives of ES-ECSG will be joining the ECRIT meeting in Anaheim to establish the relationship and identify specific requirements. It is a regrettable result of our mutual schedules that this interaction did not take place earlier.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

17. Support level is insufficient (ES-ECSG Response)
March 2010
doc.: IEEE /0356r1
March 2010
Support level is insufficient (ES-ECSG Response)
Concern: The participation level at the SG meetings has been fairly light. Concern that for a new project that sufficient support be demonstrated to warrant the new effort. Attendance by practical Experts is also a concern. This is a legitimate concern but participation has been building. Several experts have said they will join as soon as the PAR is approved.
Suggestion: delay the start of the WG/TG until more support is garnered. IEEE-SA rules limit the length of time that a group can work without a PAR Delaying PAR approval until a mid-project benchmark is not allowed.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

18. Timing of moving from SG to WG (TG) (ES-ECG Response)
March 2010
doc.: IEEE /0356r1
March 2010
Timing of moving from SG to WG (TG) (ES-ECG Response)
Concern: The Study Group should continue to gather the complete set of requirements from Regulatory Authorities and ECRIT before progressing to a WG/TG. This would not be appropriate under IEEE_SA rules.
Concern: IEEE-SA expects that the SG is convened for 6 months, and then a project is given opportunity to progress. Without a PAR the group does not have full indemnity.
Concern: Prior to creating a WG, the requirements of the Project should be defined.
Please explain how the SG has evaluated the competing concerns. We are doing the best job we can to accomplish the task and operate within the rules of the IEEE-SA.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

19. Specific Suggested PAR changes (ES-ECSG)
March 2010
doc.: IEEE /0356r1
March 2010
Specific Suggested PAR changes (ES-ECSG)
8.1 …(Item Number and Explanation):
The 8.1 clause does not include an “Item Number” suggest “5.2 Scope” be inserted.
ACCEPTED
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

20. March 2010
802.16
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

21. 802.16 PAR as stated in proposed PAR
March 2010
PAR as stated in proposed PAR
5.2 Scope of Proposed Standard:
This amendment specifies changes to the most recently approved version of the IEEE MAC with its management and data interfaces for operation with increased robustness in degraded infrastructure. It will make no PHY changes. This amendment will support path redundancy, mobile and local relaying, multi-hop relaying, Mobile Base Station, Low Duty Ratio, as well as operation in licensed, unlicensed and lightly licensed spectrum bands below 6 GHz with means and mechanisms to coexist with other radio access technologies (RATs).
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

22. Questions/Issues on 802.16 PAR
March 2010
Questions/Issues on PAR
Scope Issues/Questions:
What is “the most recently approved” it is not specific. What is “mobile and local relaying”? What is multi-hop relaying? Is a Mobile base station mobile, or is it talking to a Mobile Station? What is “low duty Ratio”? What bands are left after licensed, un-licensed and lightly licensed bands are excluded?
The Scope statement seems loaded with terms lacking definition, but not substance.
The Scope statement should be in present tense…”will support” should be changed to indicate what will be in the document.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

23. WG11 proposed update to 802.16 PAR
March 2010
WG11 proposed update to PAR
Propose that the PAR Scope statement be replaced with the following:
This amendment specifies changes to the IEEE MAC and its management and data interfaces for operation with increased robustness in degraded infrastructure. No PHY changes are included. This amendment identifies means and mechanisms to coexist with other radio access technologies (RATs) in licensed, unlicensed and lightly licensed spectrum bands below 6 GHz.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

24. March 2010
Response
Thanks to those who commented on the P Amendment PAR for "Higher Reliability Networks". The WG's GRIDMAN Study Group has developed responses to those comments: IEEE gman-10/0018r1 < and has updated the draft PAR (P802.16n) and Five Criteria Statement accordingly: IEEE gman-10/0017 < Roger WG chair
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

