Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/0897r2 July 2014 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 1 802-11 PAR Review – July 2014 Date: 2014-07-15 Authors:

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/0897r2 July 2014 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 1 802-11 PAR Review – July 2014 Date: 2014-07-15 Authors:"— Presentation transcript:

1 Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/0897r2 July 2014 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide PAR Review – July 2014 Date: Authors:

2 Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/0897r2 July 2014 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 2 Abstract Review of the PARS for consideration for July

3 Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/0897r2July 2014 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide II PARs for review this week 802.1ARce - Secure Device Identity, Amendment 1: Amendment 1: SHA-384 and P-384 Elliptic Curve, PAR and CSDPARCSD 802.1AEcg - Media Access Control (MAC) Security - Amendment: Ethernet Data Encryption devices, PAR and CSDPARCSD 802.3bv- amendment, 1000 Mb/s Operation Over Plastic Optical Fiber, PAR and CSDPARCSD 802.3bw - amendment, 1 Twisted Pair 100 Mb/s Ethernet, PAR and CSDPARCSD ah, Sub 1 GHz, PAR extension request, PAR and CSDPARCSD ai, Fast initial link setup, PAR extension request, PAR and 5C (grandfathered)PAR5C (grandfathered) , amendment enabling Spectrum Resource Measurement Capability, PAR and CSD PARCSD , Specifying Spectrum Occupancy Sensing (SOS) Measurement Devices and Means that Enable Coalescing the Results from Multiple Such Devices, PAR and CSDPARCSD

4 Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/0897r Charter Change In the proposed process for creating Task Groups (TGs) under , a proposed TG scope document is circulated 30 days in advance of a plenary to solicit comments from the WGs. According to the proposed process, this follows the PAR process in that comments are due by 5 pm Tuesday of the plenary week and responses are due by 5 pm on Wednesday. The Smart Grid TAG approved a TG scope document for a Smart Grid TG, Smart-Grid-TG-Scope.pdf, which can be found at: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.24/dcn/14/ smart-grid-tg-scope.pdf https://mentor.ieee.org/802.24/dcn/14/ smart-grid-tg-scope.pdf Slide 4Jon Rosdahl, CSR July 2014

5 Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/0897r2 COMMENTS FOR JULY 2014 PARS FOR CONSIDERATION. Comments from PAR AdHoc Committee July 2014 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 5

6 Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/0897r ARce - Secure Device Identity, Amendment 1: Amendment 1: SHA-384 and P-384 Elliptic Curve, PAR and CSDPARCSD 1. Expand Acronyms for first usage in Scope/Title/Purpose. “SHA-384, P-384, ECDSA” Slide 6Jon Rosdahl, CSR July 2014

7 Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/0897r AEcg - Media Access Control (MAC) Security - Amendment: Ethernet Data Encryption devices, PARPAR 4.1 and 4.2: Check the Start of Sponsor Ballot and the Submission to RevCom dates…They do not seem reasonable. Note that the dates that are listed seem to be close to date that a new revision is needed. Have you considered just getting this amendment done in conjunction with a Revision PAR? 5.5 Change “separate bridging systems (Ethernet Data Encryption devices, EDEs) “ to separate bridging systems, Ethernet Data Encryption devices, (EDEs) 8.1 Add the full name of the 802.1AE, 802.1X, and 802.1Q standards. 8.1: Where is “#7.3”? This comment may be a hold over, or miss labeled. 5.6 – consider making the Stakeholders: Developers and users of secure networking equipment. Slide 7Jon Rosdahl, CSR July 2014

8 Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/0897r AEcg - Media Access Control (MAC) Security - Amendment: Ethernet Data Encryption devices, CSDCSD 1.2 Broad Market Potential: “…number of significant users…” what number? Who are these significant users? 1.2.2/1.2.3 missing “Std” on several of the standards cited change “802.1AE-2006” to “IEEE Std 802.1AE-2006” Please check in the CSD for other instances of missing proper citation. Slide 8Jon Rosdahl, CSR July 2014

