Submission doc.: IEEE r PAR Review SC November 2015 Date: November 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR-QualcommSlide 1 Authors:

Submission doc.: IEEE r3 Abstract-Snapshot Review of Proposed 802 PAR documents -- Nov 8-13, Dallas, TX, USA 1.802d - Amendment: URN Namespace, PAR and CSDPARCSD CQ- Standard: Multicast and Local Address Assignment, PAR and CSDPARCSD ca - Amendment, 25 Gb/s and 100 Gb/s Passive Optical Networks, PAR and CSDPARCSD cb - Amendment, 2.5 Gb/s and 5 Gb/s Operation over Backplane and Copper Cables, PAR and CSDPARCSD d - 100Gbps wireless switched point-to-point physical layer, PAR Modification and 5CPAR Modification5C t Standard: Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks (LR-WPANs) Amendment for a High(er) Rate Physical (PHY) Layer, PAR and CSDPARCSD u Amendment, Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks (LR- WPANs) Amendment for use of the Indian MHz band. PAR and CSDPARCSD s - Amendment, Fixed and Mobile Wireless Access in Channel Sizes up to 1.25 MHz, PAR and CSDPAR and CSD Meeting times: Monday PM2, Tuesday AM2, Thursday AM2 November 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR-QualcommSlide 2

Submission doc.: IEEE r3 PAR Review SC – November 2015 Chair: Jon Rosdahl Monday Agenda: 1.Welcome 2..Nominations for Vice Chair/Secretary 3.Determine order of review 4.Review PARs/CSD posted for review this week. 5.Recess Tuesday Agenda: 1.Determine Vice Chair/Secretary for this week and beyond 2.Complete review of PARs/CSD and post comments to 802 WGs 3.Recess Thursday Agenda: 1.Review Response to Comments 2.Prepare Report for WG closing plenary 3.Adjourn November 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR-QualcommSlide 3 Draft Agenda:

Submission doc.: IEEE r3 PAR Review Comments November 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR-QualcommSlide 4

Submission doc.: IEEE r d - 100Gbps wireless switched point-to-point physical layer, PAR Modification and 5CPAR Modification5C 2.1, 5.2a, 5.2b and 5.5: Use of “Mbps” or “ Gbps” should be “Mb/s” and “Gb/s” 5.2a and 5.2b seem to be orders of magnitude different in the expected speeds and bands covered. Should the Scope be amended by this amendment to include the extra bands and speeds? An Amendment is a good time to adjust the scope of the base standard. 5.5 – missing comma “In data centers wireless links ----” 5.5 – extra comma “…with high probability, is ----” 8.1 – 5.2b – delete “the” in “intended the frequency bands” 8.1 – missing comma in “kiosk-downloading the link” November 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR-QualcommSlide 5

Submission doc.: IEEE r t Standard: Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks (LR- WPANs) Amendment for a High(er) Rate Physical (PHY) Layer, PAR and CSDPAR CSD 2.1 Need to include range for “High(er)” ( See NesCom Conventions: “6. Quantification of the Ranges of Numeric Values For PARs for new projects, standards developers who use general terms to represent ranges (e.g. high, medium, low) within the title, scope, or purpose, shall numerically define such ranges where they first appear (title, scope, or purpose, as applicable). “) 5.2a – change “devices operating various license-free” to “devices operating in various license-free” 5.2a – What is the battery consumption requirements (car battery or coin cell for example)? 5.2.b Change “Mbps” to “Mb/s” November 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR-QualcommSlide 6

Submission doc.: IEEE r3 15.4t CSD Title page: should it include the name of the amendment? change “Definitions were already and part of this standard “ to “Definitions were already a part of this standard. November 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR-QualcommSlide 7

Submission doc.: IEEE r u Amendment, Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks (LR- WPANs) Amendment for use of the Indian MHz band. PAR and CSDPAR CSD 2.1 Change “the Indian MHz band” to “the MHz band in India.” 5.5 – Suggest use “W” for “watts” 5.5 – Change: “released a draft an Internet of Things Policy” to “released a draft Internet of Things Policy” November 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR-QualcommSlide 8

Submission doc.: IEEE r3 15.4u CSD Title page: should it include the name of the amendment? It would help the reader when looking at CSD to be self-defined change “Definitions were already and part of this standard “ to “Definitions were already a part of this standard” a) change “This project can be implement with “ to “This project can be implemented with “ a) Add comma prior to “which” November 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR-QualcommSlide 9

