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

[802.3_DIALOG] November PARs from other groups


I’ve again taken a pass at PARs from other WGs.  Below are my comments from a quick review.  The 802.11 amendment is the most problematic for me because of the Technical Feasibility answer.  The P802.19.2 proposed recommend practice may also be of particular interest to participants because it addresses the “automotive environment”.



P802c (modification) 

PAR — No comments other than being supportive as Chair of the RAC for the scope change allowing addition of CID information to Std 802.

P802.1AR (revision)

PAR — No comments.

CSD — No comments.



PAR, 5.2 Scope — The scope appears in the standard and therefore should be written in present tense.  While the first sentence does describe what is in the standard, the last sentence needs to be rewritten to describe what is in the standard, not what will be provided.

CSD — No comments other than the answers are very terse.


P802.11 (amentment)

General — It would be helpful to review if the PAR were output from the myProject system.  This clearly isn’t and therefore creates uncertainty if any of the PAR form or system supplied information has been changed.  It also leads to errors, for example, the approval date is the approval by the SASB, which will not be November 2016; and the expiration date is based on the approval date.
5.2.b Project scope — As written the last sentence could be taken as requiring an implementation to be less than one milliwatt, or on quick less careful parsing of words that the project is expected to allow WUR radios with less than one milliwatt.  Rewrite to either clearly state a requirement, or possible implementation characteristic.

1.2.3 Distinct Identity — The second paragraph is basically an answer to an old part of the Distinct Identity criterion.  You may want to delete it, the title of a document does not create distinct identity of the specifications contained in the proposed amendment.
1.2.4,b) Technical Feasibility — The answer indicates that technical feasibility is not known.  Therefore, additional study time should be spent to determine with appropriate confidence WUR  technical feasibility before a PAR is submitted.  Hopefully, enough is known about technical feasibility that this question could be answered.  The CSD doesn’t have to answer the technical feasibility of the chosen solution or all possible use cases, only that technical feasibility for a possible specification within the scope of the proposed project is understood.
1.2.5 Economic Feasibility — If Technical Feasibility isn’t known, then certainly Economic Feasibility isn’t known. 


2.1 Title — Often, projects are written for vehicular environments to make it clear that vehicles other than automobiles are included.  Need and Stakeholders talk about vehicles. Is it clear that the project will not want to address motor coaches and other non-automobile highway vehicles?  The need (5.5 highlights traffic jams as a potential problem, and therefore, a motor coach could be a congestion source.  If such consideration are considered appropriate, the Scope would need a similar terminology change.  Please use consistent terms (forms of vehicle or automobile) and either broaden the applicability of the Explanatory note to include other fields or delete the note to 5.2.  
5.4 Purpose — Because Purpose is included in the standard, the statement should not include phrases like “typical scenarios the recommended practice will include:”.  Could probably be rewritten “typical scenarios include:”

CSD — The document uses both automotive environment and vehicle, and therefore causes the same concerns as expressed in PAR, 2.1 comment.