[802SEC] Comments on PARs
Detail items that I have found on the stack of PARs that we are reviewing
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
- To document the procedures for allocating Object Identifier values
within IEEE 802 standards as well as providing documentation of root
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
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
What is going on here?
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
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
802.15.4 PAR Revision
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.
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:
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
- 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
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
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.
| Vice Chair, IEEE
| Nortel Networks, Inc. M/S: P79/06/B04 |
| 4655 Great America
| P. O. Box
| Santa Clara, CA 95052-8185
| Phone: +1 408 495
| Fax: +1 408 495
| Please see the IEEE 802 web page at