November 2014
doc.: IEEE 802-EC-14/0080r1
802-11 PAR Review November 2014
Date: 2014-11-03
Authors:
Name
Jon Rosdahl
Affiliations
Address
CSR Technologies Inc 10871 N 5750 W
Phone
email
+1-801-492-4023 jrosdahl@ieee.org
Highland, UT 84003
Submission
Slide 1
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2014
doc.: IEEE 802-EC-14/0080r1
Abstract-Snapshot
• Review of Proposed PAR documents
• 802c, Amendment: Local Media Access Control (MAC) Addressing, PAR and
CSD
• 802.1AS-rev - Timing and Synchronization for Time-Sensitive Applications,
PAR and CSD
• 802.1Qch- Amendment: Cyclic Queuing and Forwarding, PAR and CSD
• 802.3bv- Amendment, 1000 Mb/s Operation Over Plastic Optical Fiber , PAR
and CSD
• 802.3by- Amendment: Media Access Control Parameters, Physical Layers and
Management Parameters for 25 Gb/s Operation, PAR and CSD
• 802.15.7a- Amendment for a Physical Layer Supporting Optical Camera
Communications, PAR and 5C
• Meeting times: Monday PM2, Tuesday AM2, Thursday AM2
Submission
Slide 2
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2014
doc.: IEEE 802-EC-14/0080r1
PAR SC – November 2014
Chair: Jon Rosdahl
Monday Agenda:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Welcome
Determine order of review
Review PARs/CSD posted for review this week.
Recess
Tuesday Agenda:
1.
2.
Complete review of PARs/CSD and post comments to 802 WGs
Recess
Thursday Agenda:
1.
2.
3.
Submission
Review Response to Comments
Prepare Report for 802.11 WG closing plenary
Adjourn
Slide 3
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2014
doc.: IEEE 802-EC-14/0080r1
802.15.7a- Amendment for a Physical Layer Supporting
Optical Camera Communications, PAR and 5C
LED – Expand to define on first use of acronym.
QR – Expand to define on first use of acronym.
5.2b – “Techniques are put forward which do not require any
hardware modifications for many classes of applications in
existing mobile and/or other devices such as those defined
above, as well as techniques which may require some level
of hardware modification to support new capabilities”
This last sentence seems like it may be more of a prediction
than a definition of the scope for the project. Consider
putting into section 8.1 or just deleting altogether.
Submission
Slide 4
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2014
doc.: IEEE 802-EC-14/0080r1
802.15.7a (cont)
5.4 – “The purpose of this standard is to provide a global
standard…” change to “This standard provides a global
standard…”
5.5 “air plane” vs “airplane” –
5.6 – “etc,” list of Stakeholders is the list. Delete the “etc.”
Website calls out a “5C” for the 802.15 CSD…all others are
CSD…Suggest ask Recording Secretary change to “CSD”
Submission
Slide 5
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2014
doc.: IEEE 802-EC-14/0080r1
802.15.7a CSD(cont)
14.2.1 a) ““air plane” vs “airplane” –
Submission
Slide 6
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2014
doc.: IEEE 802-EC-14/0080r1
802c, Amendment: Local Media Access Control (MAC)
Addressing, PAR and CSD
In General, we believe that discussion on this topic has
identified multiple stakeholders that have not been
sufficiently consulted or involved in the development of
the PAR/CSD.
An EC Study Group should be created to allow multiple
Stakeholders, across all 802 WGs, to participate in the
development of a PAR/CSD. Timing conflicts need to be
addressed to allow for an inclusive opportunity of the
stakeholders.
Submission
Slide 7
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2014
doc.: IEEE 802-EC-14/0080r1
802c PAR Comments
1.2 Type of Document: Standard
Comments:
1. Recommended practice vs a standard. Either a set of
informative changes (Informative Annex) to the existing
802 Architecture document or a stand-alone
recommended practice document should be developed to
meet the PAR objectives.