Submission doc.: IEEE r s - Amendment, Fixed and Mobile Wireless Access in Channel Sizes up to 1.25 MHz, PAR and CSDPAR and CSD In 2014, was in the process of closing down open projects. What evidence do we have for the support of a new project? 5.1 – We do not believe that there are 15 interested parties when has only 6 members. There may not be enough interest to support this new project. Are you expecting a lot of cross interest from the Micro-wave society? 7.1 – 3GPP develops NB-IOT (narrow band LTE for Internet of Things) which is similar in scope to this project scope – from 5.2b: “This system profile will specify operation in exclusively-licensed spectrum with channel sizes up to 1.25 MHz, including 1 MHz explicitly”. How is this project different from the 3GPP case? November 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR-QualcommSlide 10

Submission doc.: IEEE r s CSD a) How does this project justify the claimed market share of the cited studies, given that this appears to be one of many technologies in this competitive market place? b) given that there are only 6 members of , that does not appear to match the list of “Multiple Vendors and numerous users” categories, what evidence of interests is there from participants in each category? This response could be enhanced by including and building on the statement from b) “At least five utilities in the US have either deployed or are testing a proprietary system based on a variation of IEEE technology.” – Concern that the statements are somewhat vague. Is there evidence that could be identified for the cited systems? How much of a “variation” in the system is cited? Could supporting documents be cited from document repository? November 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR-QualcommSlide 11

Submission doc.: IEEE r3 802d - Amendment: URN Namespace, PAR and CSDPARCSD 1.1 Correct Project number – P802d 2.1 Expand first use of Abbreviation – Uniform Resource Names (URN) 5.2.b Change “bridges and end stations” to “802 Network elements”. This is to avoid the need to list all types of devices, e.g. Access Points (AP), switches etc. 8.1 #5.5 delete second sentence, ”YANG” does not appear in the title. 8.1 #7.3A delete “with communication with JTC1 through existing channels”, or remove the entire comment as 7.3 does not appear on the PDF of the PAR. November 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR-QualcommSlide 12

Submission doc.: IEEE r3 802d CSD – This project may be apply to more than 802.1Q, change “802.1Q to “802”. November 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR-QualcommSlide 13

Submission doc.: IEEE r CQ- Standard: Multicast and Local Address Assignment, PAR and CSDPARCSD 2.1 change “Addresses” to “Address” 5.6 change last sentence to read: “This includes software developers, networking equipment vendors IC developers, bridge and NIC vendors, and users. CSD: Slide 9: spell out “CIDs” – “Company Identifier (CID)” CSD: Slide 9: identify properly where the address is coming from.. Change “RAC” to “IEEE-SA Registration Authority”. November 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR-QualcommSlide 14

Submission doc.: IEEE r ca - Amendment, 25 Gb/s and 100 Gb/s Passive Optical Networks, PAR and CSDPARCSD No comment or issues identified. November 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR-QualcommSlide 15

Submission doc.: IEEE r cb - Amendment, 2.5 Gb/s and 5 Gb/s Operation over Backplane and Copper Cables, PAR and CSDPARCSD No comment or issues identified. CSD Slide 5: Well Done -- November 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR-QualcommSlide 16

Submission doc.: IEEE r3 Motion to accept feedback Move to accept the feedback in 11-15/1212r2 (slides 5-16) as the feedback on the proposed PARs for the November 2015 Plenary. Moved: Andrew Myles 2 nd : Dorothy Stanley Results: motion passes November 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR-QualcommSlide 17

Submission doc.: IEEE r3 Responses From 802 WGs November 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR-QualcommSlide 18

Submission doc.: IEEE r November 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR-QualcommSlide 19 Thanks to all who reviewed the IEEE 802d PAR and CSD. The updated 802d PAR has been pre-submitted to NesCom and as a result, only the NesCom admin can currently change the PAR. A request to update the PAR has been made based on this change bar version: PAR-1115.pdfhttp:// PAR-1115.pdf The CSD has been updated as follows: CSD-1115.pdf The consolidated comments received from 802.3, , and James Gilb, along with resolutions are here: PAR-comments-1115-v01.pdf Cheers, Glenn.

