November 2013
doc.: IEEE 11-13/1381r1
802-11 Review of PARs for Nov Plenary
Date: 2013-11-12
Authors:
Name
Affiliations
Address
Jon Rosdahl
CSR Technologies Inc
10871 N 5750 W
+1-801-492-4023
Highland, UT 84003
Submission
Slide 1
Phone
email
jrosdashl@ieee.org
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2013
doc.: IEEE 11-13/1381r1
Abstract
802.11 Review of the following PARS:
1. 802 - Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks: Overview
and Architecture - PAR extension request
2. 802.1AX-REV - PAR modification request
3. 802.1Q-REV - PAR modification request
4. 802.3br - amendment: Interspersing Express Traffic, PAR and 5C
5. 802.3bt - amendment: DTE Power via MDI over 4-Pair, PAR and 5C
6. 802.3bu - amendment: 1-Pair Power over Data Lines, PAR and 5C
7. 802.22 - Revision, PAR
8. OmniRAN EC SG - Recommended Practice, Network Reference Model
and Functional Description of IEEE 802 Access Network , PAR and 5C
Submission
Slide 2
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2013
doc.: IEEE 11-13/1381r1
802.11 REVIEW OF PARS FOR
NOVEMBER 2013 802 PLENARY
Submission
Slide 3
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2013
doc.: IEEE 11-13/1381r1
802 - Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
Networks: Overview and Architecture
- PAR extension request
There is a Concern that you will not be able to complete
by Oct 2014.
A more aggressive plan to include recirculating the draft
more often than 2 times a year may be necessary in
order to meet the Oct 2014 target. An updated plan
should be prepared and enforced by 802.1 leadership.
Submission
Slide 4
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2013
doc.: IEEE 11-13/1381r1
802.1AX
Add “5.2” to 8.1 prior to the explanation.
Submission
Slide 5
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2013
doc.: IEEE 11-13/1381r1
802.1Q-REV - PAR modification request
No Comment
Submission
Slide 6
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2013
doc.: IEEE 11-13/1381r1
802.3br
5.2: “This standard defines Ethernet local area, access
and metropolitan area networks”. Is this sentence
correct? Is “Ethernet local area” a description or is
this really a “local area Ethernet”? How does “access”
by itself apply?
8.1 move the statement in 8.1 to 5.2b… (see 802.3bt)
8.1 Need to provide the full names for standards
referenced in the PAR form in 8.1.
Submission
Slide 7
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2013
doc.: IEEE 11-13/1381r1
802.3bt
No comment
Submission
Slide 8
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2013
doc.: IEEE 11-13/1381r1
802.3bu
No comment
Submission
Slide 9
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2013
doc.: IEEE 11-13/1381r1
802.22
2.1 spell out the first use of RAN
3.1 Update the WG Vice chair
5.2 the scope is not describing what band is truly being
used. “any band” is too broad a scope.
5.4 the added sentences of “This Revision project…” is not
being added in the right place. This should be part of
5.5 Need for the project. (see slide notes for all the text
that should be moved to 5.5.)
5.5 the initial part of this section seems to be why the
802.22 was originally started, and that would not
necessarily be the reason for the revision, but only the
latter part of this section should be used (Why are you
doing the revision not why 802.22.)
Submission
Slide 10
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2013
doc.: IEEE 11-13/1381r1
802.22 cont
5.2 Is the scope of the revision only to reband the existing
802.22 radio?
5.2 Which bands do you intend to occupy? (this should be
stated in the Scope statement) All Unlicensed Spectrum
is not a reasonable response. A specific range of bands
should be specified.
7.1 What about 802.16? If you are expanding the bands
and the type of station definition, does this become
similar to 802.16?
8.1 No section number with the text, and it seems to be a
cut and paste error as it is identical to the purpose
statement. Delete.
Submission
Slide 11
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2013
doc.: IEEE 11-13/1381r1
802.22
General: Missing updated 5C – see 10.2 and 10.3 of the
LMSC OM – This Project is not qualified to be
considered at this Session.
General: the PAR form presented is not the correct PAR
form. An old PAR form should not be used for
consideration.
Submission
Slide 12
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2013
doc.: IEEE 11-13/1381r1
OmniRAN EC SG - Recommended Practice, Network Reference
Model and Functional Description of IEEE 802 Access Network,
PAR and 5C
4.2/4.3 Note that this PAR will not be approved by SASB
until March 2014 (last week). Suggest that the initial
Sponsor ballot date be set to 03/2016 and the submittal
to RevCom be 10/2016 (or 02/2017)
5.2 What is an access network? This generic term is not
adequately defined or referenced. Put reference in 8.1
5.2 “Network Reference Model” – Should this be “Access
Network Reference Model””?
5.4 not a “specification”, but rather a “Recommended
Practice”.
Submission
Slide 13
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2013
doc.: IEEE 11-13/1381r1
OmniRAN cont
5.4 – How is this going to “more easily” enable design?
5.4 – unsure what “access networks” vs “unified access
network”
5.4 the word “extensions” and “extend” is not the same in
phrase 2 and phrase 3. does the one mean amendment
or new standard? Extends applicability to 802
networks? Was 802 networks not extendable to begin
with?
5.4 What are the “new deployment domains”? Which
domains will inspire/require this new recommended
practice? Which “deployment domains” have not
progressed because this recommended practice does
not exist?
Submission
Slide 14
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2013
doc.: IEEE 11-13/1381r1
OmniRAN cont
5.5 GAP analysis pointer should be provided. At least the
summary of the GAP analysis should be listed here.