Submission
Slide 8
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2014
doc.: IEEE 802-EC-14/0080r1
802c, Amendment PAR (cont)
5.1 Approximate number of people expected to be actively
involved in the development of this project: 30
no comment
5.2.a. Scope of the complete standard: This standard
contains descriptions of the IEEE 802(R) standards
published by the IEEE for frame-based data networks
as well as a reference model (RM) for protocol
standards. The IEEE 802 architecture is defined, and a
specification for the identification of public, private,
and standard protocols is included.
No specific changes identified, however changes likely to be
required if a recommended practice is developed.
Submission
Slide 9
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2014
doc.: IEEE 802-EC-14/0080r1
802c, Amendment PAR (cont)
5.2.b. Scope of the project: The amendment will provide recommendations and
rules for using the local address space.. This will allocate a portion of the
address space for protocols using an IEEE Registration Authority assigned
Company ID. Another portion of the local address space will be allocated for
assignment by local administrators.
Comments:
1. Punctuation error – 2 periods at the end of the first sentence
2. In the first sentence, delete “and rules”. The scope (5.2.b) refers to
“recommendations” Change to recommended practice. 1.2.2 of the CSD
describes “providing a guideline for use of the existing Local Address space”.
3. The entire local address space is available for local administration today.
There is a coexistence and backwards compatibility issue with changing this:
“Another portion…by local administrators.”
4. The second 2 sentences are providing a solution. There may be other
solutions or alternatives that are identified. Delete the second and third
sentences.
Submission
Slide 10
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2014
doc.: IEEE 802-EC-14/0080r1
802c, Amendment PAR (cont
5.
The RAC does not allocate local addresses and should not begin
doing so.
“A
CID has the X bit (U/L bit) equal to one and consequently that places any
address with the CID as its first three octets in the local address space (U/L =
1). Local addresses are not globally unique, but a network administrator is
responsible for assuring that any local addresses assigned are unique within
the span of use.” from IEEE RAC document “Guidelines
for Use
Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI) and Company ID
(CID)”
The scope statement should not imply a change to the current
RAC policy.
Submission
Slide 11
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2014
doc.: IEEE 802-EC-14/0080r1
802c, Amendment PAR (cont)
5.5 Need for the Project: Currently, global addresses are
assigned to most IEEE 802 end stations and bridge ports.
Increasing use of virtual machines and Internet of Things
(IoT) devices could exhaust the global address space if
global addresses are assigned. This project will enable
protocols that automatically configure addresses from a
portion of the local address space. Such protocols will allow
virtual machines and IoT devices to obtain a local address
without local administration.
Comments on next slide
Submission
Slide 12
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2014
doc.: IEEE 802-EC-14/0080r1
802c, Amendment PAR (cont)
5.5 Need for the Project -Comments:
1. The sentences “This project will enable protocols that automatically
configure addresses from a portion of the local address space. Such
protocols will allow virtual machines and IoT devices to obtain a local
address without local administration.” do not state a need. Delete the 2
cited sentences or reword to describe a need.
2. “Organizations will be able to use a CID address block as a default
address space for their protocol without conflicting with other protocols
following the guideline.”
Organizations are already able to use the local address space. A local administrator can
allocate local addresses without a CID. A local administrator can use a CID to allocate
addresses from the local address space as an alternative.
Submission
Slide 13
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2014
doc.: IEEE 802-EC-14/0080r1
802c Amendment – CSD Comments
1. Section 1.1.2 – Coexistence. While the proposed document is not a
wireless document, we believe that the coexistence issue must be
addressed to describe how the new mechanisms or recommendations
will coexist with deployed devices and uses of the local MAC address
space, in particular, existing 802 wireless standards.
2. 1.2.1 includes the example of “Fibre Channel over Ethernet (FCoE) has
standardized a protocol for distributing FCoE virtual port MAC
addresses from blocks in the Local MAC address space.” This example is
in conflict with the statement in the PAR (5.2.b) “This will allocate a
portion of the address space for protocols using an IEEE Registration
Authority assigned Company ID.”
as protocols can assign addresses today. This strengthens the case for
either a recommended practice or development of a protocol.
