| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Colleagues: I must have been in a mellow mood when reviewing PARs and CSDs for the Dallas meeting. Not much substantive in the below that generate concern from me, mostly just just nit picking on the documents. —Bob
802d PAR 6.1b -- The RAC doesn’t develop tutorials but will work with WGs prior to posting a tutorial on the RA pages. Recommend rephrasing to eliminate authorship of the tutorial. CSD No comments. _________ 802.1CQ PAR No comments. CSD Economic Feasibility — Expand CIDs. The RAC does not assign CIDs, the RA does. Context for CIDs also is not known for the project documents. Perhaps: A local address distribution protocol utilizing a Company ID (CID) is a possible capability, and CIDs are available from the IEEE Registration Authority for a known cost. _________ 802.15.3d MODIFIED PAR No comments. MODIFIED CSD Distinct Identity — While frequency distinguishes it from other standards and insufficient in answering the distinct identity question. It would be more appropriate to indicate no 802.15.3 specifications at the data rate and frequency of the proposed project in addition to the new 5C response. _________ 802.15.4t PAR No comment. CSD Managed Objects — Is it really the case that 802.15.4 does not include any attribute that indicates to local STA what the capabilities of the wireless device are? If there is a capabilities attribute, then the new capability would have to be added. Technical Feasibility — There is nothing in the answer to a) the answers the question of b). Therefore, the answer to b) is insufficient. Economic Feasibility — There is nothing in the answer to a) that answers the question of d), but it is lightly addressed in Technical Feasibility a). _________ 802.15.4u PAR No comment. CSD Managed Objects — Is it really the case that 802.15.4 does not include any attribute that indicates to local STA what the capabilities of the wireless device are? If there is a capabilities attribute, then the new capability would have to be added. Economic Feasibility — There is nothing in the answer to a) that answers the question of d). Perhaps 802.15.4 being low power consumption focused already leads the WG to intellectually ignore this question. _________ 802.16s PAR 4.2, 4.3 — These are very aggressive schedule dates, especially for a joint project. Please make sure they are realistic. CSD No comment. |