|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
Our WG Chair has requested that I chair an ad hoc on PARs from other WGs during the November meeting. As has been my custom for some time, I’ve done a review and have generated the below comments that can serve as a starting point for generating WG comments. Any reaction to these possible comments you might have prior to the meeting would be appreciated.
One proposed PAR, P802.1DG, may be more controversial than others. In the below draft comments, I have attempted to capture concerns floated by others in response to announcement of this proposed PAR when announced on the EC reflector.
If the hot links don’t make it through email, the list of PARs (with working hot links) is at: http://www.ieee802.org/PARs.shtml.
802.1DF - Standard: Time-Sensitive Networking Profile for Service Provider Networks
5.4, Purpose – If the point is that the proposed specifications will aid users in configuring TSN to mitigate the “large bandwidth-delay product” of bridged networks, that isn’t easy to get from the Purpose statement.
5.5, Need – “besteffort -> “best effort”
802.1DG - Standard: Time-Sensitive Networking Profile for Automotive In-Vehicle Ethernet Communications
5.2, Scope – The scope of the project being applicable to “deterministic latency…Ethernet networks” is ambiguous and clarity is needed. Time Sensitive Networking (TSN) has been applicable to full-duplex, point-to-point Ethernet links. The suite Ethernet port types targeted for automotive application (standardized and under development) though are not all full-duplex, point-to-point. Will the project change the scope of TSN to the full range of IEEE Std 802.3 Ethernet automotive PHYs? If not, what are the generic PHY requirements or specific Ethernet PHY types relevant to the standard?
5.3, Contingencies – There is no reason to mention published standards, they are irrelevant to the question. Grammar could be improved for the two cited documents: “This project will utilize specifications in P802.1AS-Rev Draft Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks - Timing and Synchronization for Time-Sensitive Applications and P802.1Qcr Draft Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks - Bridges and Bridged Networks Amendment: Asynchronous Traffic Shaping.
5.3, Contingencies – Will current automotive related Std IEEE 802.3 amendments be contingencies (e.g., P802.3cg and P802.3ch)?
5.4, Purpose – The “entire range of in-vehicle applications” highlights the confusion about scope and what Std 802.3 PHYs are included. Some automotive applications are included in automotive PHYs not traditionally within the scope of TSN.
5.6, Stakeholders – End users of vehicles are also stakeholders.
802.11bc - Amendment: Enhanced Broadcast Service (eBCS)
1.1, project number – Per the EC web page, this project if approved will be P802.11bc.
5.5, need – Second paragraph, though fairly obvious, there is an unexpanded acronym, eBCS, that NesCom may care about. “(eBCS)” could be added in the first paragraph.
6.1, b registry activity – Noting there will be new text referencing IEEE RA registries is helpful. But, there are a couple problems with the last sentence. First, the RAC does not “control” the namespaces. Registries are administered by the IEEE Registration Authority. Second, this question also covers the definition of new registries, whether or not the IEEE Registration Authority administers that registry. (The BOG has right of first refusal for registration activities defined in IEEE standards, so it is irrelevant who the registration authority is for a new registry.)
1.1.1, a, line 37, broad applicability – Unexpanded acronym, CSPs.
802.11bd - Amendment: Next Generation V2X
1.1, project number – Per the EC web page, this project if approved will be P802.11bd.
2.1, title – V2X needs to be expanded.
5.6, stakeholders – It would be appropriate to include stakeholders other than manufacturers (e.g., vehicle users)
6.1, b registry activity – There are a couple problems with this response. First, the RAC does not “control” the namespaces. Registries are administered by the IEEE Registration Authority. Second, this question also covers the definition of new registries, whether or not the IEEE Registration Authority administers that registry. (The BOG has right of first refusal for registration activities defined in IEEE standards, so it is irrelevant who the registration authority is for a new registry.)
802.19 -Recommended Practice - Coexistence Methods for Sub-1 GHz Frequency Bands
1.1, project number – Fill in the number.
5.2, Scope – With the acronyms likely to be first usage in the standard, they should be expanded (S1G, PHY, FSK).
5.5, Need – This answer includes awkward, sometimes grammatically inconsistent, attempts to add gravitas through the language used. Clarity and understanding would be better and appreciated.
There are many
millions of IEEE Std 802.15.4 devices
5.6, Stakeholders – Grammar is a bit awkward, and it would be appropriate to better identify the various users that are stakeholders.
1.2.1, a, first sentence. Delete the word “are”.
1.2.5, a, b, and c, Costs – Hardware is not the only cost factor as reflected in us having question c. It appears from the project documentation, that any cost factors for using the Recommended Practice will hit implementation costs. If the Recommended Practice will only describe special configuration for products, then that should be explained in c, and it probably would be appropriate to assert that the incremental costs would be small and certainly are justified by the expected improved performance of coexisting usages.
802.22 - Revision Project - Cognitive Wireless RAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications: Policies and Procedures for Operation in the TV Bands
2, Why Extend – The numbers don’t compute. Perhaps you need to explain the number of WG ballot group members. (With 6 participants, each current participant represents ~17% in a vote tally making it difficult to get >90% without hitting 100%. To get between 90% without hitting 100% requires a ballot group of more than 10 participants.) Are some WG ballot group members still participating in reviews if not participating in meetings?
Do you currently have concensus (>75%)?
3.2, Participants – The number of participants and the admitted drop off in participation indicate that the need for this standard is questionable. At this point though, it is probably appropriate to complete the revision and subsequently hibernation of the WG.
802.22.3 - Standard - Spectrum Characterization and Occupancy Sensing
1, Extension Years – With an estimated October 2018 RevCom submittal, it would be prudent to ask for a 2-year extension to leave some margin for project slip or submittal problems delaying consideration until 2020.
2, Why Extend – Four -> four.
2, Why Extend – The sentence talking about “this round” is too imprecise. Could be changed to “in the 5th balloting round”, or “Though 75% approval ratio has not yet been achieved, the group is nearing that consensus threshold.”
3.2, Participants – With only 6 participants, the question has to be addressed on why the project should be extended rather than withdrawn. Is there an explanation why you haven’t got the expected 10 minimum number of participants promised on the original PAR 5.1?
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-DIALOG list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-DIALOG&A=1