comments on Pending 802 PARs – July 2011

802.11 comments on Pending 802 PARs – July 2011
doc.: IEEE /0997r1 July 2011 comments on Pending 802 PARs – July 2011 Date: Authors: Jon Rosdahl, CSR Jon Rosdahl, CSR

July 20111 doc.: IEEE /0997r1 July 2011 Abstract During the 2011 July 802 Plenary, reviewed the 7 PARs, and in 3 adhoc meetings. During the meetings, feedback was prepared and provided to the requesting WGs. This feedback was presented during the Mid-Week Plenary. In R2, the responses are added for presentation to the Closing Plenary. The Final PAR Review meeting reviewed the responses, and provided a rebuttal response to for further improvement. This file provides a record of the PAR review AdHoc. Jon Rosdahl, CSR Jon Rosdahl, CSR

Pars to be considered at July Plenary
802.1AXbq amendment for distributed resilient network interconnect, PAR and 5C 802.1ASbt amendment for timing and synchronization for time-sensitive applications, PAR and 5C 802.1 AS corrigendum, PAR, no 5C required as this is a maintenance item. 802.1BR new standard for bridge port extension, PAR and 5C 802.3bj amendment for 100 Gb/s operation over backplanes and copper cables, PAR and 5C m amendment to for TV white space PHY, PAR and 5C amendment for management and control plane interfaces and procedures and management information base enhancements, PAR and 5C Jon Rosdahl, CSR

July 2011 802.1 PARS 802.1ASbt amendment for timing and synchronization for time-sensitive applications, PAR and 5C 802.1 AS corrigendum, PAR, no 5C required as this is a maintenance item. 802.1BR new standard for bridge port extension, PAR and 5C No comments were made. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

July 20111 doc.: IEEE /0997r1 July 2011 802.3 Pars 802.1AXbq amendment for distributed resilient network interconnect, PAR and 5C 802.3bj amendment for 100 Gb/s operation over backplanes and copper cables, PAR and 5C General Comment on the length of time from Initial Sponsor Ballot to Projected Completion Date for RevCom….general rule of thumb is that for amendments, that this be at least 6 months. Jon Rosdahl, CSR Jon Rosdahl, CSR

802.15.4m amendment to 802.15.4 for TV white space PHY, PAR and 5C
July 20111 doc.: IEEE /0997r1 July 2011 m amendment to for TV white space PHY, PAR and 5C 5.2 Scope: Which Regulatory Domains are you planning to address? Which coexistence set will you use? How will you address which database access will be used? What is the approach that will be used to securely access the Geolocation database? (Note it will be different from country to country). Suggested Scope: This amendment specifies a physical layer for meeting TV white space regulatory requirements in “X”, “Y” and “Z”. MAC changes required to support this physical layer are also described. This amendment enables operation in the white spaces of the TV Bands while supporting data rates in the 40 kbits per second to 2000 kbits per second range. This amendment targets power efficient device command and control applications. Jon Rosdahl, CSR Jon Rosdahl, CSR

15.1.4.m 5.3 Other Standard: 5.4 Purpose: 5.6 Stakeholders:
July 20111 doc.: IEEE /0997r1 July 2011 m 5.3 Other Standard: Should be yes: “PAWS” or similar database protocol standard. 5.4 Purpose: Suggest replace with “This document will not have a purpose clause”. You should not restate the scope in the purpose statement. 5.6 Stakeholders: There are more players for large scale command and control applications Add the following: Industrial Automation providers, Building Automation providers, Intelligent Traffic System Providers, Large Scale Monitoring for Safety providers. 8.1 Notes: - Instructions require item number and explanation. What item is the statement trying to support? Suggest that this may be included in the scope statement as a final sentence. Jon Rosdahl, CSR Jon Rosdahl, CSR

15.1.4m 1. Broad Market Potential: 3. Distinct Identity
July 20111 doc.: IEEE /0997r1 July 2011 15.1.4m 1. Broad Market Potential: This does not seem to be a personal area network application. 3. Distinct Identity a) spelling error – “application” b) this statement seems to be overly vague. Once af plus ah are in the base standard, it could in fact provide this same solution set. 4. Technical Feasibility a) The FCC rules are not complete, so compliance cannot be claimed. b) what is the value of “The WPAN application presents no unique challenges”? Jon Rosdahl, CSR Jon Rosdahl, CSR

15.1.4m 5 Economic Feasibility
July 20111 doc.: IEEE /0997r1 July 2011 15.1.4m 5 Economic Feasibility TV White Space devices may not have the same costs as the traditional devices due to implementation details to meet: regulatory requirements – database access method will include additional costs Spectral mask has been defined more tightly than in the past. The current FCC spectral mask may result in significant cost increases. Antenna size differences Jon Rosdahl, CSR Jon Rosdahl, CSR