Submission doc.: IEEE r3 802d - Amendment: URN Namespace, PAR and CSDPARCSD 1.1 Correct Project number – P802d - Agree 2.1 Expand first use of Abbreviation – Uniform Resource Names (URN) - Agree 5.2.b Change “bridges and end stations” to “802 Network elements”. This is to avoid the need to list all types of devices, e.g. Access Points (AP), switches etc. - Agree 8.1 #5.5 delete second sentence, ”YANG” does not appear in the title. - Agree 8.1 #7.3A delete “with communication with JTC1 through existing channels”, or remove the entire comment as 7.3 does not appear on the PDF of the PAR. Agree. 7.3 exists and does not appear due to staff choice… so this note is not necessary November 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR-QualcommSlide 20

Submission doc.: IEEE r3 802d CSD – This project may be apply to more than 802.1Q, change “802.1Q to “802”. - Agree November 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR-QualcommSlide 21

Submission doc.: IEEE r CQ November 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR-QualcommSlide 22 Thanks to all who reviewed the IEEE 802.1CQ PAR and CSD. The consolidated comments with responses are posted at: pdf The PAR with changes marked up is at: address-prot-1115-v0.pdf and the updated CSD is at: address-prot-1115.pdf Regards, Pat

Submission doc.: IEEE r CQ- Standard: Multicast and Local Address Assignment, PAR and CSDPARCSD 2.1 change “Addresses” to “Address” - Accept 5.6 change last sentence to read: “This includes software developers, networking equipment vendors IC developers, bridge and NIC vendors, and users. - Accept CSD: Slide 9: spell out “CIDs” – “Company Identifier (CID)” Will expand to Company ID which is the RAC name for the identifiers CSD: Slide 9: identify properly where the address is coming from.. Change “RAC” to “IEEE-SA Registration Authority”. - Accept November 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR-QualcommSlide 23

Submission doc.: IEEE r November 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR-QualcommSlide 24 The updated IEEE P802.3ca PAR can be access at The unchanged IEEE P802.3ca CSD can be access athttp:// The IEEE P802.3ca comment responses can be accessed athttp:// The updated IEEE P802.3cb PAR can be access athttp:// The updated IEEE P802.3cb CSD can be access athttp:// The IEEE P802.3cb comment responses can be accessed athttp://

Submission doc.: IEEE r s November 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR-QualcommSlide 25 Thanks to those who submitted comments on the draft P802.16s PAR. Please see: P802.16s Draft PAR: Comments and Responses Draft P802.16s PAR Draft P802.16s CSD Comments and responses are also consolidated in a table at: Rogerhttps://mentor.ieee.org/802.16/dcn/15/ pdfhttps://mentor.ieee.org/802.16/dcn/15/ pdfhttps://mentor.ieee.org/802.16/dcn/15/ pdfhttp://comments16s.wirelessman.org

Submission doc.: IEEE r responses: Comment: In 2014, was in the process of closing down open projects. What evidence do we have for the support of a new project? Response: There is a clear market requirement and interest in this work. Over 100 utilities have deployed to support their grid operations. Changes to the 3.65 GHz band have left utilities looking for other options for licensed spectrum. The 700 MHz upper A block has been purchased by some utilities, but the 1 MHz channel width is not currently supported by any standard. 23 people, from four utilities, five equipment vendors, and several other organizations attended the teleconferences to develop this PAR. Please see Gdoc and scroll down to the attendance list. November 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR-QualcommSlide 26

Submission doc.: IEEE r s – Comment: We do not believe that there are 15 interested parties when has only 6 members. There may not be enough interest to support this new project. Are you expecting a lot of cross interest from the Microwave Society? Response: 23 people, from four utilities, five equipment vendors, and several other organizations attended the teleconferences to develop this PAR. Please see Gdoc and scroll down to the attendance list. The equipment vendors have expressed their intention to actively participate in the development, in addition to existing members of We also expect a few participants from academic and international research institutes. November 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR-QualcommSlide 27

Submission doc.: IEEE r s – Comment: 3GPP develops NB-IOT (narrow band LTE for Internet of Things) which is similar in scope to this project scope – from 5.2b: “This system profile will specify operation in exclusively-licensed spectrum with channel sizes up to 1.25 MHz, including 1 MHz explicitly”. How is this project different from the 3GPP case? Response: NB-IOT is not of similar scope. This project is to amend the standard. 3GPP standards are not compatible with the standard. November 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR-QualcommSlide 28

