1 / 25

802-11 Review of PARs for Nov Plenary

802-11 Review of PARs for Nov Plenary. Authors:. Date: 2013-11-12. Abstract. 802.11 Review of the following PARS: 802 - Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks: Overview and Architecture - PAR extension request 802.1AX-REV -  PAR modification request

montana-mcknight
Télécharger la présentation

802-11 Review of PARs for Nov 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. 802-11 Review of PARs for Nov Plenary Authors: • Date:2013-11-12 Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  2. Abstract • 802.11 Review of the following PARS: • 802 - Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks: Overview and Architecture - PAR extension request • 802.1AX-REV - PAR modification request • 802.1Q-REV - PAR modification request • 802.3br - amendment: Interspersing Express Traffic,  PAR and 5C • 802.3bt - amendment: DTE Power via MDI over 4-Pair,  PAR and 5C • 802.3bu - amendment: 1-Pair Power over Data Lines,  PAR and 5C • 802.22 - Revision, PAR • OmniRAN EC SG - Recommended Practice, Network Reference Model and Functional Description of IEEE 802 Access Network , PAR and 5C Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  3. Jon Rosdahl, CSR 802.11 Review of PARs for November 2013 802 Plenary

  4. 802 - Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks: Overview and Architecture - PAR extension request • There is a Concern that you will not be able to complete by Oct 2014. • A more aggressive plan to include recirculating the draft more often than 2 times a year may be necessary in order to meet the Oct 2014 target. An updated plan should be prepared and enforced by 802.1 leadership. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  5. 802.1AX • Add “5.2” to 8.1 prior to the explanation. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  6. 802.1Q-REV - PAR modification request • No Comment Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  7. 802.3br • 5.2: “This standard defines Ethernet local area, access and metropolitan area networks”. Is this sentence correct? Is “Ethernet local area” a description or is this really a “local area Ethernet”? How does “access” by itself apply? • 8.1 move the statement in 8.1 to 5.2b… (see 802.3bt) • 8.1 Need to provide the full names for standards referenced in the PAR form in 8.1. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  8. 802.3bt • No comment Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  9. 802.3bu • No comment Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  10. 802.22 • 2.1 spell out the first use of RAN • 3.1 Update the WG Vice chair • 5.2 the scope is not describing what band is truly being used. “any band” is too broad a scope. • 5.4 the added sentences of “This Revision project…” is not being added in the right place. This should be part of 5.5 Need for the project. (see slide notes for all the text that should be moved to 5.5.) • 5.5 the initial part of this section seems to be why the 802.22 was originally started, and that would not necessarily be the reason for the revision, but only the latter part of this section should be used (Why are you doing the revision not why 802.22.) Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  11. 802.22 cont • 5.2 Is the scope of the revision only to reband the existing 802.22 radio? • 5.2 Which bands do you intend to occupy? (this should be stated in the Scope statement) All Unlicensed Spectrum is not a reasonable response. A specific range of bands should be specified. • 7.1 What about 802.16? If you are expanding the bands and the type of station definition, does this become similar to 802.16? • 8.1 No section number with the text, and it seems to be a cut and paste error as it is identical to the purpose statement. Delete. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  12. 802.22 • General: Missing updated 5C – see 10.2 and 10.3 of the LMSC OM – This Project is not qualified to be considered at this Session. • General: the PAR form presented is not the correct PAR form. An old PAR form should not be used for consideration. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  13. OmniRAN EC SG - Recommended Practice, Network Reference Model and Functional Description of IEEE 802 Access Network, PAR and 5C • 4.2/4.3 Note that this PAR will not be approved by SASB until March 2014 (last week). Suggest that the initial Sponsor ballot date be set to 03/2016 and the submittal to RevCom be 10/2016 (or 02/2017) • 5.2 What is an access network? This generic term is not adequately defined or referenced. Put reference in 8.1 • 5.2 “Network Reference Model” – Should this be “Access Network Reference Model””? • 5.4 not a “specification”, but rather a “Recommended Practice”. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  14. OmniRAN cont • 5.4 – How is this going to “more easily” enable design? • 5.4 – unsure what “access networks” vs “unified access network” • 5.4 the word “extensions” and “extend” is not the same in phrase 2 and phrase 3. does the one mean amendment or new standard? Extends applicability to 802 networks? Was 802 networks not extendable to begin with? • 5.4 What are the “new deployment domains”? Which domains will inspire/require this new recommended practice? Which “deployment domains” have not progressed because this recommended practice does not exist? Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  15. OmniRAN cont • 5.5 GAP analysis pointer should be provided. At least the summary of the GAP analysis should be listed here. • 8.1 – Item #1.2 – change “specification” to “document” • 8.1 Do you need #1.2 at all? • 8.1 #3.2/#5.6 “this standard” should be “this guide” • 8.1 #3.2/#5.6 – concern on how to designate a participant, as WGs are individual based, they would not be able to claim to be a representative of the respective WG. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  16. OmniRAN cont • General - Make sure to put the full name of all standards that are referenced in the PAR into 8.1 (even if the only reference is in 8.1). • 10.5.1 Broad Market Potential: a)b) add some examples to show what your are claiming is true…How does this Guide apply to this criteria? What is the value of the Guide to the Market? • 10.5.3 Distinct Identity – Change “standard” to “guide” in all sections…. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  17. OmniRAN cont • Example of one section for change: 10.5.3 c) Distinct Identity: Proposed change: The Guide is substantially different from all other IEEE 802 standards because no current standard or guide specifies the network reference model and functional interactions for an IEEE 802 access network. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  18. Jon Rosdahl, CSR Response received from 802 WG on feedback from 802.11

