1. Feedback on New WG PARs from WG11 for July Plenary
doc.: IEEE /0778r2
July 2009
Feedback on New WG PARs from WG11 for July Plenary
Date:
Authors:
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell), Jon Rosdahl (CSR)
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell), Jon Rosdah (CSR)

2. Other Guidelines for IEEE WG Meetings
July 2009
doc.: IEEE /0778r2
July 2009
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
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell), Jon Rosdahl (CSR)
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell), Jon Rosdah (CSR)

3. July 2009
doc.: IEEE /0778r2
July 2009
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.
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell), Jon Rosdahl (CSR)
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell), Jon Rosdah (CSR)

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

5. July 2009
802.1Qbc, Provider Bridging -- Remote Customer Service Interface, PAR and 5C
WG11 has no comments or questions
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell), Jon Rosdahl (CSR)

6. 802.1Qbe, MIRP, PAR and 5C WG11 has no comments or questions July 2009
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell), Jon Rosdahl (CSR)

7. 802.1Qbf, PBB-TE Infrastructure Protection, PAR and 5C
July 2009
802.1Qbf, PBB-TE Infrastructure Protection, PAR and 5C
WG11 has no comments or questions
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell), Jon Rosdahl (CSR)

8. PAR extension request for P802.1AR, PAR
July 2009
PAR extension request for P802.1AR, PAR
WG11 has no comments or questions
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell), Jon Rosdahl (CSR)

9. PAR extension request for P802.11n, PAR
July 2009
PAR extension request for P802.11n, PAR
WG11 has no comments or questions
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell), Jon Rosdahl (CSR)

10. July 2009
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 5C
The WG has reviewed these documents and have developed variety of questions for consideration by the WG
This document lists those questions
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell), Jon Rosdahl (CSR)

11. July 2009
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?
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell), Jon Rosdahl (CSR)

12. Is a new MAC and PHY in scope … or not?
July 2009
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.
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell), Jon Rosdahl (CSR)

13. July 2009
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?
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell), Jon Rosdahl (CSR)

14. July 2009
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.
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell), Jon Rosdahl (CSR)

15. What about ECRIT … ? Situation Complication Question/comment
July 2009
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?
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell), Jon Rosdahl (CSR)

16. July 2009
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?
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell), Jon Rosdahl (CSR)

17. What work is the WFA undertaking?
July 2009
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?
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell), Jon Rosdahl (CSR)

18. PAR Project Scope Situation Complication Question/comment
July 2009
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
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell), Jon Rosdahl (CSR)

19. July 2009
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:
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.
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell), Jon Rosdahl (CSR)

20. Where should the work be done?
July 2009
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?
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell), Jon Rosdahl (CSR)

21. Response from WG21 to comments
July 2009
Response from WG21 to comments
EC Members,
Thanks for all the comments on the Emergency Services PAR. Based on all the comments received the WG has decided to withdraw this PAR from any further consideration.
Based on the interest shown in creating an ECSG for this topic, we will try and put together a set of tasks for the same and bring it for EC consideration on the Friday closing meeting.
Best Regards
-Vivek
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell), Jon Rosdahl (CSR)

22. Additional WG21 Documents
July 2009
Additional WG21 Documents
r1 Emergency Services PAR Supporting Info
r8 Emergency Services PAR and 5C
r0 Emergency Services ad hoc Report
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell), Jon Rosdahl (CSR)