Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

[802.3_DIALOG] Comments on PARs from other WGs


Some comments on November PARs from other groups.  Our optical folk should certainly take a look at 802.15.7a.
  • 802c - Amendment: Local Media Access Control (MAC) Addressing, PAR and CSD
    • No comments, though WG members should be aware of this PAR as it has become a hot item on the EC reflector.
  • 802.1AS-rev - Timing and Synchronization for Time-Sensitive Applications, PAR and CSD
    • This appears to be a maintenance project so a CSD is not required.  
    • I expect “-rev” will not be allowed in the project number.  We (802.3) lost that battle a while ago.
    • PAR, 5.6 - Stakeholders list does not include hardware, only applications.  As is clear from the other information, bridge vendors, providers and users are also stakeholders.  Bridge silicon vendors may also be stakeholders.  
    • This proposed project, I believe, is appropriate for WG comment (especially stakeholders), but should not require an ad hoc.
  • 802.1Qch - Amendment: Cyclic Queuing and Forwarding, PAR and CSD
    • PAR, 5.6 - Stakeholders response begins with an incomplete sentence.  Delete “such as”?
  • 802.15.7a - Amendment for a Physical Layer Supporting Optical Camera Communications,  PAR and 5C
    • I believe it is incumbent on 802.3 to submit comments on this proposed project.
    • PAR, 2.1 - Has been changed from the IEEE format.  Publication uses a line break before amendment, not an emdash.  Publication will also number the amendment.  It is acceptable to not specify an amendment number, but it will be “Amendment ___: <Name>.  Consequently, “for a” should be deleted from the title.  “Optical Camera Communications" is also poorly phrased.  Aren’t most cameras optical devices?  Is the amendment only for optical cameras, or is it optical communications for cameras (if so the optical does not need to be repeated in the Amendment title).  The amendment repeating parts of the base standard title creates confusion.  Based on other information, work will use other non-camera components (e.g., flashlights), making Camera in the title misleading to potential interested parties.
    • PAR, 5.1 - With 10 active 802.15 projects it is doubtful that 100 individuals will be actively involved in development of the project.  The answer to this question should be the number of people attending TG meetings, not WG members.
    • PAR, 5.4b - The scope of the project is outside the scope of the standard, and contrary to the title of the standard (range of wavelengths).  This is absolutely not acceptable and it would be surprising if NesCom let this slip through.  Ultra-violet and Infra-red are not visible.  The first sentence confuses wavelength and frequency and needs to be edited (e.g., delete “frequencies”).
    • PAR, 5.5 - Second paragraph, expand OCC.
    • PAR, 5.6 - The amendment title contradicts the stakeholders as the possible applications are considered broader than cameras (e.g., lighting).
    • CSC, Broad Market - Expand OCC.