July 20111 doc.: IEEE /0997r1 July 2011 amendment for management and control plane interfaces and procedures and management information base enhancements, PAR and 5C 2.1 Title: What is the real work that is being cited in the title? 5.2 Scope: suggest the following for your Scope: This amendment defines new Management and Control Plan interfaces for the IEEE standard. The existing Management Information Base (MIB) is enhanced to accommodate the new interfaces. The Primitives for Cognitive Radio Capabilities have been extended to align with the new interface definitions. Jon Rosdahl, CSR Jon Rosdahl, CSR

802.22.a 5.3 Other Standard: 5.4 Purpose 5.5 Need: 5.6 stakeholders –
July 20111 doc.: IEEE /0997r1 July 2011 a 5.3 Other Standard: Should be yes: “PAWS” or similar database protocol standard. 5.4 Purpose The scope and purpose should describe the final document not the project. If you do not include a purpose statement in the Amendment it is better to write “Document will not have a purpose statement”. 5.5 Need: The statement should be more succinct and focused. 5.6 stakeholders – Who are the stakeholders, not just lists of industry descriptions. List who has stake in not who is looking to include. 8.1 note: you need to include the item number that you are commenting on. ("Item Number and Explanation"). This is a better Scope statement that what is in 5.2. General: Please check the instructions for PARs again, and comply with the instructions. Jon Rosdahl, CSR Jon Rosdahl, CSR

802.22.a Five Criteria is not numbered… 1. Broad Market Potential
July 20111 doc.: IEEE /0997r1 July 2011 a Five Criteria is not numbered… 1. Broad Market Potential a) What does this have to do with the scope of the proposed project? a) Live-stock monitoring may need a MIB, but Live-Stock Monitoring applications are probably not the motivation for enhancing the MIB. Rewrite Market Potential. 3. Distinct Identity: c) The proposed title, scope and purpose were not defined to make it easy for anyone to select this standard for relevant applications. Jon Rosdahl, CSR Jon Rosdahl, CSR

802.1 Response E-mail Response:
July 2011 802.1 Response Response: EC Colleauges - We recieved no comments from the other WGs on any of our draft PARs. The only comments received were from Bob Grow relative to the draft PAR/5C for P802.1BR: Tony: Jon Rosdahl, CSR

July 2011 802.3 Response Their response was agree. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

July 2011 Response We received comments from , and The comments and responses have been aggregated in: The resulting revised PAR can be found at: The resulting revised 5C can be found at: Regards Bob H. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

802.11 comments on Pending 802 PARs – July 2011
doc.: IEEE /0997r1 doc.: IEEE /0997r0 July 2011 July 2011 comments on Pending 802 PARs – July 2011 Date: Slide 16 Jon Rosdahl, CSR SangSung Choi(ETRI) Page 16 Jon Rosdahl, CSR Jon Rosdahl, CSR

July 20111 July 20111 doc.: IEEE /0997r0 doc.: IEEE /0997r1 July 2011 July 2011 m PAR 5.2 Scope: Which Regulatory Domains are you planning to address? Response: As many as is practical. The command and control issues are global in nature so it is desired to serve as many markets as possible. A reference to that is now included in the scope. Which coexistence set will you use? Response: Assuming this is referring to Primary v. Secondary that will be determined by what Regulatory domains can be practically addressed How will you address which database access will be used? Response: Can not be determined at this stage What is the approach that will be used to securely access the Geolocation database? (Note it will be different from country to country). Response: We expect that will be determined during draft development. Suggested Scope: This amendment specifies a physical layer for meeting TV white space regulatory requirements in “X”, “Y” and “Z”. MAC changes required to support this physical layer are also described. This amendment enables operation in the white spaces of the TV Bands while supporting data rates in the 40 kbits per second to 2000 kbits per second range. This amendment targets power efficient device command and control applications. Response: Scope has been modified to reflect something similar. Slide 17 Jon Rosdahl, CSR SangSung Choi(ETRI) Page 17 Jon Rosdahl, CSR Jon Rosdahl, CSR