Submission
Slide 14
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2014
doc.: IEEE 802-EC-14/0080r1
802c Amendment – CSD Comments (cont)
3. The last paragraph in 1.2.1 asserts that “A first step in enabling
protocols for claiming or assignment of Local MAC addresses is to
organize the MAC address space so that entities can be assigned a
block of the Local Address space through the Company ID (CID) as a
default. Another part of the space will be defined for local
administration.” This is an assertion that is not substantiated and is
disproven by the Fibre Channel example in 1.2.1.
4. Section 1.2.4 asserts “Organizations will be able to use a CID address
block as a default address space for their protocol without conflicting
with other protocols following the guideline.”
Organizations are already able to use the local address space. The
local administrator can use the CID to allocate addresses from the
local address space is not necessary. Definition of a protocol to
assign a local address is sufficient. The RAC does not allocate local
addresses and should not begin doing so.
Submission
Slide 15
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2014
doc.: IEEE 802-EC-14/0080r1
802c Amendment – CSD Comments (cont)
5. Section 1.2.4 asserts “Another part of the space will be
defined as the preferred area for local address
administration.” This creates a backwards
compatibility issue, as the entire space is used today for
local address assignment.
6. Section 1.2.5 asserts that “CIDs are available from the
RAC for a known cost.” If there is a requirement for
using CIDs from the RAC, then additional cost are
incurred.
Submission
Slide 16
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2014
doc.: IEEE 802-EC-14/0080r1
802.1AS-rev - Timing and Synchronization for TimeSensitive Applications, PAR and CSD
Please add the full name of the cited Stds in section 8.1
Misspelled “been” (is “ben”) 5C –Economic Feasibility –
slide 8.
Submission
Slide 17
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2014
doc.: IEEE 802-EC-14/0080r1
802.1Qch- Amendment: Cyclic Queuing and Forwarding,
PAR and CSD
No Comment
Submission
Slide 18
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2014
doc.: IEEE 802-EC-14/0080r1
802.3bv- Amendment, 1000 Mb/s Operation Over Plastic
Optical Fiber , PAR and CSD
5.6 Stakeholders:
Delete “Stakeholders identified to date include but are not limited
to:”
7.1 The organization name is not VDE, but that is its acronym.
“Verband der Elektrotechnik, Elektronik und
Informationstechnik“ – missing comma and “und“
Also Acronym in the “Please explain” sentance the “VDE” should
be expanded at first use.
8.1 – “The VDE document was withdrawn at the request of
IEEE/IEEE 802.3.” -- Withdrawn from what? Was there a
formal request that could be cited?
“IEEE/IEEE 802.3” is this correct? Should this be expanded?
Submission
Slide 19
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2014
doc.: IEEE 802-EC-14/0080r1
802.3bv- Amendment CSD
Distinct Identity Slide 7 –
The underlined statement says that the VDE standard was
withdrawn by the “IEEE”. In the PAR it states that it was
done at the request of IEEE/IEEE802.3.
Which is it, can this be worded better in both places?
Economic Feasibility – slide 8
How does “Energy Efficient Ethernet” relate to “25Gb/s
Ethernet”?
Submission
Slide 20
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2014
doc.: IEEE 802-EC-14/0080r1
802.3by- Amendment: Media Access Control Parameters,
Physical Layers and Management Parameters for 25 Gb/s
Operation, PAR and CSD
5.6 Stakeholders:
DELETE “Stakeholders identified to date include, but are
not limited to,”
CSD – slide 4 – Broad Market Potential:
What is “on 25 Gb/s SerDes technology.” – “SerDes”?
should explain/expand the acroynmy and/or term.
Submission
Slide 21
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2014
doc.: IEEE 802-EC-14/0080r1
References
Submission
Slide 22
Jon Rosdahl, CSR