1 / 13

STF 279: First review of HENs

STF 279: First review of HENs. STF279/005 and STF279/006. Objectives of this first review. Determine set of HENs to review Assess structure against template SR001 470 Review consistency between HENs: within one TB or WG between different TBs and WGs Report findings to OCG RTTED SC#27

lily
Télécharger la présentation

STF 279: First review of HENs

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. STF 279: First review of HENs STF279/005 and STF279/006

  2. Objectives of this first review • Determine set of HENs to review • Assess structure against template SR001 470 • Review consistency between HENs: • within one TB or WG • between different TBs and WGs • Report findings to OCG RTTED SC#27 • Increase STFs familiarity with HENs: • to help review of ETSI Guidance material • to refine second pass addressing TCAM points

  3. Selection of subset to review • NewApproach web site ETSI RTTE 173 • ETSI WP “RTTE HENs” 237 • less “irrelevant” duplicates -66171 • less ENs still at drafting stage -23148 • less “EMC” standards -44 Subset to review 106 • The chosen subset comprises 3426 pages

  4. In ETSI WP but not on NewApproach web EN300 830 v1.1.1 EN301 011 v1.1.1 EN301 427 v1.2.1 We did not check superseded ENs On NewApproach web but not in ETSI WP EN300 385 :1999 EN301 419-3 v5.0.2 We ignored the ETSs though some are still current Minor discrepancies

  5. Matrix of review details • Review details shown in Excel spreadsheet (see STF279_006) • Rows represent the HENs • grouped in families of similar provenance • Columns show features of HENs: • related to 15 components of the template • subjective “style” (one of 6 types)

  6. Title format Clause Structure IPR and Forward Standard Introduction Scope References Definitions etc Environmental Profile Technical requirements Environmental requirements for test Interpretation of results Essential radio test suites Other test specifications EN Requirements Table Titles in official languages Reviewed template components

  7. Styles A to D A:Largely self contained with few cross references to other parts or other ENs B: Part of a multipart standard with many references to other part(s) for requirements and/or test suites C: Comprehensive system specification that goes well beyond the essential requirements and their corresponding test suites D. Largely self-contained (as C) but uses formal methods such as TTCN (e.g. TETRA)

  8. Styles E and F E. Wide variety of equipment types within a single (part of a) EN (e.g. TM4 standards): • EITHER by reference to several other different standards • OR by extensive use of tables of parameters related to different equipment types. F. Scope greatly exceeds essential requirements with subset of clauses only being cited in the OJ (e.g. some SMG standards)

  9. Top ten observations • Nearly half the HENs did not have “essential requirements” in the title. • Several (older) HENs make undated references. • “Environmental profile” & “Environmental requirements for test” are inconsistently implemented - some using standards words, others specifying precise ranges, other omitting one or both clauses. • A quarter of the HENs reviewed has an “Other test specifications” clause.

  10. Top ten observations • Interpretation of results (measurement uncertainty) frequently does not appear where the template indicates, often difficult to locate, sometimes absent. • Nearly a quarter of the HENs reviewed did not included a “EN Requirements Table” • Almost no EN had titles in a complete set of official languages; nearly half had the Annex missing.

  11. Top ten observations • Wide variety of means of referencing individual Test Specifications to individual Requirements. • About as many standards are largely self-contained (Style A) as there are standards which depend heavily on references to other documents (Style B). • The essentiality of receiver parameters seems appears inconsistent between families of HENs.

  12. Next steps • Make second pass focussing on technical issues and TCAM comments, but first: • Best to clarify views on the ETSI Guidance material so that technical assessment can be carried out against defined understanding • Need to agree a list of “issues” which are reflected by the TCAM comments

More Related