doc.: IEEE /0229r PAR Review March 2015 Date: March 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR Slide 1 Authors:

doc.: IEEE /0229r2 Abstract-Snapshot Review of Proposed PAR documents – 802c- Amendment: Local Media Access Control (MAC) Addressing, PAR and CSDPARCSD – 802.1Qci- Amendment, Per-Stream Filtering and Policing, PAR and CSDPARCSD – 802.1Qcj- Amendment, Automatic Attachment to Provider Backbone Bridging (PBB) services, PAR and CSDPARCSD – 802.3bq- Amendment, PAR Modification Request and CSDPAR Modification RequestCSD – 802.3bz- Amendment, 2.5 Gb/s and 5 Gb/s, PAR and CSDPARCSD – ay- Amendment: Enhancements for Ultra High Throughput in and around the 60 GHz Band, PAR and CSDPARCSD – e- Amendment for High-rate close proximity point-to-point communications, PAR and CSDPARCSD – Privacy Recommendation EC Study Group - Privacy Considerations for IEEE 802 Technologies, PAR and CSDPARCSD – IoT New TG request Meeting times: Monday PM2, Tuesday AM2, Thursday AM2 March 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR Slide 2

doc.: IEEE /0229r2 PAR SC – November 2014 Chair: Jon Rosdahl Monday Agenda: 1.Welcome 2.Determine order of review 3.Review PARs/CSD posted for review this week. 4.Recess Tuesday Agenda: 1.Complete review of PARs/CSD and post comments to 802 WGs 2.Recess Thursday Agenda: 1.Review Response to Comments 2.Prepare Report for WG closing plenary 3.Adjourn March 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR Slide 3

doc.: IEEE /0229r2 802c- Amendment: Local Media Access Control (MAC) Addressing, PAR and CSDPARCSD 2.1 Expand Acronym “MAC” – “Media Access Control (MAC)” 5.2b Change “local address space” to “local MAC address space” 5.4 – Change “unique addresses” to “unique MAC addresses” – Change “local address” to “local MAC address”- 3 places. March 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR Slide 4

doc.: IEEE /0229r2 802c- Amendment: Local Media Access Control (MAC) Addressing, PAR (cont)PAR 5.4 – Problem statement not clearly defined in the need statement. “While we agree that the number of IoT devices may use more of the Local MAC Address space, please explain in the need section why the Local MAC Address space requires the simultaneous use of Multiple Local MAC Address Administrators.” 6.1b – CID is not defined and is only used once…just spell it out “Company Identifier ” 5.2b and 6.1b – “Company ID” – Should be “Company Identifier” (2 instances) March 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR Slide 5

doc.: IEEE /0229r2 802c- Amendment: Local Media Access Control (MAC) Addressing, CSDCSD Compatibility – Just say “Yes”, delete the rest. Distinct Identity – Suggested change: “There are no guidelines for using the Local MAC Address space in existing standards.” Technical Feasibility – Check the cited standard (possibly incorrect citation format) and include the full name of standard inline or as a note. Economic Feasibility – change “...local address distribution or claiming…” to “…local MAC Address distribution or claiming…” March 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR Slide 6

doc.: IEEE /0229r Qci- Amendment, Per-Stream Filtering and Policing, PAR and CSDPARCSD No Comment March 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR Slide 7

doc.: IEEE /0229r Qcj- Amendment, Automatic Attachment to Provider Backbone Bridging (PBB) services, PAR and CSDPARCSD 5.2 Scope – First use of LAN/VLAN/MAC should have been spelled out…WG may consider for revision project, we understand that it was missed when the base standard PAR was approved. 5.2b Change “TLVs” to “TLV” 5.4 expand LAN if not changing scope statement. March 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR Slide 8

doc.: IEEE /0229r bq- Amendment, PAR Modification Request and CSDPAR Modification RequestCSD No Comment March 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR Slide 9

doc.: IEEE /0229r bz- Amendment, 2.5 Gb/s and 5 Gb/s, PAR and CSDPAR CSD No comment March 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR Slide 10

