doc.: IEEE /1310r0 Submission November 2008 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 1 Pending PARs for approval at November Plenary Date: Authors:

doc.: IEEE /1310r0 Submission November 2008 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 2 Abstract At the November Plenary, there are a number of PARs from various Working Groups that are being proposed for 802 EC approval. This Submission lists those PARs for discussion and attempts to provide a base location to collect the comments from members.

doc.: IEEE /1310r0 Submission November 2008 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 3 Required Process At the Plenary meeting in Dallas next month, the proposed PARs should have been reviewed by the membership of each WG prior to the 802 EC consideration. We (WG11) have until Tuesday 5pm (17:00) to provide any comments on any of the proposed PARs. If we provide any comment ( or requested changes), the WG proposing PAR will respond by Wed 5pm (17:00). The WG chairs will then be able to determine the final dispositions during the closing 802 EC (Approve or Disapprove).

doc.: IEEE /1310r0 Submission November 2008 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 4 PAR Comment Discussion Meeting Monday 19:30-21:30 (7:30pm-9:30pm) Mtg Room: Baker -- 2 nd Floor Atrium

doc.: IEEE /1310r0 Submission November 2008 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 5 Proposed PARs (1) IEEE P Standard for Management Information Base (MIB) definitions for Ethernet –Draft PAR [ –Draft 5C [ IEEE P /Cor 1 (IEEE 802.3bb) Corrigendum 1 Timing considerations for PAUSE operation –Draft PAR [ ]

doc.: IEEE /1310r0 Submission November 2008 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 6 Proposed PARs (2) IEEE P802.3bc Amendment: Ethernet Organizationally Specific TLVs –Draft PAR [ IEEE P802.3at DTE Power Via MDI Enhancements, modification to Existing Approved PAR –Draft modified PAR [

doc.: IEEE /1310r0 Submission November 2008 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 7 Proposed PARs IEEE P Revision PAR for IEEE Std –Draft PAR [ proposal doc] proposal doc IEEE P Very High Throughput 60 GHz PAR –Draft PAR and 5C [ par-and-5c-s-submission.doc] par-and-5c-s-submission.doc

doc.: IEEE /1310r0 Submission November 2008 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 8 Proposed PARs (1) IEEE f Wireless Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications for Low Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) - Amendment: Active RFID System PHY –Draft PAR [ rfid-draft-par.pdf] rfid-draft-par.pdf –Draft 5C [ rfid-draft-5c-document.pdf] rfid-draft-5c-document.pdf

doc.: IEEE /1310r0 Submission November 2008 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 9 Proposed PARs (2) IEEE f Wireless Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications for Low Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) - Amendment: Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications for Low Data Rate Wireless Neighborhood Area Networks (WNAN) –Draft PAR [ 0nan-wnan-par.pdf] 0nan-wnan-par.pdf –Draft 5C [ 0nan-wnan-5c.pdf]. 0nan-wnan-5c.pdf

doc.: IEEE /1310r0 Submission November 2008 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 10 Proposed PARs (3) IEEE PHY and MAC standard for short- range wireless optical communication using visible light –Draft PAR [ 0vlc-par-document.pdf] 0vlc-par-document.pdf –Draft 5C [ draft.pdf] draft.pdf

doc.: IEEE /1310r0 Submission November 2008 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 11 Proposed PAR IEEE P802.20b MAC Bridging Support –Draft PAR [

doc.: IEEE /1310r0 Submission November 2008 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 12 Proposed PARs IEEE P Media Independent Handover Services - Extensions for Supporting Downlink Only Broadcast Technologies –Draft PAR and 5C [ bcst-broadcast-handovers-sg-par-5c.doc] bcst-broadcast-handovers-sg-par-5c.doc

doc.: IEEE /1310r0 Submission November 2008 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide RFID PAR and 5C Comments Received from Andrew Myles The RFID PAR & 5C are incomplete and should not be approved because: –The 5C & PAR incorrectly claim there is no existing international standard –The 5C & PAR need to include evidence that there is user demand for yet another RFID standard –The 5C & PAR need explain what technical deficiencies of existing systems the proposed standard will address –The 5C & PAR needs to provide a better justification of technical feasibility for a unified standard that addresses the requirements of all market segments –The 5C & PAR need to acknowledge the use of in this space today and explain why a based solution will be significantly better

doc.: IEEE /1310r0 Submission November 2008 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide RFID PAR and 5C Comments (2) The RFID 5C & PAR incorrectly claim there is no existing international standard –It is asserted in the 5C that there is a need for an international standard for active RFID, and it is asserted in the PAR that is there in no international standard. –However, it appears that this is not true, with the 5C even quoting the number of an ISO standard. –There are also other quasi international standards in this space that need to be acknowledged –The 5C and PAR need to be modified to correct this error. –I suspect what is meant is that there no suitable international standard, but such a statement needs justification.