9 Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/0897r bv- amendment, 1000 Mb/s Operation Over Plastic Optical Fiber, PARPAR 5.6 change Stakeholder list: “Stakeholders identified to date include but are not limited to: user…s” to “Users…” 7.1 expand the acronym “VDE”… (not sure what VDE is). 7.1 From the CSD – “There are standardized specifications for data transmission over POF…leveraging those…” need to indentify the “other” standards that are similar that make up “those”. 8.1 suggest a bit of explanation on what is being stated… “. Its specifications” is this the VDE Document? Is the withdrawn standard being incorporated into this amendment? Slide 9Jon Rosdahl, CSR July 2014

10 Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/0897r bv- amendment, 1000 Mb/s Operation Over Plastic Optical Fiber, CSDCSD From the title page “The following are the CSD Responses in relation to the IEEE P802.3xx PAR” this seems a bit Generic..Was the correct CSD provided? Slide 10Jon Rosdahl, CSR July 2014

11 Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/0897r bw - amendment, 1 Twisted Pair 100 Mb/s Ethernet, PAR and CSDPAR CSD No Comment Slide 11Jon Rosdahl, CSR July 2014

12 Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/0897r ah, Sub 1 GHz, PAR extension request, PAR and CSDPARCSD No comment Slide 12Jon Rosdahl, CSR July 2014

13 Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/0897r ai, Fast initial link setup, PAR extension request, PAR and 5C (grandfathered)PAR5C (grandfathered) No comment Slide 13Jon Rosdahl, CSR July 2014

14 Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/0897r , amendment enabling Spectrum Resource Measurement Capability, PAR and CSDPARCSD b) needs a response: b)Proven similar technology via testing, modeling, simulation, etc. Slide 14Jon Rosdahl, CSR July 2014

15 Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/0897r , Specifying Spectrum Occupancy Sensing (SOS) Measurement Devices and Means that Enable Coalescing the Results from Multiple Such Devices, PAR and CSDPARCSD 2.1 Title – Consider that “SOS” is a internationally recognized acronym for emergency requests. Consider changing or eliminating the acronym… 5.2 The Scope should not talk about the “project”, but rather describe the document that will be created. Please remove project specific definitions and instead describe what the standard will be defining. 5.2 “initially” defines? The Standard will have a set definition that as far as this revision is concerned is the only one that will exist. Do not describe or promise future enhancements. 8.1 is for extra explanation for identified clauses. The clause id is not included. Generally a history is not included in 8.1 CSD: – Cite standards correctly. CSD: Seems the History is repeated for several responses. CSD: Seems overly verbose Slide 15Jon Rosdahl, CSR July 2014

16 Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/0897r Charter Change In the proposed process for creating Task Groups (TGs) under , a proposed TG scope document is circulated 30 days in advance of a plenary to solicit comments from the WGs. According to the proposed process, this follows the PAR process in that comments are due by 5 pm Tuesday of the plenary week and responses are due by 5 pm on Wednesday. The Smart Grid TAG approved a TG scope document for a Smart Grid TG, Smart-Grid-TG-Scope.pdf, which can be found at: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.24/dcn/14/ smart-grid-tg-scope.pdf https://mentor.ieee.org/802.24/dcn/14/ smart-grid-tg-scope.pdf Slide 16Jon Rosdahl, CSR July 2014

17 Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/0897r Comments Concern: Not seen large numbers interested in attending If we are creating White papers instead of Standards, then are we needing to create a new process. Can the Industry Connection be a process that is sufficient rather than change ? Slide 17Jon Rosdahl, CSR July 2014

18 Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/0897r Response Here are our responses. https://mentor.ieee.org/802.24/dcn/14/ responses-to-comments-on-tag-process.pdf https://mentor.ieee.org/802.24/dcn/14/ process-for-createing-new-tg.pdf https://mentor.ieee.org/802.24/dcn/14/ responses-to-comments-on-tag-process.pdf https://mentor.ieee.org/802.24/dcn/14/ process-for-createing-new-tg.pdf Slide 18Jon Rosdahl, CSR July 2014

19 Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/0897r bv Response 5.6 change Stakeholder list: “Stakeholders identified to date include but are not limited to: user…s” to “Users…” Response: The Capitalization of “users” we believe is correct. Retort: The idea was to delete the words “Stakeholders identified to date include but are not limited to:” and then the capitalization of “Users” would be correct. Slide 19Jon Rosdahl, CSR July 2014

