[802SEC] Comments on proposed P802.15.8
5.2 The scope should not include the parenthetical sentence at the end. It is not appropriate to include in the draft and standard.
Enhanced security as used is marketing fluff. Enhanced compared to what?
Coverage extension is confusing. Extended from what to what (e.g., from a subset of personal space to the whole of personal space, from personal space to what I psychologically consider my personal space to link to the personal space of others, etc. Any linkage of personal space needs to get away from the subjective and already used entrenched uses of personal space in the field of psychology.
5.3 If the Purpose is to appear in the draft/standard, the parenthetical reference to a PAR field is not appropriate. If included, it also should be present tense (i.e., "This standard is to provide" violates this.)
The definition of personal space in 8.1 when applied to the Purpose statement I can only interpret as requiring a MAC capable of reading the person's mind, something not said to be technically feasible.
While I can imagine controlling an electro-mechanical device via the standard, I fail to see how a strictly mechanical device could communicate with the proposed protocol. (Sorry, this comment came out a bit more snarky than intended.)
5.5 As Need is not a subclause that has to be be included in the standard nor one that has to match the PAR, there is no reason to split information into 8.1.
8.1 The use of 8.1 is backward. 8.1 isn't a place to point to, as explained in the instructions, it is to point to other fields in the PAR and comments in 8.1 are to be specific to other PAR fields, providing additional clarification that cannot be placed in the other field. I expect this will cause problems with the EC and if not them NesCom.
GENERAL - Too much marketing fluff and too little engineering speak to really understand what you intend to do and equally important not do.
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.