doc.: IEEE /1310r0 Submission November 2008 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide RFID PAR and 5C Comments (3) The RFID 5C & PAR need to include evidence that there is user demand for yet another RFID standard –The 5C and PAR asserts that active RFID tags have not been successful so far because there are too many options available, which has reduced interoperability and economies of scale. –This may be true –However, it is not explained how the development of yet another standard will actually assist solve this problem, particularly in a context where does not have much scale today, certainly in comparison with, say, –The 5C and PAR need to be modified to include evidence that there is user demand for yet another standard.

doc.: IEEE /1310r0 Submission November 2008 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide RFID PAR and 5C Comments (4) The RFID 5C & PAR need explain what technical deficiencies of existing systems the proposed standard will address –One reason that would justify a new standard is that all the existing mechanisms are missing functionality from a technical perspective –If this is not the case, why not just submit one of the existing mechanisms to EPCGlobal, IEEE or ISO. –However, the PAR & 5C does not even address the issue of whether existing systems are technically deficient –The PAR & 5C need to be modified to explain what technical deficiencies of existing systems the proposed standard will address

doc.: IEEE /1310r0 Submission November 2008 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide RFID PAR and 5C Comments (5) The RFID 5C & PAR needs to provide a better justification of feasibility for a unified standard that addresses the requirements of all market segments –One reason that the active RFID market is segmented today is that each market segment has different requirements –However, the 5C and PAR assume that a unified standard can achieve the goals of every market segment –Even worse, it bases technical feasibility for the unified standard on an argument that the existing standards are technically feasible –The 5C and PAR need to demonstrate technical feasibility for the unified standard, not just a subset

doc.: IEEE /1310r0 Submission November 2008 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide RFID PAR and 5C Comments (6) The RFID 5C & PAR need to acknowledge the use of in this space today and explain why a based solution will be significantly better –It is asserted in the 5C that the proposed active RFID functionality is not addressed in any existing 802 standard. –However, there is a growing opinion among many in the industry that based systems could dominate this space –There are already several start-ups that are showing WiFi based sensor chips with very low power and cost – and of course with WiFi you don’t require a separate infrastructure. –The PAR & 5C need to be modified to recognise the existing use of in the active tag space, and explain why offers significant benefits over –The answer should account for the fact that based solutions exist today, whereas based solutions will not exist for some years (5 years?)

doc.: IEEE /1310r0 Submission November 2008 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide NAN PAR & 5C Comments from Andrew Myles 1) This amendment proposes operation within at least the 2.4 GHz band, including ranges of up to 5 km with omni antennas, and simultaneous operation for at least 3 co-location orthogonal networks. Further, at the NAN tutorial proponents advocated a frequency hopping PHY technology. In 8.1, a transmit power up to 1W is indicated. Yet 2.4 GHz is a crowded band with dense WLAN deployments and regular Bluetooth usage, each offering tremendous value to their users. We have seen that coexistence with frequency hoppers is difficult as they consume the whole band making frequency planning impossible.

doc.: IEEE /1310r0 Submission November 2008 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide NAN PAR & 5C Comments (2) Accordingly, coexistence is a grave concern: the PAR is for a latecomer to a mature band, the technology's impact will be at high TX power and over a wide area, and the technology's proponents favor a technology with poor coexistence characteristics. In this context, the language in the scope "This amendment also addresses coexistence with other 802 wireless standards operating in the same bands." is inadequately weak. The 2.4 GHz band should be removed from the PAR scope, or the PAR language should be strengthened. Proposed substitute language is "Devices complying with this amendment shall minimally impact the operation of and devices, along with other 802 wireless devices, already operating in the same bands.“

doc.: IEEE /1310r0 Submission November 2008 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide NAN PAR & 5C Comments (3) 2) The PAR does not acknowledge that or is likely a better home for its work than –a) 5km range is wildly outside the scope of Personal Area Networking (through 11y) and both have far greater expertise in outdoor channel models, and systems for same. –b) Contrary to 5.5 "The standards have been optimized for high data rates along with support for star network topologies with centralized control.", is already providing a mesh amendment that addresses is concern also has work in this area.