20 Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/0897r2 sent to Bob Grow in retort Bob, can I get the ppt file so that it is easier to provide our feedback on your comments. 1.The idea was to delete the words “Stakeholders identified to date include but are not limited to:” and then the capitalization of “Users” would be correct. 2.You indicate that you will ask the to make the changes. The rules state that the WG is to respond by 5pm Wed. I am concerned that if 802.3WG did not authorize the responses. 3.in the CSD, it states that there are others -- plural -- in the PAR it is stated only one. This inconsistency is what is being pointed out. 4. it was noted that the VDE standard was withdrawn at the request of IEEE, so not sure what standard specifications that is being reused. 5. slide two should be fixed. That is basically our retort to the response. Regards, Jon on behalf of the PAR Review AdHoc Slide 20Jon Rosdahl, CSR July 2014

21 Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/0897r AEcg responses The comments were: Comment: 4.1 and 4.2: Check the Start of Sponsor Ballot and the Submission to RevCom dates…They do not seem reasonable. Response: Dates will be updated, taking into account this comments and other comments received on the dates. Slide 21Jon Rosdahl, CSR July 2014

22 Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/0897r AEcg responses (cont) Comment: Note that the dates that are listed seem to be close to date that a new revision is needed. Have you considered just getting this amendment done in conjunction with a Revision PAR? Response: Yes we have. Bearing in mind the scope of the amendment and the discussions so far we believe that a focused amendment would be a timely and effective way to proceed. Slide 22Jon Rosdahl, CSR July 2014

23 Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/0897r AEcg responses (cont) Comment: 5.5 Change “separate bridging systems (Ethernet Data Encryption devices, EDEs) “ to separate bridging systems, Ethernet Data Encryption devices, (EDEs) Response: Change "separate bridging systems (Ethernet Data Encryption devices, EDEs)" to "separate bridging systems known as Ethernet Data Encryption devices (EDEs)" Slide 23Jon Rosdahl, CSR July 2014

24 Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/0897r AEcg responses (cont) Comment: 8.1 Add the full name of the 802.1AE, 802.1X, and 802.1Q standards. Response: Everywhere that 802.1AE, 802.1X, and 802.1Q appears we will show the name in full. Only IEEE Std 802.1AE appears in 8.1. Changes to be made in 5.5 and 8.1. Slide 24Jon Rosdahl, CSR July 2014

25 Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/0897r AEcg responses (cont) Comment: 8.1: Where is “#7.3”? This comment may be a hold over, or miss labeled. Response: This appears to be an accidental hold over from previous versions of the form and will be removed. Delete "#7.3" from 8.1. Slide 25Jon Rosdahl, CSR July 2014

26 Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/0897r AEcg responses (cont) Comment: 5.6 – consider making the Stakeholders: Developers and users of secure networking equipment. Response: Accept. Add the word "secure". Note however that a large fraction (to the extent that we are aware without discussing market share) of recently deployed based equipment is MACsec capable so the stakeholders and interested parties include many who might not be traditionally recognized as being associated with secure networking equipment. Slide 26Jon Rosdahl, CSR July 2014

27 Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/0897r AEcg responses (cont) Comment: 1.2 Broad Market Potential: “…number of significant users…” what number? Who are these significant users? Response: We do not believe it is appropriate to quote the names of companies without their approval (which might be hard to get since the CSD would then take on aspects of a press release) and deciding on precise criteria for "significant" is too close to discussing market share issues for our comfort. However we would note that the ESS specification mentioned in 1.2 is aimed at supporting security of US businesses as a whole and is the subject of a public comment period. Individual task group members have discussed the identified needs with the originators of that specification who are interested in seeing the work go forward. The specification does publicly identify the use of the technology within national security systems in additional to commercial use. No change is proposed to the 1.2 text, which is repeated below. "This amendment will support the use of MACsec in a number of scenarios deemed important by a number of significant users. In particular it will support requirements that have been identified during the development of the `Ethernet Security Specification' (ESS) by the NSA." Slide 27Jon Rosdahl, CSR July 2014

28 Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/0897r AEcg responses (cont) Comment: 1.2.2/1.2.3 missing “Std” on several of the standards cited change “802.1AE-2006” to “IEEE Std 802.1AE-2006” Please check in the CSD for other instances of missing proper citation. Response: Accept. Will update. The revised proposed PAR for P802.1AEcg is now at: The revised CSD is now at: Comments, responses, and proposed changes to the pre-circulated P802.1AEcg PAR text follow. Slide 28Jon Rosdahl, CSR July 2014