  19. From OmniRAN • Comments were captured in https://mentor.ieee.org/omniran/dcn/13/omniran-13-0091-02-ecsg-nov-2013-collected-comments-on-draft-par-proposal.xlsx • Updated PAR and 5C: • https://mentor.ieee.org/omniran/dcn/13/omniran-13-0086-02-ecsg-proposed-par-and-5c.docx Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  20. From 802.22 • See 22-13/168r0 for comments: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.22/dcn/13/22-13-0168-00-0000-802-22-response-to-the-comments-on-the-802-22-revision-par.pptx • Updated PAR: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.22/dcn/13/22-13-0138-04-0000-802-22-revision-par.docx • Updated 5c: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.22/dcn/13/22-13-0156-01-0000-802-22-revision-par-5c.docx Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  21. 802.22 Rebuttal • The change of adding “such as” made the scope non-definitive. If the scope clause had left out the “such as” phrase then the scope would be bounded and we could tell what new bands were being added. • The Addition of “between primary services and opportunistic communications devices” phrase is also problematic for us. • Option 1: Just do a roll-up and do the additional bands as a separate project (amendment). Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  22. 802.22 rebuttal Scope suggestion • Option 2: Change the Scope statement to be definitive: • This standard specifies the air interface, including the cognitive radio medium access control layer (MAC) and physical layer (PHY), of point-to-multipoint and point-to-point wireless regional area networks comprised of a professional fixed base station with fixed and portable user terminals operating in the bands between 1300 MHz to 1750 MHz and 2700 MHz to 3650 MHz, and the VHF/UHF TV broadcast bands between 54 MHz to 862 MHz. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  23. 802.22 rebuttal • Note from the NesCom Conventions: • PARs for the Revision of a Standard All PARs for the revision of a standard shall include an indication under "Additional Explanatory Notes" of the PAR form to identify PAR elements (e.g., scope, purpose, need, etc.) that have been modified. • 8.1 does not have that included, but rather has a cut and paste from the need…in our original comment, you indicated you would accept removal of the extranous material, but you still need to add the required information. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  24. 802.1AX • P802.1AX PAR modification request: • Adding "“5.2” to 8.1 prior to the explanation would be fine by me. However, given that this PAR modification request has now been pre-submitted, I would suggest that the practical way to get the change incorporated would be for you (or another NesCom member) to make the comment on the submitted PAR on the NesCom website, so that the change is documented in the NesCom database; I can then respond to the comment on the system and the NesCom admin can make the actual change to the text on the master copy of the extension request. • ***this has been done Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  25. From 802.3 • 5.2: “This standard defines Ethernet local area, access and metropolitan area networks”. Is this sentence correct? Is “Ethernet local area” a description or is this really a “local area Ethernet”? How does “access” by itself apply? • DMLT answers: • This sentence is correct. This means Ethernet which includes capabilities of being a local area network, an access network, and a metropolitan area network. An access network is also known as a „first mile“ or „last mile“ network. E.g. IEEE 802.3 EPONs. • This text refers to 5.2.b. This subclause is the scope of the base standard. • This amendment does not intend to change the scope of the base standard. If this is a significant concern, a maintenance request may be submitted by the commenter. • 8.1 move the statement in 8.1 to 5.2b… (see 802.3bt) • DMLT answer: Accepted in Principle: Deleted the sentence and adjusted the IEEE 802 Five-Criteria, Compatibility Requirement. • 8.1 Need to provide the full names for standards referenced in the PAR • form in 8.1. • DMLT answer: No longer applicable, see comment above. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

More Related