1. Comments for 802-15 Rev PAR – July 2010 Plenary
doc.: IEEE /0859r0
July 2010
Comments for Rev PAR – July 2010 Plenary
Date:
Authors:
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

2. July 2010
doc.: IEEE /0859r0
July 2010
Abstract
R0 = Comments from to regarding their proposed Revision PAR.
R1 = Includes response from to the comments.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

3. Comments on the 802.15.4 Revision PAR
July 2010
Comments on the Revision PAR
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

4. July 2010
Rev PAR
1.1 Project Number: the “i” should not be included in a revision PAR.
4.3 Project Completion Date for Submittal to RevCom: the date should be chosen to be at least 6 months from the start of the Sponsor Ballot start date. When choosing the “Date for Submittal to RevCom”, ensure that the date matches a RevCom agenda deadline.
Suggest a for a Dec RevCom target.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

5. July 2010
Rev PAR
5.2 Scope: The Scope should describe what the scope of the final document will be. This section should not describe the work that will be done to make the document. (that is for 5.4 Need). The Scope of the PAR should match the scope that will be in the published document. The text from the proposal could be good information to include in the 5.4 Need paragraph.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

6. July 2010
Rev PAR
5.4 Purpose: the Purpose should describe the purpose of the final document not the WG/TG effort. If the standard document will not include a purpose, that should be noted here in the PAR. The Purpose and the Scope should not be a word for word match.
5.6 Stakeholders – Describe “who” the stakeholders are e.g.,“…manufacturers and users of telecom, medical….” Do not just list the industries that are involved, or “activities” that may warrant use of the standard.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

7. E-mail received from Bob Heile
July 2010
received from Bob Heile
EC Colleagues-- The updated Revision PAR for 15.4 can be found at: Changes essentially related to current style and language requirements and have not modified the intended work. Turn Change Tracker on to see exactly what changed We received two sets of comments, one set from James Gilb and the other set from Joh Rosdahl, All comments were accepted with the exception of one of Jon's. Jon did not feel it was necessary to explicitly state in the scope that the Revision was limited to merging existing completed amendments into a single document adding no new functionality.  The Working Group disagreed. There are currently 3 active projects affecting functionality, 2 PHY amendments and 1 MAC amendment. Chaos would occur if there were any functional changes made under this revision.  As a result, the Working Group wants to be absolutely clear on what is in scope and what is not.  The only reason we are doing the revision now is because we are required to.  The revision will be completed ahead of the current open projects.  Another revision will be started upon completion of of e, f and g. Please let me know if you have any questions. Regards Bob Bob Heile, Ph.D Chairman, ZigBee Alliance Chair, IEEE Working Group on Wireless Personal Area Networks Co-Chair IEEE P2030 Task Force 3 on Smartgrid Communications 11 Robert Toner Blvd Suite North Attleboro, MA  02763   USA Mobile:   
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

8. Response Received to Comments
July 2010
Response Received to Comments
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

9. July 2010
Extract from
All comments were accepted with the exception of one of Jon's. Jon did not feel it was necessary to explicitly state in the scope that the Revision was limited to merging existing completed amendments into a single document adding no new functionality.  The Working Group disagreed. There are currently 3 active projects affecting functionality, 2 PHY amendments and 1 MAC amendment. Chaos would occur if there were any functional changes made under this revision.  As a result, the Working Group wants to be absolutely clear on what is in scope and what is not.  The only reason we are doing the revision now is because we are required to.  The revision will be completed ahead of the current open projects.  Another revision will be started upon completion of of e, f and g.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

10. July 2010
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

11. Feedback on Response 5.2 Scope and 5.4 Purpose:
July 2010
Feedback on Response
5.2 Scope and 5.4 Purpose:
The first paragraph in each of these clauses is inappropriate. The final Scope and Purpose should be for the reader of the published document. It is not for describing the limits or actions of the Working Group. That can be documented in 5.5: Need for Project or as a comment in “8.1. Additional Explanatory Notes (Item Number and Explanation):”.
As detailed in IEEE-SA OpsMan 1.2, it lists the types of standards and indicates that Revision updates or replaces an IEEE standard in its entirety. Furthermore, in IEEE style guide Amendment vs Revision, it states that the full Revision is open for comments.
Also see IEEE Ops Man 9.2 second paragraph for more description of the differences in amendments vs revision scope statements.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

12. 802.15 Feedback 5.5 Need for Project:
July 2010
Feedback
5.5 Need for Project:
The Need statement could start with an explanation the fact that you have 3 amendments that you want to roll in. The indication is that the Working group is required to make the change due to the number of amendments outstanding, but it is rather the time since the last revision that is the issue. See IEEE OpsMan 9.2Revision. (quoted on the next slide.)
Suggest clarifying the need to match the cited rules.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

13. July 2010
Feedback to
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

14. July 2010
9.2 Revision The Sponsor shall initiate revision of a standard whenever any of the material in the standard (including all amendments, corrigenda, etc.) becomes obsolete or incorrect, or if three or more amendments to a base standard exist three years after its approval or most recent reaffirmation. The Sponsor may initiate revision of a standard when new material becomes available and normal evaluation of need and feasibility indicates revision is warranted. The procedure for revising a standard is the same as for developing a new standard. A revision shall encompass the cumulative scope of the project (including all approved amendments and corrigenda).
In a revision, balloters may register objections to any part of the standard, as the revision process opens the entire document to comment. (The amendment process shall be used when new material and possibly corrections of a limited scope are proposed.)
The draft revision document submitted to the IEEE-SA Standards Board shall be a complete version of the revised document. A complete document shall include both the changed and the unchanged text, with balloted changes incorporated into the document.
When a standard is revised, its approved amendments and corrigenda shall be withdrawn as separate documents. Existing amendments and corrigenda shall either be integrated into the base document or eliminated as indicated in the PAR or determined by the Sponsor balloting process.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

15. References Updated 802.15 PAR
July 2010
References
Updated PAR
Jon Rosdahl, CSR