1 / 35

WG11 response to Proposed 802 PAR - March Orlando Plenary

WG11 response to Proposed 802 PAR - March Orlando Plenary. Date: 2010-03-16. Authors:. Abstract. 802.11 WG comments on the proposed PARs for the 2010 March Plenary. 802.23: – 3 major issues, one suggested change 802.16:– one suggested change, and one issue 802.1: – one comment

fordon
Télécharger la présentation

WG11 response to Proposed 802 PAR - March Orlando Plenary

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. WG11 response to Proposed 802 PAR - March Orlando Plenary Date: 2010-03-16 Authors: Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  2. Abstract 802.11 WG comments on the proposed PARs for the 2010 March Plenary. 802.23: – 3 major issues, one suggested change 802.16:– one suggested change, and one issue 802.1: – one comment 802.3:– no comment Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  3. ES-ECSG Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  4. From the 802.23 PAR (ES-ECSG) • 5.2 Scope: This standard defines a mechanism that supports compliance within IEEE 802 to applicable civil authority requirements for citizen-to-authority emergency services packet data communications. Specifically, it supports the need for consistent data that is required for citizen-to-authority emergency services packet data encoded session initiation requests. A new MAC or PHY is outside the scope of this effort. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  5. From the 802.23 PAR (ES-ECSG) • 5.4 Purpose: The purpose of this standard is to support compliance to civil authority requirements complementary to IETF ECRIT specifications for citizen to authority emergency services functionality. This standard intends to encompass voice, data and multi-media requests across IEEE 802 using a new Layer 2 entity and associated behaviors and provide a uniform Structure of Management Information (SMI) for transferring required data for emergency services requests. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  6. From the 802.23 PAR (ES-ECSG) • 5.5 Need for the Project: VoIP emergency calls are currently less effective than those provided by traditional wireline and cellular networks. Emergency calls across IEEE 802 technologies need to support regulatory requirements to assure successful completion (and all associated requirements) of these calls to the correct Public Service Access Point (PSAP), and to do so utilizing the existing set of IEEE 802 PHYs and MACs. • 5.6 Stakeholders for the Standard: Emergency Service authorities and government agencies (e.g. National Emergency Number Authority (NENA), and the equivalent bodies in the rest of the world); IETF; other telecom, cellular and emergency services standards development organizations (e.g. IETF, Third generation Partnership Project (3GPP), ETSI-Emergency Telecommunications (EMTEL)). Within IEEE 802, the expected stake holders will be 802.1, 802.3, 802.11, 802.16, 802.20 and 802.22 as potential Layer 2 alternatives and 802.21 for related handover development. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  7. From the 802.23 PAR (ES-ECSG) • 8.1 Additional Explanatory Notes (Item Number and Explanation): There are increasingly uniform regulatory requirements that are being imposed on telephone systems across the world on the handling of calls to Emergency Services (911 calls in the US, for example). These requirements have been extended to cellular telephony and are being further extended to cover all cases of packet based telephony services. Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) is the most common of these. VoIP calls can easily originate on an 802 network. There is a need for such calls to be handled uniformly at the interface between the 802 Layer 2 network and the Internet. IETF-ECRIT is the group tasked with developing the Internet standards to meet these requirements for the upper layers of the protocol stack. This 802 effort will work with ECRIT to develop a complete solution. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  8. Concerns with the Emergency Services Study Group 802.23 PAR (ES-ECSG) • Missing Requirement definition • Regulatory Authorities’ requirements not listed • ECRIT Requirements and coordination • Support level is insufficient • Timing of moving from SG to WG (TG) Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  9. Missing Requirement definition (EC-ECSG) • Regulatory Authorities’ requirements are not listed • Request for specific requirements that can be identified to be listed in the PAR. • ECRIT Requirements missing from PAR and 5c; Coordination with ECRIT did not occur in SG activities • Specific Requirements from ECRIT for 802 be included in PAR • Specific plan for coordination with ECRIT. • Create a Liaison relationship with ECRIT to ensure close coordination and cooperation with ECRIT. • Please describe the plan for addressing these points. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  10. Support level is insufficient (ES-ECSG) • Concern: The participation level at the SG meetings has been fairly light. Concern that for a new project that sufficient support be demonstrated to warrant the new effort. Attendance by practical Experts is also a concern. • Suggestion: delay the start of the WG/TG until more support is garnered. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  11. Timing of moving from SG to WG (TG)(ES-ECG) • Concern: The Study Group should continue to gather the complete set of requirements from Regulatory Authorities and ECRIT before progressing to a WG/TG. • Concern: IEEE-SA expects that the SG is convened for 6 months, and then a project is given opportunity to progress. Without a PAR the group does not have full indemnity. • Concern: Prior to creating a WG, the requirements of the Project should be defined. • Please explain how the SG has evaluated the competing concerns Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  12. Specific Suggested PAR changes(ES-ECSG) • 8.1 …(Item Number and Explanation): • The 8.1 clause does not include an “Item Number” suggest “5.2 Scope” be inserted. