1. 802.11 Review of March 2013 Proposed Pars
doc.: IEEE /0333r0
March 2013
Review of March Proposed Pars
Date:
Authors:
Jon Rosdahl, CSR Technology Inc.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR Technology Inc.

2. March 2013
doc.: IEEE /0333r0
March 2013
Abstract
Review of 802 WG PARS submitted for review during the March 2013 Session.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR Technology Inc.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR Technology Inc.

3. PARs under consideration
March 2013
doc.: IEEE /0333r0
March 2013
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
p - PAR modification Request
802.21c - PAR Extension
Jon Rosdahl, CSR Technology Inc.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR Technology Inc.

4. March 2013
doc.: IEEE /0333r0
March 2013
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.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR Technology Inc.

5. March 2013
802.1Qcb
Suggest Change to 7.1:
“IEC 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 are not limited to “ring topologies”. (See tutorial at apre_gi10.pdf)
Can you please explain why PRP and RSTP are not suitable solutions?
Does the revision of make a difference?
Jon Rosdahl, CSR Technology Inc.

6. March 2013
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. March 2013
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 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 ? 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. March 2013
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. March 2013 p
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. March 2013
doc.: IEEE /0333r0
March 2013
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.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR Technology Inc.