| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Colleagues: 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. —Bob No comments. __________ 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” No comments. __________ 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. No comments. __________ 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.) No comments. __________ 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 |