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  13. ES-ECSG Response Per the following OM requirement with respect to PAR/5 Criteria feedback:The proposing WG shall post a response to commenting WG and to the Sponsor together with a Final PAR on a public website and circulate the relevant URL on the Sponsor reflector not later than 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday of the plenary session.My response is herein:Comments were received from:   * 802.11     * 802.16     * 802.19In addition, comments were received from two individuals, Bob Grow and Hugh BarassMost of the comments that affected the submitted documents related to the "Scope" and a new scope was generated that we believe incorporates most of those comments.  There were several other minor changes.The changes are reflected in two attached documents:  - Changes for the PAR (to be entered by the NECSOM Administrator after consideration by the EC)  - Changes to the 5 CriteriaThese two documents are also available on the ES-ECSG document service site as "PAR 5 Responses"The URL for that site is:     https://mentor.ieee.org/802-sg-emergency-services/documents.If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to get in touch.Best regards,Geoffrey O. Thompson, Chair, 802 Emergency Services EC Study Group Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  14. ES-ECSG Response packet The file with information to supplement the revised PAR and 5 Criteria wasvuploaded at 4:49 PM Wednesday"Comment responses to WGs" (#33)on our SG document server at:https://mentor.ieee.org/802-sg-emergency-services/dcn/10/sg-emergency-services-10-0033-00-ESSG-comment-responses-to-wgs.zip Double click on the icon to open the ES-ECSG to see PAR and 5C to be delivered to EC Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  15. WG11 response to Proposed 802 PAR - March Orlando Plenary • Date: 2010-03-16 Authors: This file pruned by Geoff Thompson to only include ES-ECSG content. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  16. Missing Requirement definition (EC-ECSG Response) • Regulatory Authorities’ requirements are not listed • Request for specific requirements that can be identified to be listed in the PAR. Details at that level of specificity are not customary in a PAR. • ECRIT Requirements missing from PAR and 5c; Coordination with ECRIT did not occur in SG activities • Specific Requirements from ECRIT for 802 be included in PAR • Specific plan for coordination with ECRIT. • Create a Liaison relationship with ECRIT to ensure close coordination and cooperation with ECRIT. • Please describe the plan for addressing these points. • Representatives of ES-ECSG will be joining the ECRIT meeting in Anaheim to establish the relationship and identify specific requirements. It is a regrettable result of our mutual schedules that this interaction did not take place earlier. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  17. Support level is insufficient (ES-ECSG Response) • Concern: The participation level at the SG meetings has been fairly light. Concern that for a new project that sufficient support be demonstrated to warrant the new effort. Attendance by practical Experts is also a concern. This is a legitimate concern but participation has been building. Several experts have said they will join as soon as the PAR is approved. • Suggestion: delay the start of the WG/TG until more support is garnered. IEEE-SA rules limit the length of time that a group can work without a PAR Delaying PAR approval until a mid-project benchmark is not allowed. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  18. Timing of moving from SG to WG (TG)(ES-ECG Response) • Concern: The Study Group should continue to gather the complete set of requirements from Regulatory Authorities and ECRIT before progressing to a WG/TG.This would not be appropriate under IEEE_SA rules. • Concern: IEEE-SA expects that the SG is convened for 6 months, and then a project is given opportunity to progress. Without a PAR the group does not have full indemnity. • Concern: Prior to creating a WG, the requirements of the Project should be defined. • Please explain how the SG has evaluated the competing concerns.We are doing the best job we can to accomplish the task and operate within the rules of the IEEE-SA. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  19. Specific Suggested PAR changes(ES-ECSG) • 8.1 …(Item Number and Explanation): • The 8.1 clause does not include an “Item Number” suggest “5.2 Scope” be inserted. • ACCEPTED Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  20. 802.16 Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  21. 802.16 PARas stated in proposed PAR • 5.2 Scope of Proposed Standard: • This amendment specifies changes to the most recently approved version of the IEEE 802.16 MAC with its management and data interfaces for operation with increased robustness in degraded infrastructure. It will make no PHY changes. This amendment will support path redundancy, mobile and local relaying, multi-hop relaying, Mobile Base Station, Low Duty Ratio, as well as operation in licensed, unlicensed and lightly licensed spectrum bands below 6 GHz with means and mechanisms to coexist with other radio access technologies (RATs). Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  22. Questions/Issues on 802.16 PAR • Scope Issues/Questions: • What is “the most recently approved” it is not specific. What is “mobile and local relaying”? What is multi-hop relaying? Is a Mobile base station mobile, or is it talking to a Mobile Station? What is “low duty Ratio”? What bands are left after licensed, un-licensed and lightly licensed bands are excluded? • The Scope statement seems loaded with terms lacking definition, but not substance. • The Scope statement should be in present tense…”will support” should be changed to indicate what will be in the document. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  23. WG11 proposed update to 802.16 PAR • Propose that the PAR Scope statement be replaced with the following: • This amendment specifies changes to the IEEE 802.16 MAC and its management and data interfaces for operation with increased robustness in degraded infrastructure. No PHY changes are included. This amendment identifies means and mechanisms to coexist with other radio access technologies (RATs) in licensed, unlicensed and lightly licensed spectrum bands below 6 GHz. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  24. 802.16 Response • Thanks to those who commented on the P802.16 Amendment PAR for "Higher Reliability Networks".The 802.16 WG's GRIDMAN Study Group has developed responses to those comments:IEEE 802.16gman-10/0018r1<http://ieee802.org/16/sg/gridman/index.html#10_0018>and has updated the draft PAR (P802.16n) and Five Criteria Statement accordingly:IEEE 802.16gman-10/0017<http://ieee802.org/16/sg/gridman/index.html#10_0017>Roger802.16 WG chair Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  25. Response from 802.16 • Response • • The GRIDMAN SG has received conflicting requests for both more specificity, and more generality for the scope. We have also received requests to modify / clarify the scope. To respond to this, we have added some definitions in subclause 8.1 of the PAR form. We have also both streamlined and clarified the content of the Scope in subclause 5.2. • The referenced document has been moved to a more accessible location with the document number of 802.16gman 10/0019r1. • http://ieee802.org/16/sg/gridman/index.html#10_0019 • The reference in the five criteria has been updated. • The following slides contain – Redline of changes made to Scope subclause referenced to 10/0013 – Clean copy of changed text in scope – Copy of notes added in Notes subcluase Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  26. Response from 802.16 • Clean Copy of Modified Scope • Modify Scope statement as follows: • “5.2 Scope of Proposed Standard: • “This amendment specifies protocol enhancements to the IEEE 802.16 MAC for enabling increased robustness and alternate radio path establishment in degraded network conditions. Limited OFDMA PHY extensions are included for enabling operation with radio path redundancy and direct communication between subscriber stations. Also mobile base stations and mobile relay stations are supported. Operation in licensed, unlicensed and lightly licensed spectrum bands below 6 GHz with means and mechanisms to coexist with other radio access technologies (RATs) is supported. Support for enabling application specific specialized security suites is also provided.” Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  27. 802.16 PAR • Reference in the 5C is not available: • In your 5C Technical Feasibility  clause a) there are references that we cannot access. Would you please provide a means for dot11 to get to this material? • a) The IEEE 802.16 GRIDMAN Study Group and prior NRR WG Ad Hoc Committee have reviewed several presentations indicating that the proposed functions are technically feasible. The technical reference documents and in particular the NRR report (C802.16nrr-08_004r3) are available on the link; http://dot16nrr.wirelessman.org. Moreover there are examples of prototypes that have demonstrated that the goal of the project is achievable. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  28. Response from 802.16 • 8.1 Additional Explanatory Notes: • In Section 5.2 the following definitions apply: • Degraded Network: The failure of one or more 802.16 network infrastructure nodes or network connectivity. • Robustness: The capability of the network to withstand and automatically recover from degradation to provide the required availability to support mission critical applications (essential to the core function of society and the economy). E.g. the ability to recover from a single point of failure. • Mobile Base Station: A base station which is capable of maintaining service while moving. • Radio Path Redundancy: The ability to provide alternative paths between base stations, relay stations, and subscriber stations. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  29. 802.11 feedback on improvements • Modify Scope statement to be as follows: • “5.2 Scope of Proposed Standard: • “This amendment specifies protocol enhancements to the IEEE 802.16 MAC for enabling increased robustness and alternate radio path establishment in degraded network conditions. • This is a GREAT Sentence. • Limited OFDMA PHY extensions are included for enabling operation with radio path redundancy and direct communication between subscriber stations. • What caused the change from “No PHY changes” to this statement? • Also mobile base stations and mobile relay stations are supported • Better stated: Support for mobile base stations and mobile relay stations is defined. • Operation in licensed, unlicensed and lightly licensed spectrum bands below 6 GHz with means and mechanisms to coexist with other radio access technologies (RATs) is supported. • Are the coexistence plans limited to the 802 family? Or all technologies that operate in the indicated bands? • Support for enabling application specific specialized security suites is also provided.” • Why is this sentence here? Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  30. 802.1AX Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  31. 802.1AX PAR • In the “5.5 Need for the project” a reference to 802.1AX is made, but on the 802.1 website we could not find that reference. • We did find a copy of 802.1AX-2008 in the “GET 802” website. • Suggest updating the 802.1 Website. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  32. Response from 802.1AX • As the 802.1AX project was run by 802.3, the information on that project is on the 802.3 website. • The 802.1 website will be updated to include a link tothe 802.3 information. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  33. 802.3bg Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  34. 802.3bg • No comments from WG11 for the WG. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  35. References • Pars under consideration: http://ieee802.org/PARs.shtml • Input documents for comment https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/10/11-10-0281-00-0000-comments-on-802-23-par-and-5c.ppt • Response Documents: • https://mentor.ieee.org/802-sg-emergency-services/dcn/10/sg-emergency-services-10-0033-00-ESSG-comment-responses-to-wgs.zip • http://ieee802.org/16/sg/gridman/docs/80216gman-10_0017.pdf Jon Rosdahl, CSR

More Related