doc.: IEEE /0229r ay- Amendment: Enhancements for Ultra High Throughput in and around the 60 GHz Band, PAR and CSDPARCSD Other 802 WGs will Provide feedback to ay for response. March 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR Slide 11

doc.: IEEE /0229r e- Amendment for High-rate close proximity point-to-point communications, PAR and CSDPARCSD 5.2a – “high rate” – What is high rate? –consider changing to “high rate (up to 100Gbps)” “Data rates are high enough” Not defined enough for a scope statement. 5.4 – “High” and “Low” are relative terms that should be defined as what is “High” or “Low” reword without “high” or “low” “Wireless switched point-to-point” – what is this? Does “switched” relate to a packet or connection type switch? Should intra-device really be inter-device? Wireless backhaul/fronthaul? – what is meant by this? March 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR Slide 12

doc.: IEEE /0229r e- Amendment for High-rate close proximity point-to-point communications, PAR and CSDPARCSD 7.1 Similar Scope – ad and ay are similar. Please note similarities and differences. CSD: Broad sets of applicability: “high rate” –nebulous – give range to define what is “high rate” Multiple vendors: Please answer the question about the market potential not the attendees affiliations don’t list the corporations in the CSD, but do cite reference to the evidence alluded to c) do not use “Wi-Fi” change to “WLAN” or delete March 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR Slide 13

doc.: IEEE /0229r2 Privacy Recommendation EC Study Group - Privacy Considerations for IEEE 802 Technologies, PAR and CSDPARCSD 4.2 and 4.3 need to include target dates for completion. Should be at least 6 months apart. 5.2 Change “document” to “recommended practice” 5.4 delete “document” result “The recommended practice…” 5.5 change “and certain threats” to “and certain privacy threats” 5.5 change “with IETF in many” to “with IETF on many” 5.5 change “guidelines” to “recommendations” CSD: Distinct Identity: change “defines privacy” to “defines a privacy” and “practice” to “practices” Economic Feasibility – Question was not answered need to provide evidence and address the requested specific areas “a) through e)”. March 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR Slide 14

doc.: IEEE /0229r2 IEEE approved a scope document for a new IEEE TAG Task Group focused on Internet of things (IoT) vertical applications. The document was approved 7/0/0 by IEEE and can be found at: I expect to bring this for approval during the Friday closing meeting during the March plenary. According to the procedure adopted by the IEEE 802 EC, such documents need to be circulated 30 days in advance of the plenary meeting. Comments from WGs are due by 6:30 pm local time on Tuesday during the plenary meeting. Responses from IEEE are due by 6:30 pm local time on Wednesday during the plenary meeting. Members of IEEE will be seeking votes of support from IEEE 802 WGs during the week. I will advise the appropriate WG Chairs when such a motion will be requested. March 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR Slide 15

doc.: IEEE /0229r IoT New TG request feedback 1.Scope – missing “.” at end of Scope. 2.Customer – ‘Customer’ is what is being asked to be identified…please identify “who the customer” is to answer the question. 3.Similar Groups – What are the “in identified IoT vertical applications”? What are the liaison opportunities? Would a liaison with “IEEE P2413” be one of those opportunities? What about any opportunities with those groups identified in #4? March 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR Slide 16

doc.: IEEE /0229r2 Motion to Send Feedback to 802 WGs Move to send feedback prepared by PAR Review SC to the respective IEEE 802 WGs as documented in 11-14/0229r1. Moved: Dan Harkins 2 nd : Michelle Turner Results: motion passes. March 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR Slide 17

doc.: IEEE /0229r2 Responses from 802 WGs March 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR Slide 18

doc.: IEEE /0229r2 Privacy EC SG Comment Responses Dear 802 EC members, The Privacy EC SG has received several comments on the PAR/CSD. We appreciate the feedback received. Comments have been captured in the following file: csd-comments-received.pptx csd-comments-received.pptx The group believes that some comments require further and more detailed consideration. Therefore, I have been appointed by the group to request to the EC withdrawing the Privacy EC SG PAR proposal from the March 13 th Agenda. Comment responses will still be provided by March 12 th. Best regards, Juan Carlos (Privacy EC SG Chair - March 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR Slide 19