July 2011 July 2011 5.3 Other Standard:
doc.: IEEE /0997r0 doc.: IEEE /0997r1 July 2011 July 2011 5.3 Other Standard: Should be yes: “PAWS” or similar database protocol standard. Response: Accept 5.4 Purpose: Suggest replace with “This document will not have a purpose clause”. You should not restate the scope in the purpose statement. Response: Accept 5.6 Stakeholders: There are more players for large scale command and control applications Add the following: Industrial Automation providers, Building Automation providers, Intelligent Traffic System Providers, Large Scale Monitoring for Safety providers. 8.1 Notes: - Instructions require item number and explanation. What item is the statement trying to support? Suggest that this may be included in the scope statement as a final sentence. Response: This sentence has typically been included in Group did not see a compelling reason to break with tradition. Item number supported was already in the original PAR. Slide 18 Jon Rosdahl, CSR SangSung Choi(ETRI) Page 18 Jon Rosdahl, CSR Jon Rosdahl, CSR

802.15.4m 5C 1. Broad Market Potential: 3. Distinct Identify
July 20111 July 20111 doc.: IEEE /0997r0 doc.: IEEE /0997r1 July 2011 July 2011 m 5C 1. Broad Market Potential: This does not seem to be a personal area network application. Response: Much of what does, does not fit in that category should consider changing its tagline to reflect reality. 3. Distinct Identify a) spelling error – “application” noted b) this statement seems to be overly vague. Once af plus ah are in the base standard, it could in fact provide this same solution set. Response: No change has been made. While any broadband solution is capable of providing the data rate, the very nature of achieving the higher data rates adds complexity not needed for command and control applications and increases the link margins needed for assured performance. Slide 19 Jon Rosdahl, CSR SangSung Choi(ETRI) Page 19 Jon Rosdahl, CSR Jon Rosdahl, CSR

4. Technical Feasibility
July 20111 July 20111 doc.: IEEE /0997r0 doc.: IEEE /0997r1 July 2011 July 2011 4. Technical Feasibility a) The FCC rules are not complete, so compliance cannot be claimed. Response: Clarified the statement to be more accurate b) what is the value of “The WPAN application presents no unique challenges”? Response: Modified sentence to make it clearer 5 Economic Feasibility TV White Space devices may not have the same costs as the traditional devices due implementation details to meet: regulatory requirements – database access method will include additional costs Spectral mask has been defined more tightly than in the past. The current FCC spectral mask may result in significant cost increases. Anntenna size differences Response: Acknowledged. Statement modified to reflect Slide 20 Jon Rosdahl, CSR SangSung Choi(ETRI) Page 20 Jon Rosdahl, CSR Jon Rosdahl, CSR

July 2011 Response received comments from and on the proposed a PAR and 5C for amending the main Standard with MIB and management and control interface. The comments and responses have been aggregated in: The resulting revised PAR and 5C can be found at: Regards, Gerald Vice-chair Jon Rosdahl, CSR

July 20111 doc.: IEEE /0997r1 July 2011 From 2.1 Title: What is the real work that is being cited in the title? This PAR is for enhancing the interface and procedure for management and control plane as well as for defining the management component using the ASN1 standard. Title is changed to include “Enhancement of the …” 5.2 Scope: suggest the following for your Scope: This amendment defines new Management and Control Plan interfaces for the IEEE standard. The existing Management Information Base (MIB) is enhanced to accommodate the new interfaces. The Primitives for Cognitive Radio Capabilities have been extended to align with the new interface definitions. Agree to remove the first sentence, full title does not need to be repeated. References to specific Clause numbers are removed. Agree to remove the 4th sentence. Gerald Chouinard, CRC Jon Rosdahl, CSR Jon Rosdahl, CSR

From 802.11 5.3 Other Standard: 5.4 Purpose July 2011
doc.: IEEE /0997r1 July 2011 From 5.3 Other Standard: Should be yes: “PAWS” or similar database protocol standard. We don’t agree that the implementation of these amendments depend on the completion of another standard. It should stay as: No. What is contained in the Standard is a set of primitives needed to access the database. This proposed PAR will bring, among other things, amendments to the MIB and management and control plane interface that will involve these primitives but will not deal with the higher layer encapsulating of this information to access the database over the Internet. Therefore, this effort is independent of any standardization process on this higher layer interface protocol. 5.4 Purpose The scope and purpose should describe the final document not the project. If you do not include a purpose statement in the Amendment it is better to write “Document will not have a purpose statement”. We don’t agree that the scope and purpose should have the same purpose. Our interpretation is that the scope should give an indication of the extent of the proposed amendments while the purpose should explain the reasons that lead to such amendments. The text in section 5.4 was written according to this understanding. Gerald Chouinard, CRC Jon Rosdahl, CSR Jon Rosdahl, CSR