8.1 – Item #1.2 – change “specification” to “document”
8.1 Do you need #1.2 at all?
8.1 #3.2/#5.6 “this standard” should be “this guide”
8.1 #3.2/#5.6 – concern on how to designate a participant,
as WGs are individual based, they would not be able to
claim to be a representative of the respective WG.
Submission
Slide 15
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2013
doc.: IEEE 11-13/1381r1
OmniRAN cont
General - Make sure to put the full name of all standards
that are referenced in the PAR into 8.1 (even if the only
reference is in 8.1).
10.5.1 Broad Market Potential: a)b) add some examples to
show what your are claiming is true…How does this
Guide apply to this criteria? What is the value of the
Guide to the Market?
10.5.3 Distinct Identity – Change “standard” to “guide” in
all sections….
Submission
Slide 16
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2013
doc.: IEEE 11-13/1381r1
OmniRAN cont
Example of one section for change: 10.5.3 c) Distinct
Identity: Proposed change: The Guide is substantially
different from all other IEEE 802 standards because no
current standard or guide specifies the network
reference model and functional interactions for an
IEEE 802 access network.
Submission
Slide 17
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2013
doc.: IEEE 11-13/1381r1
Response received from 802 WG
on feedback from 802.11
Submission
Slide 18
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2013
doc.: IEEE 11-13/1381r1
From OmniRAN
Comments were captured in
https://mentor.ieee.org/omniran/dcn/13/omniran-130091-02-ecsg-nov-2013-collected-comments-on-draftpar-proposal.xlsx
Updated PAR and 5C:
https://mentor.ieee.org/omniran/dcn/13/omniran-13-008602-ecsg-proposed-par-and-5c.docx
Submission
Slide 19
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2013
doc.: IEEE 11-13/1381r1
From 802.22
See 22-13/168r0 for comments:
https://mentor.ieee.org/802.22/dcn/13/22-13-0168-000000-802-22-response-to-the-comments-on-the-802-22revision-par.pptx
Updated PAR: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.22/dcn/13/2213-0138-04-0000-802-22-revision-par.docx
Updated 5c: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.22/dcn/13/22-130156-01-0000-802-22-revision-par-5c.docx
Submission
Slide 20
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2013
doc.: IEEE 11-13/1381r1
802.22 Rebuttal
The change of adding “such as” made the scope nondefinitive. If the scope clause had left out the “such as”
phrase then the scope would be bounded and we could
tell what new bands were being added.
The Addition of “between primary services and
opportunistic communications devices” phrase is also
problematic for us.
Option 1: Just do a roll-up and do the additional bands as
a separate project (amendment).
Submission
Slide 21
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2013
doc.: IEEE 11-13/1381r1
802.22 rebuttal
Scope suggestion
Option 2: Change the Scope statement to be definitive:
This standard specifies the air interface, including the
cognitive radio medium access control layer (MAC)
and physical layer (PHY), of point-to-multipoint and
point-to-point wireless regional area networks
comprised of a professional fixed base station with
fixed and portable user terminals operating in the
bands between 1300 MHz to 1750 MHz and 2700 MHz
to 3650 MHz, and the VHF/UHF TV broadcast bands
between 54 MHz to 862 MHz.
Submission
Slide 22
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2013
doc.: IEEE 11-13/1381r1
802.22 rebuttal
Note from the NesCom Conventions:
PARs for the Revision of a Standard
All PARs for the revision of a standard shall include an
indication under "Additional Explanatory Notes" of
the PAR form to identify PAR elements (e.g., scope,
purpose, need, etc.) that have been modified.
8.1 does not have that included, but rather has a cut and
paste from the need…in our original comment, you
indicated you would accept removal of the extranous
material, but you still need to add the required
information.
Submission
Slide 23
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2013
doc.: IEEE 11-13/1381r1
802.1AX
P802.1AX PAR modification request:
Adding "“5.2” to 8.1 prior to the explanation would be fine
by me. However, given that this PAR modification request
has now been pre-submitted, I would suggest that the
practical way to get the change incorporated would be for
you (or another NesCom member) to make the comment
on the submitted PAR on the NesCom website, so that the
change is documented in the NesCom database; I can then
respond to the comment on the system and the NesCom
admin can make the actual change to the text on the
master copy of the extension request.
***this has been done
Submission
Slide 24
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2013
doc.: IEEE 11-13/1381r1
From 802.3
5.2: “This standard defines Ethernet local area, access and metropolitan area networks”.
Is this sentence correct? Is “Ethernet local area” a description or is this really a “local
area Ethernet”? How does “access” by itself apply?
DMLT answers:
This sentence is correct. This means Ethernet which includes capabilities of being a local
area network, an access network, and a metropolitan area network. An access network
is also known as a „first mile“ or „last mile“ network. E.g. IEEE 802.3 EPONs.
This text refers to 5.2.b. This subclause is the scope of the base standard.
This amendment does not intend to change the scope of the base standard. If this is a
significant concern, a maintenance request may be submitted by the commenter.
8.1 move the statement in 8.1 to 5.2b… (see 802.3bt)
DMLT answer: Accepted in Principle: Deleted the sentence and adjusted the IEEE 802
Five-Criteria, Compatibility Requirement.
8.1 Need to provide the full names for standards referenced in the PAR
form in 8.1.
DMLT answer: No longer applicable, see comment above.
Submission
Slide 25
Jon Rosdahl, CSR