doc.: IEEE /0229r2 Privacy EC SG: Response to Comments from and 4.3 need to include target dates for completion. Should be at least 6 months apart. – See previous response to Roger Mark’s comment 5.2 Change “document” to “recommended practice” 5.4 delete “document” result “The recommended practice…” 5.5 change “and certain threats” to “and certain privacy threats” 5.5 change “with IETF in many” to “with IETF on many” 5.5 change “guidelines” to “recommendations” – Agree with the above CSD: Distinct Identity: change “defines privacy” to “defines a privacy” and “practice” to “practices” Economic Feasibility – Question was not answered need to provide evidence and address the requested specific areas “a) through e)”. – See previous response to Roger Mark’s comment. We will address this in a future version of the CSD March 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR Slide 20

doc.: IEEE /0229r2 Privacy EC SG: Comments from Roger Marks CSD Economical Feasibility The response does not address economic feasibility. Increased privacy has economic benefits to some parties and is an economic threat to others. These issues should be articulated. – Should probably state that Privacy control should enhance, not degrade, security and functionality. Please see: CF00-privacy-engineered-access-network.pptx CF00-privacy-engineered-access-network.pptx – (Consider adding a clear statement like the one used in IETF) – There are examples of solutions that improve privacy without increasing significantly the cost (e.g. MAC address randomization) March 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR Slide 21

doc.: IEEE /0229r IoT New TG response to comments IEEE TAG has created a response to the comments received regarding the scope document for the formation an IEEE TAG Task Group on IoT. The responses can be found at: scope-comments.pdf Changes were made to the scope document in response to the comments and the updated document can be found at: form.docx Thanks James Gilb IEEE TAG Chair scope-comments.pdf form.docx March 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR Slide 22

doc.: IEEE /0229r e Response to Comments – a word doc containing responses to the comments received from and on the 15.3e PAR and CSD. Also attached is a revised CSD including the proposed changes. Final changes to the PAR must be done by the NesCom Admin so a revised PAR is not attached but the suggested changes are included in the comment responses. Please let me know if you have any further comments or questions. – comments-resolutions.docx comments-resolutions.docx – csd.docx csd.docx Regards Bob Bob Heile, Ph.D Chair, IEEE Working Group on Wireless Personal Area Networks March 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR Slide 23

doc.: IEEE /0229r2 Responses to IEEE comments on the e PAR and CSD 5.2.a. Scope of the complete standard: This standard defines PHY and MAC specifications for high data rate wireless connectivity with fixed, portable and moving devices. Data rates are high enough to satisfy a set of consumer multimedia industry needs, as well as to support emerging wireless switched point-to-point and high rate close proximity applications. Action: Modify the scope of the standard to the following. We did not elect to use the suggested resolution since 1 bps would qualify as high rate with that wording. Also a reminder that this is the revised scope for the base standard not this project hence the lower number. This standard defines PHY and MAC specifications for high data rate wireless connectivity (typically over 200 Mbps) with fixed, portable and moving devices. Data rates are high enough to satisfy a set of consumer multimedia industry needs such as streaming HD video, as well as to support emerging wireless switched point-to-point and high rate close proximity applications. March 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR Slide 24

doc.: IEEE /0229r2 Responses to IEEE comments on the e PAR and CSD 5.4 – “High” and “Low” are relative terms that should be defined as what is “High” or “Low” reword without “high” or “low” “Wireless switched point-to-point” – what is this? Does “switched” relate to a packet or connection type switch? Should intra- device really be inter-device? Wireless backhaul/fronthaul? – what is meant by this? 5.4 Purpose: The purpose of this standard is to provide for low complexity, low cost, low power consumption, high data rate wireless connectivity among devices supporting a variety of applications including things like a set of consumer multimedia industry needs, wireless switched point-to- point applications in data centers, wireless backhaul/fronthaul intra- device communications and a wide variety of additional use cases such as rapid large multimedia data downloads and file exchanges between two devices in close proximity, including between mobile devices and stationary devices (kiosks, ticket gates, etc.), and/or wireless data storage devices. Action: Disagree. This language has already been approved by NesCom as part of base standard revised purpose included in the d PAR. Note: The use of the term “intra- device” is correct. March 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR Slide 25

doc.: IEEE /0229r2 Responses to IEEE comments on the e PAR and CSD 7.1 Similar Scope – ad and ay are similar. Please note similarities and differences. 7.1 Are there other standards or projects with a similar scope?: No and c preceded ad and ay e merely builds on and c to support new applications in the family ay was not available while this PAR was being drafted. March 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR Slide 26

doc.: IEEE /0229r2 Responses to IEEE comments on the e PAR and CSD CSD: Broad sets of applicability: “high rate” –nebulous – give range to define what is “high rate” a)Broad sets of applicability. There is a need for close proximity high rate communications to service the transmission and rapid exchange of large data files based on close proximity, point- to-point connections, potentially to large numbers of mobile devices in the same space. This amendment consists of IEEE MAC additions and an unlicensed 60GHz Physical layer, delivering date rates up to 100Gbps, for use in a wide variety of use cases such as rapid large multimedia data downloads and file exchanges between two close proximity devices, i.e. mobile devices, stationary devices (kiosks, ticket gates, etc.), and other wirelessly enabled data storage devices. Action: Revise CSD 1.2.1a to read as follows: There is a need for close proximity high rate communications to service the transmission and rapid exchange (subseconds) of large data files (on the order of 25 Gbits) based on close proximity, point-to-point connections, potentially to large numbers of mobile devices in the same space. This amendment consists of IEEE MAC additions and an unlicensed 60GHz Physical layer, delivering date rates up to 100Gbps, for use in a wide variety of use cases such as rapid large multimedia data downloads and file exchanges between two close proximity devices, i.e. mobile devices, stationary devices (kiosks, ticket gates, etc.), and other wirelessly enabled data storage devices. March 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR Slide 27

doc.: IEEE /0229r2 Responses to IEEE comments on the e PAR and CSD CSD: Multiple vendors: Please answer the question about the market potential not the attendees affiliations. b)Multiple vendors and numerous users. There have been people, affiliated with 10 or so companies, participating in the development of this project and actively showing interest. Participants include international wireless carriers/service providers, academic researchers, government research laboratories, semiconductor manufacturers, communication equipment manufacturers, system integrators and end users. Action: Revise CSD 1.2.1b to read as follows. There are a large number of multimedia companies who are expected to serve this application space. The application is aimed at a broad consumer market which is comprised of a large number of users. Participants in the standard include chip vendors, chip designers, technology suppliers, radio frequency (RF) equipment manufacturers, infrastructure providers, international wireless carriers/service providers, academic researchers, government research laboratories, semiconductor manufacturers, communication equipment manufacturers, system integrators and consumers. March 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR Slide 28

doc.: IEEE /0229r2 Responses to IEEE comments on the e PAR and CSD don’t list the corporations in the CSD, but do cite reference to the evidence alluded to Technical Feasibility Each proposed IEEE 802 LMSC standard shall provide evidence that the project is technically feasible within the time frame of the project. At a minimum, address the following items to demonstrate technical feasibility: a)Demonstrated system feasibility. The sequence of link setup, data transfer and link release occurring within a short duration has already been demonstrated for point-to-point wireless communication systems by Sony, Toshiba and others. a)Proven similar technology via testing, modeling, simulation, etc. Similar main components of the technology and signaling are being used in today’s systems by Sony, Toshiba and others. Hence, the involved testing overhead associated with a commercial development undertaken by manufacturers is known to be reasonable. Action: Revise CSD 1.2.4a and b to read as follows. a)Demonstrated system feasibility. The sequence of link setup, data transfer and link release occurring within a short duration has already been demonstrated for point-to- point wireless communication systems by a number of multimedia organizations and universities such as TU Braunschweig. a)Proven similar technology via testing, modeling, simulation, etc. Similar main components of the technology and signaling are being used today in proprietary commercial systems and in research laboratories at University institutions such as TU Braunschweig. March 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR Slide 29