From 802.11 5.5 Need: 5.6 Stakeholders –
July 20111 doc.: IEEE /0997r1 July 2011 From 5.5 Need: The statement should be more succinct and focused. Agreed. Modified text is being proposed. 5.6 Stakeholders – Who are the stakeholders, not just lists of industry descriptions. List who has stake in not who is looking to include. The list of stakeholders for these amendments should be the same as for the mains Standard that these amendments address. The list that appears in the Standard has been inserted. Gerald Chouinard, CRC Jon Rosdahl, CSR Jon Rosdahl, CSR

July 20111 doc.: IEEE /0997r1 July 2011 From 8.1 note: you need to include the item number that you are commenting on. ("Item Number and Explanation"). This is a better Scope statement that what is in 5.2. The gist of this note has been included in the Purpose section and the note has been removed. See the new version of the PAR and 5C. General: Please check the instructions for PARs again, and comply with the instructions. There is a need for specific recommendations for needed changes. Gerald Chouinard, CRC Jon Rosdahl, CSR Jon Rosdahl, CSR

From 802.11 Five Criteria is not numbered… 1. Broad Market Potential
July 20111 doc.: IEEE /0997r1 July 2011 From Five Criteria is not numbered… 1. Broad Market Potential a) What does this have to do with the scope of the proposed project? The proposed amendments relate to MIB and management and control interfaces and procedures may be applicable to various IEEE 802 systems, thus a possible broader application than only at the level. Also such amendments will allow flexible adaptation of the technology to various regulatory requirements, thus a broad potential for operation. a) Live-stock monitoring may need a MIB, but Live-Stock Monitoring applications are probably not the motivation for enhancing the MIB. Rewrite Market Potential. Agreed, the list of applications can be removed. 3. Distinct Identity: c) The proposed title, scope and purpose were not defined to make it easy for anyone to select this standard for relevant applications. Agreed. There is no other equivalent project since the results of this project will end up as amendments to the main standard which will be integrated, through a future maintenance PAR, to the main Standard. There is no need for “distinct identity” for these amendments. Thus, the current text needs to be changed to: “Not-Applicable for an amendment PAR”. Gerald Chouinard, CRC Jon Rosdahl, CSR Jon Rosdahl, CSR

July 2011 Rebuttal Response to In an effort to help get feedback on your response to you sooner than later, we offer the following rebuttal. 1. Comment on Following instructions: From the PAR instructions: Please enter the amendment title in the text box. The title should be sufficiently unambiguous, understandable by a NesCom member not from the society that submitted the PAR. All acronyms shall be spelled out in the title. We would encourage you to change the title, Scope and Purpose to meet the requirement. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

Rebuttal Response to 802.22 (2)
July 2011 Rebuttal Response to (2) 2. In the Distict Identity, the instructions has "two Shall" statements, so we do not believe you can simply say "it does not apply". Your Title, Scope, Purpose are REQUIRED to be easy for the document ready to determine what is in the document. IE: from the 5C Distinct Identity Each IEEE 802 standard shall have a distinct identity. To achieve this, each authorized project shall be: a) Substantially different from other IEEE 802 standards. b) One unique solution per problem (not two solutions to a problem). c) Easy for the document reader to select the relevant specification. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

July 2011 Rebuttal Response to (3) Note From the NesCom conventions: 4. Clarity in PAR Content and Title NesCom shall only approve PARs where the title, scope and purpose are sufficiently unambiguous, as to be understandable by a NesCom member not from the society that submitted the PAR. All acronyms shall be spelled out at first use. 5. Scope and Purpose of the PAR The scope and purpose of the PAR shall be written in complete sentences and with proper grammar. The scope and purpose should be distinct and separate statements. References to other standards within the scope and purpose shall include the number, title, date (if appropriate), and source of the referenced standards. For PARs approved after 01 January 2007 for new or revised standards, the scope and purpose (if applicable) must match the scope and purpose clauses of the draft document submitted to RevCom. A purpose clause is not mandatory. If the document will not contain a purpose clause, this should be noted on the PAR form. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

July 2011 Rebuttal Response to (4) So we would encourage to change the Scope and Purpose to be in "present" tense etc as per the rules/requirements., Generally the Scope tells "what", the purpose tells "why" as per the document. The need section speaks to the project. Regards, PAR review Adhoc Jon Rosdahl, CSR

July 20111 doc.: IEEE /0997r1 July 2011 References : The final PAR form and 5C can also be found on the mentor at ( : The resulting revised PAR can be found at: The resulting revised 5C can be found at: Jon Rosdahl, CSR Jon Rosdahl, CSR

comments on Pending 802 PARs – July 2011

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "comments on Pending 802 PARs – July 2011"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

comments on Pending 802 PARs – July 2011

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "comments on Pending 802 PARs – July 2011"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback