March 2011
doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0433r0
802.11 Comments on Pending 802 PARs
March 2011
Date: 2011-03-15
Authors:
Name
Jon Rosdahl
Submission
Affiliations
Address
CSR
10871 N 5750 W,
+1-801-492-4023
Highland, UT 84003
Slide 1
Phone
email
jrosdahl@ieee.org
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
March 2011
doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0433r0
Abstract
For the March 2011 802 Plenary, there were 4 PARs for
consideration by the EC. Comments from 802.11 were
provided by 5pm on Tuesday, and responses from the
respective WG was expected back on Wed 5pm.
Final consideration of these PARs was done by the EC
during their closing meeting.
Submission
Slide 2
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
March 2011
doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0433r0
Proposed 802 Pars under consideration for
March 2011
• 802.15.8 new standard for personal space
communications, PAR and 5C
• 802.1Qbp amendment for equal cost multiple paths
(ECMP), PAR and 5C
• 802.1 PAR modification to P802.1Qbh, PAR. The 5C is
unchanged.
• 802.15.7 PAR modification to correct editorial issues in
scope and purpose, PAR. The 5C is unchanged
• 1900.7 PAR – Discussed in 802.19 on Tues AM2, we will
discuss if we have time on Thurs PM1
Submission
Slide 3
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
March 2011
doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0433r0
802.1Qbp amendment for equal cost
multiple paths (ECMP), PAR and 5C
• 5.2 Scope: “It is anticipate” is not verbiage that should be in the
scope.
• 2.1 Title: says Multiple path, but the Scope seems to say a single
path.
• 5.2 Scope: Is the scope a change to resultant standard or just scope
of amendment within the scope of the base standard?
• 5.2 Scope: We have difficulty in reading the following sentence:
would this suggested change to the sentence be correct?
– Suggested change to sentence: “The standard will ensure that Connectivity
Fault Management (CFM) can be used to proactively monitor and diagnose
the paths that data takes through the network.” to “The standard defines
Connectivity Fault Management (CFM) enhancements that can be used to….”.
• PAR: 802.1aq : Check the number should it be 802.1Qaq? Seems
typo in several places in the PAR.
Submission
Slide 4
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
March 2011
doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0433r0
802.1Qbp amendment for equal cost
multiple paths (ECMP), PAR and 5C
• 5.4 Purpose Statement: Present tense sentence rather
than future vision of “proposed” or “envisioned”
should be used.
• 5.4 Proposed Change: ” It is expected that both the current
802.1aq ECT and ECMP would be used at the same time in the same
network …..” to “Both ECT and ECMP may be used at the same time
in the same network….”
• Feature Creep in Scope/Purpose/need…is the last
feature listed in each section the same thing? FCM vs
OA&M
• 8.1 add item number to descriptions.
Submission
Slide 5
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
March 2011
doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0433r0
802.1 PAR modification to P802.1Qbh,
PAR. The 5C is unchanged.
• 8.1 add item number.
• 5.2 Scope: “is “envisioned”, “is expected”…not
description of present tense. Reword to be present
tense as if it were describing the final document.
• Note: Even though there was an “is expected” in the
original scope, it should be corrected to be a present
tense description of what is going to be in the
amendment.
Submission
Slide 6
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
March 2011
doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0433r0
802.15.7 PAR modification to correct
editorial issues in scope and purpose, PAR.
The 5C is unchanged
• 8.1 include item numbers
Submission
Slide 7
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
March 2011
doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0433r0
802.15.8 new standard for personal space
communications, PAR and 5C
•
•
•
•
5.2 Scope: remove “more info” sentence
5.2 Scope: Clearly state which bands you are intending to operate.
5.4 Purpose: change case for present tense
5c-4a; can these assertions be cited?
– Point to documents or papers…802.15 documents?
• 5c- Unique Identity: How is PSC really unique from existing
technologies?
• On Slide 11 of Tutorial doc 15-11/158: Please explain use of PSC
devices in this diagram (e.g. is a PSC device on the cell tower?)
• Is it intended that multiple PSC domains will be meshed together?
Submission
Slide 8
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
March 2011
•
•
•
•
doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0433r0
802.15.8 new standard for personal space
communications, PAR and 5C (cont)
5c-1a) 1st paragraph [This PAR is limited to 50Mbps,
how does this address the higher speed that is
discussed]
5c-1a) 2nd paragraph: [Seems to imply that the
standard will address network connectivity (e.g.
cellular, wifi), which is well beyond the apparent scope
of personal space.]
5c-1a) 3rd paragraph: [This is not true. As described,
802.11 and 802.15 address these applications]
5c-1a) 4th paragraph: [All these features are addressed
by existing standards. The issue of whether it needs to
be addressed by a single standard is debatable since
combo chips are very successful in the market place.]
Submission
Slide 9
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
March 2011
doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0433r0
802.15.8 new standard for personal space
communications, PAR and 5C (cont)
• 5c-3a) [This is not a convincing argument. The market
and wireless industry today has already fully embraced
the multi-radio era. Laptops, netbooks, smartphones,
desktops, tablets, TVs, etc., they all come with a
plethora of wireless technologies ranging from
Bluetooth, 802.11, 2G, 3G, HSPA, 4G, etc. There is no
evidence whatsoever that there is a need in the market
to “to have a new solution with one technology” for the
applications listed in this PAR. In fact, the PAR seems
to be largely trying to “reinvent the wheel”, so to
speak.]
Submission
Slide 10
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
March 2011
doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0433r0
802.15.8 new standard for personal space
communications, PAR and 5C (cont)
• 5c-4a) [No references are provided of a demonstration
of this technology. We believe any such simulations,
test results, and demonstrations can be demonstrated
from existing examples from BT and Wi-Fi which have
already provided real world examples of feasibility.]
Submission
Slide 11
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
March 2011
doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0433r0
802.15.8 new standard for personal space
communications, PAR and 5C (cont)
•
•
5.2 Scope: 1) If the target data rate is less than 50Mbps, why not
amend the 802.15.3 standard (or even upgrade the 802.15.4
standard) for this purpose?
2) All the ongoing activities in 60GHz in the IEEE 802 as well as
throughout the industry have focused on multi-Gbps wireless
communication. As an example, this is the case with both
802.15.3c and 802.11ad. The reason for this is that the 60GHz
band is ideally suited for such high performing networks due to
the large swath of available spectrum worldwide. Therefore,
creating a new standard in this band to provide data rates <
50Mbps would severely compromise QoS sensitive applications
such as wireless display, wireless docking, sync&go, etc., that
depend on the multi-Gbps speeds of 60GHz. We suggest to
explicity exclude 60 GHz from the PAR, so as to not polute the
spectrum with low data rate applications that are well suited by
other bands.
Submission
Slide 12
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
March 2011
doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0433r0
802.15.8 new standard for personal space
communications, PAR and 5C (cont)
•
5.2 Scope (cont) 3) Even though 802.15.3c and
802.11ad are being developed in different WGs, a
significant amount of work has been jontly done by
both groups to ensure adequate coexistence between
these technologies. For example, they use the same
channelization, sampling frequency, similar preamble
structure, and so on. If any new activity is to be
formed under IEEE 802 in the 60GHz band, it must
adopt the same common parameters as to ensure
proper coexistence between all the technologies in this
band.
Submission
Slide 13
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
March 2011
doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0433r0
802.15.8 new standard for personal space
communications, PAR and 5C (cont)
•
•
5.2 Scope: 4) The wording seems to imply that the
scope covers ALL unlicensed bands. As one example,
how does the task group plan on addressing 5 GHz
radar detection with the type of applications it
highlighted. Other examples include the TVWS
bands, etc.
5) Need to better explain how this is any different from
802.11and/or BT in 2.4 GHz, and why we need yet
another interfering system in an already crowded
band.
Submission
Slide 14
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
March 2011
doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0433r0
802.15.8 new standard for personal space
communications, PAR and 5C (cont)
•
•
•
5.2 Scope – 2nd Paragraph: 1) Apparently, all the
features mentioned above can be provided by existing
specifications such as 802.15.3c and 802.11ad in the
60GHz band, and 802.15.3 and 802.11 in the 2.4GHz
band. It is not clear why a new task group is needed to
address these commonly found features.]
2) Coverage extension seems counter to “personal
space” and would allow the task group to create a
specification that covers any range, further
overlapping with existing standards.
3) It is not clear what “group communication” means,
please explain.
Submission
Slide 15
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
March 2011
doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0433r0
802.15.8 new standard for personal space
communications, PAR and 5C (cont)
•
•
5.4 Purpose: 1) This is no different than a piconet in
802.15 terms and a PBSS in 802.11 terms. This can
already be addressed by existing technologies.
2) It is not clear what “automatically configured” has
to do with a MAC/PHY Specification. Automatically
configuring multiple devices surrounding a person
would be handled by a higher layer in the protocol
stack.
Submission
Slide 16
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
March 2011
doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0433r0
802.15.8 new standard for personal space
communications, PAR and 5C (cont)
•
•
5.5 Need: 1) This is not a convincing argument. The market and
wireless industry today has already fully embraced the multiradio era. Laptops, netbooks, smartphones, desktops, tablets,
TVs, etc., they all come with a plethora of wireless technologies
ranging from Bluetooth, 802.11, 2G, 3G, HSPA, 4G, etc. There is
no evidence whatsoever that there is a need in the market to “to
have a new solution with one technology” for the applications
listed in this PAR. In fact, the PAR seems to be largely trying to
“reinvent the wheel”, so to speak.
2) The best case scenario of this activity would be an extra radio
appended to existing combo chips
Submission
Slide 17
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
March 2011
doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0433r0
802.15.8 new standard for personal space
communications, PAR and 5C (cont)
•
•
•
5.5 Need:3 ) The PAR argument goes that no one standard supports all
their use cases, so a new standard for a new unified radio is needed. Call
this new unified radio “Esperanto”. This has two problems, illustrated
via example.
(1) Assume the PAR argument is true. Assume further that the TG can
convince device manufacturers to agree to this vision. Manufacturers
make devices with just the Esperanto radio, but they do not interoperate
with other people’s Bluetooth/WiFi systems. To get value, customers
would have to buy a completely new set of equipment and move all their
data to the new systems. Accordingly, these new Esperanto devices do
not sell.
Manufacturers try again, and now make combo chips with
Bluetooth/WiFi and the new Esperanto radio. Assume the Esperanto
radio has some additional perceived value. These devices do sell. But the
Esperanto radio has made the problem of combo chips worse, not better
– now there are Bluetooth/WiFi and Esperanto radios in the combo.
Submission
Slide 18
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
March 2011
doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0433r0
802.15.8 new standard for personal space
communications, PAR and 5C (cont)
• (2) Assume the Esperanto radio successfully solves all
use cases, so over time more and more devices omit
Bluetooth/WiFi. After 5-10 years, there would be only
the one Esperanto radio (ignoring FM, GPS, etc). But,
let’s assume that 2 years into this transition period, a
new use case is discovered that cannot be met by the
existing Esperanto radio. And, using the logic of the
PAR, adding an additional radio to devices in order to
address this new use case is an inadequate approach
because it would be a combo Esperanto/”additional
radio” chip.
Submission
Slide 19
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
March 2011
doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0433r0
802.15.8 new standard for personal space
communications, PAR and 5C (cont)
• Instead, the IEEE must design a new single radio that meets all the
old use cases and the new use case. Call this a “Klingon” radio.
Manufacturers make devices with just the Klingon radio, but they
do not interoperate with the (still hanging-on) Bluetooth/WiFi
systems or even the Esperanto radio. These Klingon devices do not
sell.
• Manufacturers try again, and now make combo chips with
Bluetooth/WiFi/Esperanto and the new Klingon radio. These
devices do sell. But the Klingon radio has made the problem of
combo chips worse, not better – now there are Bluetooth/WiFi plus
Esperanto plus Klingon radios in the combo.
• Summary: given the rich ecosystem of Bluetooth and WiFi
products, backwards compatibility (and extending the user
experience) is vastly more important than avoiding combo chips
Submission
Slide 20
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
March 2011
doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0433r0
1900.7 PAR
• On Thursday we had a discussion on the 1900.7 PAR
and provided some comments back to them.
• The attached files are the PAR and 5C for 1900.7 with
embedded comments captured.
Submission
Slide 21
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
March 2011
doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0433r0
Response from 802.1Qbp
• The 802.1 WG has reviewed the comments received
from EC members on this draft PAR/5C. The attached
document records the comments receoved from James
Gilb and Jon Rosdahl, and the responses from the WG.
