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

[802SEC] Comments on PARs


Detail items that I have found on the stack of PARs that we are reviewing this meeting.
I am sending a separate note on the meat of the mobility issue.

See you all in Hawaii.

Scope and purpose should not be identical. Perhaps...
Procedure for allocating Object Identifier values within IEEE 802 standards

To document the procedures for allocating Object Identifier values within IEEE 802 standards as well as providing documentation of root identifier values.
Is this really going to be a stand-alone standard that will not be a part of any other existing 802.1 standard? If so then we should seriously consider giving it a number designation that will not be so confusing over the long term.

The title is not sufficient for an 802 standard. Please provide fully expanded title.

NESCOM requests that the PAR scope be limited to 5 lines or less. What is shown in the draft is about  twice that long.

The additional explanation provided in item 18 sounds like a completely different project.
What is going on here?
802.1D Rev
The title for a revision needs to match the title of the existing document. the title on the draft PAR does not.

Scope and purpose should not be identical.

The scope as put forth is appropriate for a corrigenda. Incorporation of published amendments is an editorial/publishing/business decision by the Standards Department and does not require a PAR.

According to what is put forth in item 18 this should be a revision to the existing PAR for P802.1y. The designation "P802.1y" can be kept even if you wish to change it to a revision as was done with 802.3aa and 802.3ag.
We develop standards for world wide use. We should not be developing standards for particular countries. If JIS or some other interested party wishes to develop a "profile" of the 802.11 standard that changes parameters for a particular market that is fine but not appropriate business for 802.

The "compatibilty" response in the 5 Criteria is not appropriate. The correct response is that this project will destroy compatibility at the air interface for 802.11
Scope needs to be reworked from the material in items 12 and 18 and pruned down to the less than 5 lines called for by NESCOM. The text that is currently in 12 is gobbledygook.

The purpose as stated in 13 is still pretty concealing vs. what is in 18. Something like the following may be more appropriate:
Provide signal strength measurement facilities and structure of information for communication to network management facilities.
Change "Supplement" to "Amendment". We don't do supplements any more.
RE: "It is in the best interest of users and the industry to strive for a level of coexistence with other wireless systems, especially those in similar market spaces."
I would say that we should be shooting for more than "a level of coexistence". We should be shooting for broad interoperability.
802.15.4 PAR Revision
No comments
Trim/edit scope to 5 lines:
Amend 802.16 standard with needed capabilities to support combined fixed & mobile operation within a single system. Mobile operation to support speeds up to 250 km/h. Address PHY & MAC changes to support mobile subscriber operation & roaming between 802.16 base-stations or their sectors. Allow high spectral efficiency (3-4 bit/s/Hz), macrocell sizes and NLOS operation in licensed bands below 6 GHz.

You need to expand PHY to Physical Layer and MAC to Media Access Control, also expand NLOS. Many folks on NESCOM won't know our jargon.
P802.17a        Amendment to 802.1
In the PAR (unless you are seeking to change the title of the standard, or you want confusion during the approval process) the full correct base title should be used, for 802.1 that is:
IEEE Standard for Information technology--
Telecommunications and information exchange between systems--
Local and metropolitan area networks--
Common specifications
Part 3: Media Access Control (MAC) Bridges
I would suggest that putting an amendment number as an integral part of the tile offers confusion rather than clarity over the long run, I suggest a change to just  "Support for 802.17 RPR MACs".
MBWA ECSG Vehicular Mobile Broadband
Trim the scope. NESCOM really does not want to see more than 5 lines. If you feel the need to explain more to the Exec and other Working Groups then put it in the 5 Criteria or generate supplementary material, neither of which will go to NESCOM or REVCOM but the SEC (and the Working Group itself) can use in the project's governance.

Although you may (appropriately) not know yet whether you are going to use FDD or TDD, I would say that it is a bad idea to leave open the possibility of doing both (To quote Howard Frazier: Standards GOOD, options BAD!). Therefore I would ask that you strike the "and".

The "International Organization" contact information that you have provided does not point to International Standards Organizations as closely as I can tell. (i.e. ISO, IEC, ITU-T, ITU-R). The only contact that should be listed here is the contact for the organization that would move your standard forward   in ISO/IEC or ITU

You did not answer question 15 in the format requested nor did you provide the information requested.

Enough for now

| Geoffrey O. Thompson                    |
| Vice Chair,  IEEE 802                   |
| Nortel Networks, Inc.  M/S: P79/06/B04  |
| 4655 Great America Parkway              |
| P. O. Box 58185                         |
| Santa Clara, CA 95052-8185  USA         |
| Phone: +1 408 495 1339                  |
| Fax:   +1 408 495 5615                  |
| E-Mail:               |
| Please see the IEEE 802 web page at     |