29 Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/0897r s responses Comment responses at https://mentor.ieee.org/802.15/dcn/14/ sru-repsonsess-to s-pa-csd-comments.pptx Revised CSD at: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.15/dcn/14/ sru-working-draft-of-sg-sru-csd.docx https://mentor.ieee.org/802.15/dcn/14/ sru-repsonsess-to s-pa-csd-comments.pptx https://mentor.ieee.org/802.15/dcn/14/ sru-working-draft-of-sg-sru-csd.docx Slide 29Jon Rosdahl, CSR July 2014

30 Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/0897r ARce Responses The updated P802.1ARce PAR is now at: arce-par-0714-v3.pdf The CSD, which has not been changed, can be found at: arce-csd-0514-v2.pdf Comments, responses, and proposed changes to the pre- circulated P802.1ARce PAR text follow. arce-par-0714-v3.pdf arce-csd-0514-v2.pdf Slide 30Jon Rosdahl, CSR July 2014

31 Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/0897r ARce Response (cont) The comment was: Expand Acronyms for first usage in Scope/Title/Purpose. “SHA-384, P- 384, ECDSA. Response: "SHA" stands for Secure Hash Algorithm but the name of the algorithm being referenced is "SHA-384" not Secure Hash Algorithm 384, the latter would be incorrect and regarded as an error by the intended users of this standard. Similarly P-384 is the name of an elliptic curve, and in this case has no expansion. The title should remain unchanged. In 5.2.b "Scope of the project" replace "use of SHA-384" with "use of the secure hash algorithm SHA-384". In 5.2.b "Scope of the project" replace "ECDSA" with "Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA)". Note it is important to retain the acronym here since the full form is so rarely used by those familiar with the technology. Slide 31Jon Rosdahl, CSR July 2014

32 Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/0897r response to Comment from Comment: b) need a response: b) Proven similar technology via testing, modeling, simulation, etc. Response and Action: The following has been added to b) in the CSD: Same as a). Similar capabilities have already been deployed and demonstrated in many proprietary implementations. 32 July 2014 Jon Rosdahl, CSR

33 Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/0897r Response The PAR and CSD (final and after track changes) have been attached. They can also be found here: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.22/dcn/14/ spectrum-occupancy-sensing-par-form.docx https://mentor.ieee.org/802.22/dcn/14/ spectrum-occupancy-sensing-par-form.docx https://mentor.ieee.org/802.22/dcn/14/ spectrum-occuoancy-sensing-criteria-for- standards-development.docx Slide 33Jon Rosdahl, CSR July 2014

34 Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/0897r2 Response from WG to Comments from the WG 2.1 Title – Consider that “SOS” is a internationally recognized acronym for emergency requests. Consider changing or eliminating the acronym… Response: Accept: Eliminated the acronym 5.2 The Scope should not talk about the “project”, but rather describe the document that will be created. Please remove project specific definitions and instead describe what the standard will be defining. Response: Accept, the word Project has been changed to ‘Standard’ 5.2 “initially” defines? The Standard will have a set definition that as far as this revision is concerned is the only one that will exist. Do not describe or promise future enhancements. Response: Accept. The word ‘initially’ has been removed Slide 34 July 2014

35 Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/0897r2 Response from WG (Cont) 8.1 is for extra explanation for identified clauses. The clause id is not included. Generally a history is not included in 8.1 Response: Accept. Some of the contents from Section 8.1 has been moved back to Section 5.5 Need for the Standard and the new Section 8.1 only contains a reference CSD: – Cite standards correctly. Response: Accept CSD: Seems the History is repeated for several responses. Response: Accept. Redundant information has been removed CSD: Seems overly verbose Response: Reduced the verbosity by eliminating repetitions Slide 35 July 2014

36 Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/0897r Retort 2.1 Suggest title be “Spectrum Characterization and Occupancy Sensing (SCOS)“ Suggest that the PAR be delayed until it can be better written with consistent use of the new proposed title. Slide 36Jon Rosdahl, CSR July 2014

37 Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/0897r2July 2014 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 37 References


Download ppt "Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/0897r2 July 2014 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 1 802-11 PAR Review – July 2014 Date: 2014-07-15 Authors:"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google