Re: [802SEC] P802.11ax PAR modification
I think that the relevant rule is in subclause 9.2:
"The CSD statement shall be reviewed and approved by the WG and the
Sponsor as part of the approval process for the following:
• Forwarding the PAR to NesCom
The rule does not differentiate between new and revised PARs.
As 802.11ax predates the current CSD document, it uses the format of the
CSD document under which it was approved (i.e., a 5 C).
IMHO: Any submission of a PAR that goes to NesCom requires CSD review
and approval by the WG and the Sponsor.
It may be that WG to determines that despite the change of scope, the
answers to original CSD stand, unmodified. If so, the WG should state that.
It may be, however, that the CSD/5C explicitly referred to the original
band frequencies and so the WG should modify and approve the CSD (can be
done by WG ballot) to match the new work.
IMHO, YMMV, etc.
PS: While a PAR that provides no new functionality does not require a
CSD, an amendment clearly does. As does a change to the PAR of an
amendment. Again, IMHO.
On 08/31/2017 10:17 PM, Adrian Stephens wrote:
And is this true, given that 802.11ax predates the CSD document (i.e.,
it has a 5C)?
IEEE 802.11 Working Group Chair
Phone: +1 (971) 203-2032
On 31/08/2017 23:41, Pat Thaler wrote:
In many other cases where a PAR modification was done, the WG has
reaffirmed the CSD. This serves to indicate that the WG believes that
the modification to the PAR didn't change the 5C.
Our Proceedure for PARs (LMSC OM 9) doesn't say anything about PAR
modification, but it does say in 9.2:
"PARs that which introduce no new functionality are exempt from the
requirement to provide a CSD statement."
The PAR modification proposed expands the scope of the PAR (by
increasing the range of the band it will cover). Therefore it does
change the functionality, perhaps in a small way but a functionality
change. Confirming the CSD would confirm that the WG believes that
this extension doesn't alter the technical and economic feasibility of
the project. It would be consistent with the spirit of the text from
9.2 above - new functionality requires a PAR.
Therefore, I think that the CSD should be included in the WG motion.
When we did a PAR modification IEEE 802.1AS-Rev to add maintenance
items the WG and EC motions did not include the CSD (though in an
abundance of caution, the WG passed a separate motion to confirm the
CSD in case that became an issue at the EC). Since maintenance PARs
don't require CSD, it was consistent to approve the addition of them
to the scope of the existing PAR without reaffirming the CSD.
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Adrian Stephens
<firstname.lastname@example.org <mailto:email@example.com>> wrote:
In July, 802.11 approved a PAR modification to P802.11ax thus:
Believing that the PAR modification contained in the document
referenced below meets IEEE-SA guidelines,
Request that the PAR modification contained in
be posted to the IEEE 802 Executive Committee (EC) agenda for WG
802 preview and EC approval to submit to NesCom.
Moved: Osama Aboul-Magd
Seconded: Peter Ecclesine
Result: 48-0-0 Passes
TGax result: Moved: Rich Kennedy, Seconded: Stephen Palm, Result:
The original PAR was approved in April 2014.
I believe that the original 5C in document:
applies, as this predates the CSD requirements.
I don't believe the 5C needs to be re-approved. If anybody can
show that I'm wrong, please do so,
asap, as we have an interim coming up in a couple of weeks where
this could be considered.
IEEE 802.11 Working Group Chair
Phone:+1 (971) 203-2032 <tel:%28971%29%20203-2032>
---------- 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.
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.