25. Response from 802.16 Response
March 2010
Response from
Response
• The GRIDMAN SG has received conflicting requests for both more specificity, and more generality for the scope. We have also received requests to modify / clarify the scope. To respond to this, we have added some definitions in subclause 8.1 of the PAR form. We have also both streamlined and clarified the content of the Scope in subclause 5.2.
The referenced document has been moved to a more accessible location with the document number of gman 10/0019r1.
The reference in the five criteria has been updated.
The following slides contain
– Redline of changes made to Scope subclause referenced to 10/0013
– Clean copy of changed text in scope
– Copy of notes added in Notes subcluase
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

26. Response from 802.16 Clean Copy of Modified Scope
March 2010
Response from
Clean Copy of Modified Scope
Modify Scope statement as follows:
“5.2 Scope of Proposed Standard:
“This amendment specifies protocol enhancements to the IEEE MAC for enabling increased robustness and alternate radio path establishment in degraded network conditions. Limited OFDMA PHY extensions are included for enabling operation with radio path redundancy and direct communication between subscriber stations. Also mobile base stations and mobile relay stations are supported. Operation in licensed, unlicensed and lightly licensed spectrum bands below 6 GHz with means and mechanisms to coexist with other radio access technologies (RATs) is supported. Support for enabling application specific specialized security suites is also provided.”
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

27. 802.16 PAR Reference in the 5C is not available:
March 2010
PAR
Reference in the 5C is not available:
In your 5C Technical Feasibility  clause a) there are references that we cannot access. Would you please provide a means for dot11 to get to this material?
a) The IEEE GRIDMAN Study Group and prior NRR WG Ad Hoc Committee have reviewed several presentations indicating that the proposed functions are technically feasible. The technical reference documents and in particular the NRR report (C802.16nrr-08_004r3) are available on the link; Moreover there are examples of prototypes that have demonstrated that the goal of the project is achievable.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

28. Response from 802.16 8.1 Additional Explanatory Notes:
March 2010
Response from
8.1 Additional Explanatory Notes:
In Section 5.2 the following definitions apply:
Degraded Network: The failure of one or more network infrastructure nodes or network connectivity.
Robustness: The capability of the network to withstand and automatically recover from degradation to provide the required availability to support mission critical applications (essential to the core function of society and the economy). E.g. the ability to recover from a single point of failure.
Mobile Base Station: A base station which is capable of maintaining service while moving.
Radio Path Redundancy: The ability to provide alternative paths between base stations, relay stations, and subscriber stations.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

29. 802.11 feedback on improvements
March 2010
doc.: IEEE /0356r1
March 2010
feedback on improvements
Modify Scope statement to be as follows:
“5.2 Scope of Proposed Standard:
“This amendment specifies protocol enhancements to the IEEE MAC for enabling increased robustness and alternate radio path establishment in degraded network conditions.
This is a GREAT Sentence.
Limited OFDMA PHY extensions are included for enabling operation with radio path redundancy and direct communication between subscriber stations.
What caused the change from “No PHY changes” to this statement?
Also mobile base stations and mobile relay stations are supported
Better stated: Support for mobile base stations and mobile relay stations is defined.
Operation in licensed, unlicensed and lightly licensed spectrum bands below 6 GHz with means and mechanisms to coexist with other radio access technologies (RATs) is supported.
Are the coexistence plans limited to the 802 family? Or all technologies that operate in the indicated bands?
Support for enabling application specific specialized security suites is also provided.”
Why is this sentence here?
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

30. March 2010
802.1AX
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

31. March 2010
802.1AX PAR
In the “5.5 Need for the project” a reference to 802.1AX is made, but on the website we could not find that reference.
We did find a copy of 802.1AX-2008 in the “GET 802” website.
Suggest updating the Website.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

32. March 2010
doc.: IEEE /0356r1
March 2010
Response from 802.1AX
As the 802.1AX project was run by 802.3, the information on that project is on the website.
The website will be updated to include a link to the information.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

33. March 2010
802.3bg
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

34. March 2010
802.3bg
No comments from WG11 for the WG.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

35. References Pars under consideration: Input documents for comment
March 2010
References
Pars under consideration:
Input documents for comment
Response Documents:
Jon Rosdahl, CSR