1 / 10

802.11 Review of March 2013 Proposed Pars

802.11 Review of March 2013 Proposed Pars. Authors:. Date: 2013-03-18. Abstract. Review of 802 WG PARS submitted for review during the March 2013 Session. PARs under consideration.

timothy-mason
Télécharger la présentation

802.11 Review of March 2013 Proposed Pars

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 March 2013Proposed Pars Authors: • Date:2013-03-18 Jon Rosdahl, CSR Technology Inc.

  2. Abstract • Review of 802 WG PARS submitted for review during the March 2013 Session. Jon Rosdahl, CSR Technology Inc.

  3. PARs under consideration • 802 - Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks: Overview and Architecture - PAR modification request • 802.1Qcb - amendment for Frame Replication and Elimination for Reliability - PAR and 5C • 802.3bm - PAR modification Request & Updated 5C • 802.3bq - amendment for 40GBASE-T, PAR and 5C • 802.15.4p - PAR modification Request • 802.21c - PAR Extension Jon Rosdahl, CSR Technology Inc.

  4. 802 PAR Modification • 5.2 Is the change of capitalization of “Local Area Network”, “Metropolitan Area Networks”, and Personal Area Networks” consistent with the IEEE style guide? • 5.2 – If Upper case of the other “Area Networks” then “Regional Area Networks” should be upper case as well. Jon Rosdahl, CSR Technology Inc.

  5. 802.1Qcb • Suggest Change to 7.1: • “IEC 62439-3 defines high-availability mechanisms in automation networks, but it is restricted to ring topologies, whereas this amendment will work on all LAN topologies.” • 7.1 It appears that PRP or RSTP in IEC 62439-3 are not limited to “ring topologies”. (See tutorial at http://www.gridwiseac.org/pdfs/forum_papers10/haradapre_gi10.pdf) • Can you please explain why PRP and RSTP are not suitable solutions? • Does the revision of 62439-3 make a difference? Jon Rosdahl, CSR Technology Inc.

  6. 802.1Qcb – 5C • Distinct Identity: Suggest change “provides fault tolerance” with “provides link or intermediate node failure tolerance”. • Suggest change in b: “fault tolerance” with “link or intermediate node failure tolerance” • Economic Feasibility: • Suggested replacement of c: “The installation cost of enhanced VLAN bridges and end stations is expected to be similar to existing implementations”. Jon Rosdahl, CSR Technology Inc.

  7. 802.3bm • Remove first item #5.2 from 8.1 not necessary for a PAR modification (similar to the discussion we had last November with the two PARs 802.3 submitted. This will cause confusion with the NesCom review. • 5.2 Scope of Standard states that it is for “twisted pair PHY types”. If you are changing the Scope of the project, would you not want to change the scope of the resulting Standard? • 5.2.b – What is Energy Efficient Ethernet (EEE) really pointing to in IEEE Std 802.3-2012? • What is the real difference between this and 802.3az? • Is this a marketing term? Is this a reuse of MAC functions to put the PHY to sleep? Jon Rosdahl, CSR Technology Inc.

  8. 802.3bq • 4.2 and 4.3 – Suggest that the time between 4.2 and 4.3 should be at least 6 months. (per suggested NesCom conventions) Jon Rosdahl, CSR Technology Inc.

  9. 802.15.4p • 8.1 should only include a statement of what is being changed. i.e. • “2.1 – Change Title to better communicate what features are in the standard .” • Or something similar. Jon Rosdahl, CSR Technology Inc.

  10. 802.21c • Section 2. Change “The draft has now 61% approval.” to “The draft is now 61% stable”….if it has not had 75% approval, then you are not able to do a recirculation ballot, but would be still trying to pass a Sponsor Letter Ballot. Jon Rosdahl, CSR Technology Inc.

More Related