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

Re: [802SEC] Changing the 5 Criteria


Do we need to preserve 5 having items or the term 5C? We can editorial add new criteria by just merging them into the existing one, that was the proposal last time, to have managed objects and coexistence merged into compatibility.

We can have 7 sections in the "5C", regardless of how many criteria there are in it. Kind of like how the Big 10 had 12 teams.

The coexistence criteria is already in there, the change is from having it apply only to wireless PARs to have it apply to all PARs. The requirement for action after PAR approval is not a new requirement.

For you WG, you would ask if the resulting standard would cause sufficient inteference to other standards that it warranted evaluating the coexistence capability. While most wired networks would indicate that they are not going to produce a coexistence criteria because the cables are shielded or the emissions from the PCB are low, there may be cases for Ethernet in which analyzing coexistence with other devices operating with other standards nearby may be necessary.

James Gilb

On 03/19/2013 02:00 PM, John D'Ambrosia wrote:

I am having a lot of reservations of moving away from the 5 Criteria.

Simply put the 5 Criteria have brand value – people know what they
mean.  It is something that I personally feel is ingrained in our
participants, and people outside of the IEEE have some perceived
knowledge of them as well.

I believe the last proposed “Co-existence” criteria text is in
EC-13-0009-00.  James, please correct me if I am wrong.  It reads -



a) WilltheWGcreateaCAdocumentaspartoftheWGballotingprocess?(yes/no)

b) Ifnot,explainwhytheCAdocumentisnot applicable.

The 5 Criteria are the basis for determining whether to forward a PAR or
not.  The text above reads more as a requirement for a PAR that has
already been approved, not a criteria.  Furthermore, what does a
proposed project have to co-exist with?  I suspect that this is WG
specific.  Therefore, I would argue that it should be left to individual
WGs to determine this requirement, and the specific WG can then make it
part of the specific WG process.

In its current wording, I have no clue how I would answer this from my
specific WG.  Therefore, it would probably get a meaningless NA answer
that does nothing to assist the group in determining whether a PAR
should be approved.  From my own WG perspective I would also argue that
if it could not co-exist then it would impact the broad market potential
of the project.

Therefore, in its current form, I would have to vote against this
proposal.   Furthermore, I believe that we should really consider the
brand value of the 5C, and should seek to preserve it.


---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.

This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.