The final text for this draft PAR can be found here:
– http://ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2011/new-ashwood-sajassiecmp-par-0111-v05.pdf
• The 5C are unchanged, and can be found here:
– http://ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2011/new-ashwood-sajassiecmp-5c-0111-v04.pdf
Submission
Slide 22
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
March 2011
doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0433r0
Response from 802.1Qbp (cont)
-Click to read comment response
Submission
Slide 23
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
March 2011
doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0433r0
Response on 802.1Qbh Par Modification
• During discussion of this project, 802.1 has decided that
there are further modifications to this PAR that are
required, the details of which will need more detailed
discussion within the WG this week and during the
May interim.
• We have therefore decided not to submit a PAR
modification at this time. It is anticipated that we will
be bringing a revised PAR modification to the July
Plenary.
Submission
Slide 24
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
March 2011
doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0433r0
Response from 802.15.7
•
https://mentor.ieee.org/802.15/dcn/11/15-11-0260-00-0007-disposition-ofcomments-on-revised-p802-15-7-par.doc
contains the responses to the comments received on P802.15.7 PAR. The
content of this document is as follows:
From 802.11:
Comment:
8.1 Add item numbers
Disposition:
Agree. Section 8.1 now is, "5.2 (Scope): Change [verb tense] to match
Scope in draft, and remove word "any" in last sentence. 5.4 (Purpose):
change [verb tense] to match Purpose in draft. 2.1 (Title): delete
redundant "Standard" and simplify title."
Submission
Slide 25
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
March 2011
doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0433r0
Response from 802.15.7 (cont)
•
From James Gilb:
Comment:
Section 2.1: In the title, the word Standard is used twice. I would
suggest the title of: "Standard for Physical (PHY) Layer and Medium Access
Control (MAC) Layer for Short-Range Wireless Optical Communication using
Visible Light"
or an even simpler one:
"Standard for Short-Range Wireless Optical Communication using Visible Light"
Disposition:
Principle: Changed title to the simpler one as suggested by commenter.
From James Gilb:
Comment:
Section 5.1: A suggestion: Although I agree with the change in tense in
the last sentence, I think it would be best to simply delete it as it would
be difficult to show that it adheres to any of the many eye safety
regulations. Also, we need to be careful with any claims of safety in a
standard.
Disposition:
Principle: The word "any" has been deleted as a resolution to another
comment, but the sentence has been retained.
Submission
Slide 26
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
March 2011
doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0433r0
Response from 802.15.7 (cont-3)
•
From James Gilb:
Comment:
Section 5.4: An editorial suggestion: In the rest of the standard, a
acronym when spelled out is not capitalized unless it is a proper name or
occurs in a location in which the word would be capitalized anyway. Hence,
I suggest changing "Radio Frequency" to be "radio frequency"
Also make this change to "radio frequency" in section 5.5.
Disposition:
Agree: We will let IEEE staff make any such trivial changes.
•
From James Gilb:
Comment:
Section 5.5: Editorial suggestions: More mistakes in capitalization,
change to "location based services", "point-to-multipoint", and
"intelligent transportation systems"
Disposition:
Agree: We will let IEEE staff make any such trivial changes.
From Ted Olsen (NesCom member)
Comment:
In 5.2, scope, I suggest that "adheres to any applicable" in the last
sentence be changed to "adheres to applicable".
Disposition:
Agree
Submission
Slide 27
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
March 2011
doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0433r0
Response from 802.15.8
•
•
Comments were received from James Gilb, 802.11, 802.19 and 802.23
along with a couple of comments from NesCom Members.
Bottom line, the Study group decided it needed to withdraw the PAR from
further consideration this week. One of the main motivators for this
decision is that the permission to publicly share some of the material
referenced in the PAR, and requested in some of the comments, has been
withdrawn. The Study Group felt that reworking the PAR in the light of
this development and in an attempt to address the other inputs received
during the tutorial and comment process could not be effectively done in
24 hours.
They have requested an extension to the Study Group which was
approved by the Working Group (45-0-0).
Thanks for the many valuable comments and stay tuned. The Study
Group is looking to have a revised PAR back in your hands for
consideration in July.
Submission
Slide 28
Jon Rosdahl, CSR