|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
I’ve reviewed the PARs from other WGs that Mr. Law has on his document list. In general, the responses to CSD questions are superficial, perfunctory, of little substance, etc. (pick you favorite description). That is something disappointing to someone like me that thinks the 5C play an important role in our process and reputation for developing successful standards. Document specific <RMG> comments follow inline.
Project Authorization Requests (PAR) from other IEEE 802.3 Working Groups
<RMG> Technical and Economic Feasibility are very weak. No evidence is provided to support feasibility. A guess that reports may be published is hardly evidence. Similarly a promise to think about cost is not evidence.
<RMG> The superfluous PAR fields information at the beginning of the CSD document has errors and should be deleted.
IEEE P802.1CM Time-Sensitive Networking for Fronthaul
<RMG> NesCom may well want a definition of a front haul network (add to 8.1). The CSD Broad Market potential has that but NesCom doesn’t see the CSD.
<RMG> Broad Market - One example is hardly “broad sets of applicability”. Does "several vendors and operators" constitute multiple vendors and numerous users?
IEEE P802.1Qcl Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks--Bridges and Bridged Networks Amendment: YANG Data Model
<RMG> Economic feasibility réponse appears to have missing text (between first and second line of the response).
IEEE P802.1Qcn Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks--Bridges and Bridged Networks Amendment: Virtual Station Interface (VSI) Discovery and Configuration Protocol (VDP) extension to Support Network Virtualization Overlays (NVO3)
<RMG> Another substance-less answer to multiple vendors and numerous users.
IEEE P802.1Xck Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks--Port-Based Network Access Control Amendment: YANG Data Model
<RMG> Economic feasibility reponse appears to have missing text (between first and second line of the response).
IEEE P802.11az: Standard for Information technology--Telecommunications and information exchange between systems Local and metropolitan area networks--Specific requirements Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications-- Amendment: Positioning Enhancements.
<RMG> The PAR approval date is impossible. PAR approval is an SASB action, and the field should be blank. Therefore, the PAR expiration date is wrong also. It is preferable to fill out the PAR on the myProject system rather than cut and paste PAR questions into a word document. It also helps assure the current PAR form is used and not something obsolete (something participants shouldn’t have to spend time reviewing).
<RMG> PAR 8.1 asks that the PAR item number be identified, that is not done for the explanation of the 7.1 additional information. More important than what is provided in 8.1 would be to provide an explanation that 802.15 and 802.11 are different network technologies that both need positioning specifications specific to the network technology. Similarly, the References are not linked to a PAR item number either. I don’t think myProject will support footnotes like Word does so the footnotes in Need, and perhaps other items, as displayed will not paste into the form and should be edited, tested by input to myProject, with the myProject PDF being used for review.
<RMG> Compared to other CSD submissions for this meeting, this one is outstanding in seriously responding to the CSD questions. Congratulations! [No response required.]
IEEE P802.19.1a Standard for Information technology--Telecommunications and information exchange between systems -- Local and metropolitan area networks -- Specific requirements -- Part 19: TV White Space Coexistence Methods Amendment: Coexistence Methods for geo-location capable devices operating under general authorization
<RMG> No comment.
<RMG> PAR 6.1.b, the conversion to use of 48-bit addresses, and the asserted expectation of a higher volume of implementations, could increase significantly OUI consumption by implementation of this standard. Therefore, it is appropriate for this revision to be reviewed by the RAC. Please answer YES rather than NO. (This request comes from the Chair of the RAC, it is better to get RAC review on the PAR rather than RAC comments showing up with little notice at Sponsor ballot time.)
<RMG> Based on the assumption that the CSD Track Changes shown are the modifications to be approved, no comment.