[802.3_DIALOG] PARs from other WGs
Colleagues:
I’ve again taken a pass at the pars from other WGs to be considered in Vancouver. Following are comments from that review. Comments welcome.
— Bob Grow
P802.11 revision
PAR, 6.1,b) — Std 802.11 does contain registration activity, but possibly the revision has nothing that the RAC hasn’t reviewed before. If the RAC has not reviewed the standard since the introduction of the CID, the box should be checked.
_________
P802.15.3f
General — The frequency numbers do not make sense. The base standard specifies the mmWave PHY as operating in the "57.0—66.0 GHz range". Yet, the amendment title specifies an extension that overlaps with this frequency range (64—71 GHz). Documents also frequently indicate the extension adding 7 GHz to the range. The math simply doesn’t work.
Further, nowhere in the project documents can one unfamiliar with the standard know the complete resulting frequency range. That would be helpful.
PAR
2.1 Title — The title does not have the proper format. The system output will produce Amendment: Extending… The general problem on frequency range confusion could be simplified if the amendment title was “Extending the millimeter wave Physical Layer (PHY) to to operate from 57.0 GHz to 71 GHz".
4.x project dates — Perhaps the specification changes to extend the range are simpler than those not familiar with the detail of the standard would expect, but such aggressive dates typically lead to NesCom comment, and questions from other 802 WGs. The Sponsor ballot date leaves 4 months for draft development and WG balloting, highly unusual. The first concern is that technical decisions have been made before approval of the project in violation of IEEE-SA procedures (excluding potentially interested parties) to enable such aggressive dates. Three months for SB even with conditional submittal is similarly hard to believe. There is no penalty to submitting more conservative dates on the PAR, but working to a more aggressive schedule If all technical changes required are obvious to the experts interested in the project, and participation is sufficient to achieve such aggressive dates.
5.1 expected number active on project — The number looks like WG members, not those expected to be active on P802.15.3f draft development and expert review.
CSD
1.2.1, a) Broad Market — As previously pointed out, the frequency numbers don’t add up, with the extension range overlapping the specified operational range already in Std 802.3.15.3. If the FCC didn't allow operation over the complete range supported in the existing standard, that should not be confused with the extension of the specified operating range in the standard. The current standard shows the fourth channel referenced in this item as being 63.720 GHz to 65.880 GHz so the 7 GHz and 64 GHz numbers appear to be wrong. If the FCC doesn’t allow operation in the fourth channel, then the justification here doesn’t seem to be right.mixing up the number of channels being added to the standard and the channels that will be usable in the US with the amendment. Please make the math work, and make the changes to the standard clearly distinct from the changes made by the FCC extending the range that can be used by 802.15.3.
1.2.3 — The answer to the question is not really a responsive answer. The amendment is distinct because 802.15.3 operation is not currently specified from 66 GHz to 71 GHz.
_________
P802.15.4 revision
PAR, 6.1,b) — Std 802.15.4 does contain registration activity, but possibly the revision has nothing the RAC hasn’t reviewed before. If the RAC has not reviewed the standard since the introduction of the CID, the box should be checked.
_________
P802.15.11
General — The project documents do not give any indication why this project should be done in 802.15. It gives no indication of distance the optical communications are to address, no indication of the project having similarities to leverage from other 802.15 projects, etc. From the documents, it is impossible to make the determination if the new PAR should be assigned to the 802.15 WG, another WG, or a new WG.
PAR
2.1 Title — The title could apply to any 802 standard. In the past, people even discussed doing an optical wireless PHY for 802.3. Though optical is distinctive, there should be more distinctive information in the title, e.g., something about range of the wireless communication — PAN.
5.1 expected number active on project — The number looks like WG members, not those expected to be active on P802.15.3f draft development and expert review.
5.2 Scope — The range of communication should be specified in the scope. The purpose describes industrial applications as the driving application, yet requirements of automation islands are very different from communication across a factory floor that can be a range in kilometers.
5.6 Stakeholders — The stakeholders do not appear to align with the purpose statement. Without reach information, are the stakeholders the manufacturers of the manufacturing equipment used to make aircraft and other transportation devices, or is the industry simply the users of the equipment that includes the proposed optical communication capabilities?
6.1, b) registration activity — If the standard is expected to specify the use of OUI, CID EUI-48 or EUI-64, it does have registration activity.
CSD
1.2.1, a) Broad Market — 802.3 has industrial applications and is familiar with shorter range automation islands and longer factory floor requirements, but has no idea what a "personalized manufacturing cell” is other than jargon. Though less important, what relevance the speed of a train has for internal communications is not clear.
1.2.3 Distinct Identity — What is the phrase “in transparent media” supposed to mean? Wouldn’t the non-fiber excluded by 1.2.1, b) be transparent? If the requirement is to be only free space, line of sight, then the airplane environment would be very difficult to satisfy without reflective (i.e., non-transparent) transmission.