Submission doc.: IEEE r – a) Comment: a) How does this project justify the claimed market share of the cited studies, given that this appears to be one of many technologies in this competitive market place? Response: The statistic in is not claiming a projected market for this amendment - it is an example of the overall market size. The marketplace for network infrastructure suitable for critical applications that supports narrow channels is competitive, but currently offers only proprietary solutions. The industry desires a standard to allow choice of vendors and better control of the product lifecycle November 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR-QualcommSlide 29

Submission doc.: IEEE r s – b) Comment: b) given that there are only 6 members of , that does not appear to match the list of “Multiple Vendors and numerous users” categories, what evidence of interests is there from participants in each category? Response: 23 people, from four utilities, five equipment vendors, and several other organizations attended the teleconferences to develop this PAR. Please see Gdoc and scroll down to the attendance list. The equipment vendors have expressed their intention to actively participate in the development, in addition to existing members of We also expect a few participants from academic and international research institutes. November 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR-QualcommSlide 30

Submission doc.: IEEE r s – Comment: This response could be enhanced by including and building on the statement from b) “At least five utilities in the US have either deployed or are testing a proprietary system based on a variation of IEEE technology.” Response: Salt River Project and Great River Energy have explicitly indicated their support by posting to Mentor and on the reflector. Puget Sound Electric and BC Hydro (Power Tech Labs) have been involved in the PAR definition process. Several other utilities are in phases of negotiation and are not publically expressing their interest at this time. Proposed Change: Add text to CSD 1.2.1b: Six posts expressing support for this standardization activity have been posted to Mentor and the reflector November 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR-QualcommSlide 31

Submission doc.: IEEE r s Comment: Concern that the statements are somewhat vague. Is there evidence that could be identified for the cited systems? How much of a “variation” in the system is cited? Could supporting documents be cited from document repository? Response: The proprietary system used as an example of feasibility is described in contribution Gcon. Other vendors have somewhat different approaches that will be considered in the Task Group. Proposed Change: Add reference to this document to CSD: "See contribution Gcon for further details." November 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR-QualcommSlide 32

Submission doc.: IEEE r RESPONSES November 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR-QualcommSlide 33

Submission doc.: IEEE r3 Comments from on d 100Gb/s wireless switched point-to-point physical layer 2.1, 5.2a, 5.2b and 5.5: Use of “Mbps” or “ Gbps” should be “Mb/s” and “Gb/s” Response: Editorial correction made 5.2a and 5.2b seem to be orders of magnitude different in the expected speeds and bands covered. Should the Scope be amended by this amendment to include the extra bands and speeds? An Amendment is a good time to adjust the scope of the base standard. Response: We do not agree that action is needed now. 5.2a is the scope of the base standard as it appears in the current 15.3 Revision and in amendment 15.3e. As such, it is not something that can be changed predictably via an amendment especially since it is dependent on the order of completion of the amendments. While the speed is significantly higher, it is still above above 200 Mb/s specified in the base standard scope, so there no misstatement. The proper place to make this update is in the next revision. November 2015 Bob Heile, Wi-SUN AllianceSlide 34

Submission doc.: IEEE r3 Comments from on d 100Gb/s wireless switched point-to-point physical layer 5.5 – missing comma “In data centers wireless links ----” 5.5 – extra comma “…with high probability, is ----” 8.1 – 5.2b – delete “the” in “intended the frequency bands” 8.1 – missing comma in “kiosk-downloading the link” Response: Editorial corrections made November 2015 Bob Heile, Wi-SUN AllianceSlide 35

Submission doc.: IEEE r3 Comments from on t Standard: Amendment for a Higher Rate Physical (PHY) Layer PAR: 2.1 Need to include range for “High(er)” (See NesCom Conventions: “6. Quantification of the Ranges of Numeric Values For PARs for new projects, standards developers who use general terms to represent ranges (e.g. high, medium, low) within the title, scope, or purpose, shall numerically define such ranges where they first appear (title, scope, or purpose, as applicable”). Response: Noted. “Target range should be at least 10 meters.” added to scope PAR: 5.2a – change “devices operating various license- free” to “devices operating in various license-free” Response: Agree in Principal. Hard to predict whether this typo correction will stick since the order of 15.4 amendment completion is unknown. In any event we will make the correction in the next revision. November 2015 Bob Heile, Wi-SUN AllianceSlide 36

Submission doc.: IEEE r3 Comments from on t Standard: Amendment for a Higher Rate Physical (PHY) Layer PAR: 5.2a – What is the battery consumption requirements (car battery or coin cell for example)? Response: Base standard scope is not something we can reliably modify through an amendment. We will address this in the scope of the next revision. PAR: 5.2.b Change “Mbps” to “Mb/s” Response: Change made November 2015 Bob Heile, Wi-SUN AllianceSlide 37

Submission doc.: IEEE r3 Comments from on t Standard: Amendment for a Higher Rate Physical (PHY) Layer CSD Title page: should it include the name of the amendment? Response: No reason why not. Amendment title added CSD: change “Definitions were already and part of this standard “ to “Definitions were already a part of this standard. Response: This comment is no longer relevant a was changed to read: “While no new managed objects are anticipated, any managed objects that are required will be defined as part of the project.” to satisfy other comments received November 2015 Bob Heile, Wi-SUN AllianceSlide 38

Submission doc.: IEEE r comments on the u PAR/CSD Amendment for use of the MHz band in India 2.1 Change “the Indian MHz band” to “the MHz band in India.” Response: Agree. Change made 5.5 – Suggest use “W” for “watts” Response: We appreciate the suggestion but feel using the full word is clearer 5.5 – Change: “released a draft an Internet of Things Policy” to “released a draft Internet of Things Policy” Response: Agree. Change made November 2015 Bob Heile, Wi-SUN AllianceSlide 39

Submission doc.: IEEE r comments on the u PAR/CSD Amendment for use of the MHz band in India CSD: Title page: should it include the name of the amendment? It would help the reader when looking at CSD to be self-defined. Response: No reason why not. Title added CSD: change “Definitions were already and part of this standard “ to “Definitions were already a part of this standard” Response: This comment is no longer relevant a was changed to read: “While no new managed objects are anticipated, any managed objects that are required will be defined as part of the project.” to satisfy other comments received November 2015 Bob Heile, Wi-SUN AllianceSlide 40

Submission doc.: IEEE r comments on the u PAR/CSD Amendment for use of the MHz band in India CSD: a) change “This project can be implement with “ to “This project can be implemented with “ Response: Accepted, correction made a) Add comma prior to “which” Response: Accepted, correction made November 2015 Bob Heile, Wi-SUN AllianceSlide 41

Submission doc.: IEEE r REBUTTAL November 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR-QualcommSlide 42

Submission doc.: IEEE r t comment: PAR: 2.1 Need to include range for “High(er)” (See NesCom Conventions: “6. Quantification of the Ranges of Numeric Values For PARs for new projects, standards developers who use general terms to represent ranges (e.g. high, medium, low) within the title, scope, or purpose, shall numerically define such ranges where they first appear (title, scope, or purpose, as applicable”) Response: Noted. “Target range should be at least 10 meters.” added to scope Rebuttal: The requirement is to put the range where it “first appears”, so either put the range in the title, or change the title to not require the use of “High(er)”. November 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR-QualcommSlide 43

Submission doc.: IEEE r s – Comment: 3GPP develops NB-IOT (narrow band LTE for Internet of Things) which is similar in scope to this project scope – from 5.2b: “This system profile will specify operation in exclusively-licensed spectrum with channel sizes up to 1.25 MHz, including 1 MHz explicitly”. How is this project different from the 3GPP case? Response: NB-IOT is not of similar scope. This project is to amend the standard. 3GPP standards are not compatible with the standard Rebuttal: NB-IOT is of similar scope and has similar use cases in the same band. Therefore, it should be identified in 7.1. However, we recognize that the identified stakeholders appear to have a need for an based solution, and the competing solution may not meet their needs. We suggest you include this information in 7.1 because it explains why this amendment to may be justified. November 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR-QualcommSlide 44

Submission doc.: IEEE r3 Motion to Submit Report to WG Move to accept doc:11-15/1212r3 as the feedback including rebuttal on the proposed PARs for the November Plenary. Moved: Andrew Myles 2 nd : Stuart Kerry Results: Motion Passes November 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR-QualcommSlide 45

Submission doc.: IEEE r3 References IEEE 802 PARs Under consideration Webpage: November 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR-QualcommSlide 46