doc.: IEEE /0229r2 Responses to IEEE comments on the e PAR and CSD 1.2.5c) do not use “Wi-Fi” change to “WLAN” or delete c)Consideration of installation costs. The installation of fixed standalone terminals would be similar to that of installing Wi-Fi access points and when included in devices like ticket gates would not add to the installation cost of that gate Action: Accept. Change “Wi- Fi” to “WLAN” March 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR Slide 30

doc.: IEEE /0229r2 P802.1Qci Updated PAR/CSD The updated P802.1Qci PAR can be found at: 015/new-nfinn-input-gates-par-0115-v05.pdf 015/new-nfinn-input-gates-par-0115-v05.pdf The updated CSD can be found at: 015/new-nfinn-input-gates-csd-0115-v03.pdf 015/new-nfinn-input-gates-csd-0115-v03.pdf March 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR Slide 31

doc.: IEEE /0229r2 The Local Address SG met to resolve the comments on the 802c PAR and CSD. The updated PAR is: – v02.pdf v02.pdf The updated CSD is: – The consolidated comments received from 802.3, , Paul Nikolich and Roger Marks, along with resolutions are here: – comments-0315-v1.pdf comments-0315-v1.pdf Cheers, Glenn Parsons - Chair, IEEE March 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR Slide 32

doc.: IEEE /0229r2 802c - Amendment: Local Media Access Control (MAC) Addressing, PAR and CSD 2.1 Expand Acronym “MAC” – “Media Access Control (MAC)” 5.2b Change “local address space” to “local MAC address space” 5.4 – Change “unique addresses” to “unique MAC addresses” Change “local address” to “local MAC address” - 3 places. –Agree with all except it is Medium Access Control March 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR Slide 33

doc.: IEEE /0229r2 802c - Amendment: Local Media Access Control (MAC) Addressing, PAR and CSD 5.4 – Problem statement not clearly defined in the need statement. “ While we agree that the number of IoT devices may use more of the Local MAC Address space, please explain in the need section why the Local MAC Address space requires the simultaneous use of Multiple Local MAC Address Administrators.” –Accept (but need is 5.5), see following slide 6.1b –CID is not defined and is only used once...just spell it out “Company Identifier ” – Accept 5.2b and 6.1b – “Company ID” – Should be “Company Identifier” (2 instances) – Accept March 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR Slide 34

doc.: IEEE /0229r2 802c updated 5.5 Need Currently, globally unique MAC addresses are assigned to most IEEE 802 end stations and bridge ports. Increasing use of virtual machines and Internet of Things (IoT) devices could exhaust the global MAC address space if global MAC addresses are assigned. These applications could use local MAC address space, but in that case some applications require independent address administration (e.g. virtualization systems and protocol specific address mappings). This project will provide conventions and enable protocols that will allow multiple stations or servers to automatically configure and use local MAC addresses without conflict when multiple administrations share a local address space. Such protocols will allow virtual machines and IoT devices to obtain a local MAC address without centralized local MAC address administration March 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR Slide 35

doc.: IEEE /0229r2 802c - Amendment: Local Media Access Control (MAC) Addressing, PAR and CSD  Compatibility – Just say “Yes”, delete the rest. –accept Distinct Identity – Suggested change: “There are no guidelines for using the Local MAC Address space in existing standards.” –Accept Technical Feasibility – Check the cited standard (possibly incorrect citation format) and include the full name of standard inline or as a note. –Accept Economic Feasibility – change “...local address distribution or claiming…” to “…local MAC Address distribution or claiming…” –Accept March 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR Slide 36

doc.: IEEE /0229r2 Minutes for PAR Review SC Monday PM2: 1.Welcome – called to order at 4pm by Jon Rosdahl 2.Determine order of review - 3.Review PARs/CSD posted for review this week. 4.Recess at 6pm Tuesday AM1: 1.Called to order at 10:30am 2.Completed review of PARs/CSD and post comments to 802 WGs 3.Recess Thursday Agenda: – Meeting did not come to order as there was only the Chair attending. 1.Review Response to Comments 2.Prepare Report for WG closing plenary 3.Adjourn March 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR Slide 37