1. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/1339r4 November 2014 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 1 802-11 PAR Review November 2014 Date: 2014-11-03 Authors:

2. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/1339r4 November 2014 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 2 Abstract-Snapshot Review of Proposed PAR documents 802c, Amendment: Local Media Access Control (MAC) Addressing, PAR and CSDPAR CSD 802.1AS-rev - Timing and Synchronization for Time-Sensitive Applications, PAR and CSD PARCSD 802.1Qch- Amendment: Cyclic Queuing and Forwarding, PAR and CSDPARCSD 802.3bv- Amendment, 1000 Mb/s Operation Over Plastic Optical Fiber, PAR and CSDPARCSD 802.3by- Amendment: Media Access Control Parameters, Physical Layers and Management Parameters for 25 Gb/s Operation, PAR and CSDPARCSD 802.15.7a- Amendment for a Physical Layer Supporting Optical Camera Communications, PAR and 5CPAR5C Meeting times: Monday PM2, Tuesday AM2, Thursday AM2

3. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/1339r4 PAR SC – November 2014 Chair: Jon Rosdahl Monday Agenda: 1.Welcome / Policy & PAR Process review 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 802.11 WG closing plenary 3.Adjourn Slide 3Jon Rosdahl, CSR November 2014

4. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/1339r4 November 2014 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 4 Other Guidelines for IEEE WG Meetings l All IEEE-SA standards meetings shall be conducted in compliance with all applicable laws, including antitrust and competition laws. l Don’t discuss the interpretation, validity, or essentiality of patents/patent claims. l Don’t discuss specific license rates, terms, or conditions. l Relative costs, including licensing costs of essential patent claims, of different technical approaches may be discussed in standards development meetings. l Technical considerations remain primary focus l Don’t discuss or engage in the fixing of product prices, allocation of customers, or division of sales markets. l Don’t discuss the status or substance of ongoing or threatened litigation. l Don’t be silent if inappropriate topics are discussed … do formally object. --------------------------------------------------------------- See IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, clause 5.3.10 and “Promoting Competition and Innovation: What You Need to Know about the IEEE Standards Association's Antitrust and Competition Policy” for more details.

5. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/1339r4 November 2014 Slide 5 Please review the documents at the following links: IEEE Patent Policy: http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.ppthttp://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.ppt Patent FAQ: http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/faq.pdfhttp://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/faq.pdf Letter of Assurance Form: http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/loa.pdfhttp://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/loa.pdf Affiliation FAQ: http://standards.ieee.org/faqs/affiliationFAQ.html http://standards.ieee.org/faqs/affiliationFAQ.html Anti-Trust FAQ: http://standards.ieee.org/resources/antitrust-guidelines.pdf http://standards.ieee.org/resources/antitrust-guidelines.pdf Ethics: http://www.ieee.org/portal/cms_docs/about/CoE_poster.pdfhttp://www.ieee.org/portal/cms_docs/about/CoE_poster.pdf 802 LMSC P&P: http://standards.ieee.org/board/aud/LMSC.pdf http://standards.ieee.org/board/aud/LMSC.pdf 802 LMSC OM: http://www.ieee802.org/PNP/approved/IEEE_802_OM_v14.pdf http://www.ieee802.org/PNP/approved/IEEE_802_OM_v14.pdf 802 WG P&P: http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/PNP/approved/IEEE_802_WG_PandP_v15.pdf http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/PNP/approved/IEEE_802_WG_PandP_v15.pdf IEEE 802.11 WG OM: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/14/11-14-0629-02- 0000-802-11-operations-manual.docx https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/14/11-14-0629-02- 0000-802-11-operations-manual.docx From IEEE 802 Procedural document website: http://www.ieee802.org/devdocs.shtmlhttp://www.ieee802.org/devdocs.shtml Jon Rosdahl, CSR

6. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/1339r4 COMMENTS REQUIRED BY TUESDAY BEFORE 6:30PM Actual comments submitted by the 802.11 Chair at 1pm 4 Nov 2014 November 2014 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 6

7. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/1339r4 802.15.7a- Amendment for a Physical Layer Supporting Optical Camera Communications, PAR and 5C LED – Expand to define on first use of acronym. QR – Expand to define on first use of acronym. 5.2b – “Techniques are put forward which do not require any hardware modifications for many classes of applications in existing mobile and/or other devices such as those defined above, as well as techniques which may require some level of hardware modification to support new capabilities” This last sentence seems like it may be more of a prediction than a definition of the scope for the project. Consider putting into section 8.1 or just deleting altogether. Slide 7Jon Rosdahl, CSR November 2014

8. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/1339r4 802.15.7a (cont) 5.4 – “The purpose of this standard is to provide a global standard…” change to “This standard provides a global standard…” 5.5 “air plane” vs “airplane” – 5.6 – “etc,” list of Stakeholders is the list. Delete the “etc.” Website calls out a “5C” for the 802.15 CSD…all others are CSD…Suggest ask Recording Secretary change to “CSD” Slide 8Jon Rosdahl, CSR November 2014

9. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/1339r4 802.15.7a CSD(cont) 14.2.1 a) ““air plane” vs “airplane” – Slide 9Jon Rosdahl, CSR November 2014

10. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/1339r4 802c, Amendment: Local Media Access Control (MAC) Addressing, PAR and CSD In General, we believe that discussion on this topic has identified multiple stakeholders that have not been sufficiently consulted or involved in the development of the PAR/CSD. An EC Study Group should be created to allow multiple Stakeholders, across all 802 WGs, to participate in the development of a PAR/CSD. Timing conflicts need to be addressed to allow for an inclusive opportunity of the stakeholders. Slide 10Jon Rosdahl, CSR November 2014

11. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/1339r4 802c PAR Comments 1.2 Type of Document: Standard Comments: 1.Recommended practice vs a standard. Either a set of informative changes (Informative Annex) to the existing 802 Architecture document or a stand-alone recommended practice document should be developed to meet the PAR objectives. Slide 11Jon Rosdahl, CSR November 2014

12. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/1339r4 802c, Amendment PAR (cont) Slide 12Jon Rosdahl, CSR November 2014 5.1 Approximate number of people expected to be actively involved in the development of this project: 30 no comment 5.2.a. Scope of the complete standard: This standard contains descriptions of the IEEE 802(R) standards published by the IEEE for frame-based data networks as well as a reference model (RM) for protocol standards. The IEEE 802 architecture is defined, and a specification for the identification of public, private, and standard protocols is included. No specific changes identified, however changes likely to be required if a recommended practice is developed.

13. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/1339r4 802c, Amendment PAR (cont) 5.2.b. Scope of the project: The amendment will provide recommendations and rules for using the local address space.. This will allocate a portion of the address space for protocols using an IEEE Registration Authority assigned Company ID. Another portion of the local address space will be allocated for assignment by local administrators. Comments: 1.Punctuation error – 2 periods at the end of the first sentence 2. In the first sentence, delete “and rules”. The scope (5.2.b) refers to “recommendations” Change to recommended practice. 1.2.2 of the CSD describes “providing a guideline for use of the existing Local Address space”. 3. The entire local address space is available for local administration today. There is a coexistence and backwards compatibility issue with changing this: “Another portion…by local administrators.” 4. The second 2 sentences are providing a solution. There may be other solutions or alternatives that are identified. Delete the second and third sentences. Slide 13Jon Rosdahl, CSR November 2014

14. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/1339r4 802c, Amendment PAR (cont 5.The RAC does not allocate local addresses and should not begin doing so. “ A CID has the X bit (U/L bit) equal to one and consequently that places any address with the CID as its first three octets in the local address space (U/L = 1). Local addresses are not globally unique, but a network administrator is responsible for assuring that any local addresses assigned are unique within the span of use.” from IEEE RAC document “ Guidelines for Use Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI) and Company ID (CID)” The scope statement should not imply a change to the current RAC policy. Slide 14Jon Rosdahl, CSR November 2014

15. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/1339r4 802c, Amendment PAR (cont) 5.5 Need for the Project: Currently, global 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 address space if global addresses are assigned. This project will enable protocols that automatically configure addresses from a portion of the local address space. Such protocols will allow virtual machines and IoT devices to obtain a local address without local administration. Comments on next slide Slide 15Jon Rosdahl, CSR November 2014

16. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/1339r4 802c, Amendment PAR (cont) 5.5 Need for the Project -Comments: 1.The sentences “This project will enable protocols that automatically configure addresses from a portion of the local address space. Such protocols will allow virtual machines and IoT devices to obtain a local address without local administration.” do not state a need. Delete the 2 cited sentences or reword to describe a need. 2.“Organizations will be able to use a CID address block as a default address space for their protocol without conflicting with other protocols following the guideline.” Organizations are already able to use the local address space. A local administrator can allocate local addresses without a CID. A local administrator can use a CID to allocate addresses from the local address space as an alternative. Slide 16Jon Rosdahl, CSR November 2014

17. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/1339r4 802c Amendment – CSD Comments 1.Section 1.1.2 – Coexistence. While the proposed document is not a wireless document, we believe that the coexistence issue must be addressed to describe how the new mechanisms or recommendations will coexist with deployed devices and uses of the local MAC address space, in particular, existing 802 wireless standards. 2.1.2.1 includes the example of “Fibre Channel over Ethernet (FCoE) has standardized a protocol for distributing FCoE virtual port MAC addresses from blocks in the Local MAC address space.” This example is in conflict with the statement in the PAR (5.2.b) “This will allocate a portion of the address space for protocols using an IEEE Registration Authority assigned Company ID.” as protocols can assign addresses today. This strengthens the case for either a recommended practice or development of a protocol. Slide 17Jon Rosdahl, CSR November 2014

18. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/1339r4 802c Amendment – CSD Comments (cont) 3.The last paragraph in 1.2.1 asserts that “A first step in enabling protocols for claiming or assignment of Local MAC addresses is to organize the MAC address space so that entities can be assigned a block of the Local Address space through the Company ID (CID) as a default. Another part of the space will be defined for local administration.” This is an assertion that is not substantiated and is disproven by the Fibre Channel example in 1.2.1. 4.Section 1.2.4 asserts “Organizations will be able to use a CID address block as a default address space for their protocol without conflicting with other protocols following the guideline.” Organizations are already able to use the local address space. The local administrator can use the CID to allocate addresses from the local address space is not necessary. Definition of a protocol to assign a local address is sufficient. The RAC does not allocate local addresses and should not begin doing so. Slide 18Jon Rosdahl, CSR November 2014

19. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/1339r4 802c Amendment – CSD Comments (cont) 5.Section 1.2.4 asserts “Another part of the space will be defined as the preferred area for local address administration.” This creates a backwards compatibility issue, as the entire space is used today for local address assignment. 6.Section 1.2.5 asserts that “CIDs are available from the RAC for a known cost.” If there is a requirement for using CIDs from the RAC, then additional cost are incurred. Slide 19Jon Rosdahl, CSR November 2014

20. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/1339r4 802.1AS-rev - Timing and Synchronization for Time- Sensitive Applications, PAR and CSD Please add the full name of the cited Stds in section 8.1 Misspelled “been” (is “ben”) 5C –Economic Feasibility – slide 8. Slide 20Jon Rosdahl, CSR November 2014

21. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/1339r4 802.1Qch- Amendment: Cyclic Queuing and Forwarding, PAR and CSD No Comment Slide 21Jon Rosdahl, CSR November 2014

22. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/1339r4 802.3bv- Amendment, 1000 Mb/s Operation Over Plastic Optical Fiber, PAR and CSD 5.6 Stakeholders: Delete “Stakeholders identified to date include but are not limited to:” 7.1 The organization name is not VDE, but that is its acronym. “Verband der Elektrotechnik, Elektronik und Informationstechnik“ – missing comma and “und“ Also Acronym in the “Please explain” sentance the “VDE” should be expanded at first use. 8.1 – “The VDE document was withdrawn at the request of IEEE/IEEE 802.3.” -- Withdrawn from what? Was there a formal request that could be cited? “IEEE/IEEE 802.3” is this correct? Should this be expanded? Slide 22Jon Rosdahl, CSR November 2014

23. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/1339r4 802.3bv- Amendment CSD Distinct Identity Slide 7 – The underlined statement says that the VDE standard was withdrawn by the “IEEE”. In the PAR it states that it was done at the request of IEEE/IEEE802.3. Which is it, can this be worded better in both places? Economic Feasibility – slide 8 How does “Energy Efficient Ethernet” relate to “25Gb/s Ethernet”? Slide 23Jon Rosdahl, CSR November 2014

24. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/1339r4 802.3by- Amendment: Media Access Control Parameters, Physical Layers and Management Parameters for 25 Gb/s Operation, PAR and CSD 5.6 Stakeholders: DELETE “Stakeholders identified to date include, but are not limited to,” CSD – slide 4 – Broad Market Potential: What is “on 25 Gb/s SerDes technology.” – “SerDes”? should explain/expand the acronym and/or term. Slide 24Jon Rosdahl, CSR November 2014

25. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/1339r4 802 WG RESPONSES Response to Comments from 802.11 on Review of PARs under Consideration November 2014 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 25

26. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/1339r4 P802.1AS Comment Response The updated P802.1AS PAR is now at: http://ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2014/new-802-1AS- rev-draft-par-1114-v2.pdf The updated CSD can be found at: http://ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2014/new-802-1AS- rev-draft-csd-1114-v2.pptx Comments and responses to the pre-circulated P802.1AS PAR text follow: http://ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2014/new-802-1AS- rev-draft-par-1114-v2.pdf http://ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2014/new-802-1AS- rev-draft-csd-1114-v2.pptx Slide 26Jon Rosdahl, CSR November 2014

27. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/1339r4 P802.1AS Comment Response (cont) 802.1: Two edits are needed to the scope of the PAR: 1) In accordance with discussion in the 802.1 TSN TG, the first sentence should be changed to refer to networks, rather than specifically to virtual bridged local area networks, and also to not be limited to media where the transmission delays are fixed and symmetrical. 2) At the end of the next-to-last sentence, a period is missing. Specifically delete the following from the first sentence of the scope: “bridged and virtual bridged local area” and “consisting of local area network (LAN) media where the transmission delays are fixed and symmetrical” This comment was accepted. Slide 27Jon Rosdahl, CSR November 2014

28. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/1339r4 P802.1AS Comment Response (cont) 802.3: PAR, 5.6 –Stakeholder list is incomplete. List does not include any hardware vendors, only application providers. As is clear from other project information, bridge vendors, providers and users are also stakeholders. Bridge silicon vendors may also be stakeholders. The comment was accepted, and the suggested stakeholders added. 802.11: Please add the full name of the cited Stds in section 8.1 The cited standards were added. Misspelled “been” (is “ben”) 5C –Economic Feasibility – slide 8. This has been corrected. Slide 28Jon Rosdahl, CSR November 2014

29. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/1339r4 P802.1Qch Comment Response The updated P802.1Qch PAR is now at: http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2014/ch-mjt-cyclic-queuing-and- fowarding-par-0914-v02.pdf The CSD, which has not been changed, can be found at: http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2014/ch-mjt-cyclic-queuing-and- forwarding-par-csd-0814-v01.pdf A comment to the pre-circulated P802.1Qch PAR text was made as follows: http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2014/ch-mjt-cyclic-queuing-and- fowarding-par-0914-v02.pdf http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2014/ch-mjt-cyclic-queuing-and- forwarding-par-csd-0814-v01.pdf 802.3: PAR, 5.6 (non-substantive) –Stakeholders response begins with an incomplete sentence. Delete “such as”?. This comment was accepted. Slide 29Jon Rosdahl, CSR November 2014

30. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/1339r4 P802c Comment Response Thanks for the thoughtful comments that we received from the 802.3, 802.11, 802.15 and 802.16 working groups. We have also received additional comments, including from the Privacy study group. The comments have been consolidated in this document: http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2014/new-addresses-thaler-802c-comments- 1114.pdf After review in 802.1, it is clear that in order to properly address these comments we need more time. The comments demonstrated some support for the project but also a lack of clarity in intent within the PAR and CSD. It is clarifying the intent in the Scope, Purpose, and Need that will take more time. As several suggested, the creation of a study group will allow us the time to discuss the responses, this proposed PAR and potentially additional PARs. As a result, we will not respond to the PAR comments at this time. Instead I propose to defer consideration of a PAR until the next plenary. 802.1 is currently drafting a proposal, for EC consideration on Friday, to form an 802.1 study group. This study group will facilitate a detailed discussion amongst 802 working groups and will be able to make PAR proposal(s) for the March plenary. The joint interim in January will allow for participation of all working groups. Slide 30Jon Rosdahl, CSR November 2014

31. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/1339r4 IEEE P802.3bv 1000 Mb/s Operation Over Plastic Optical Fiber Comment: 5.6 Stakeholders: Delete "Stakeholders identified to date include but are not limited to:" Response: The text requested to be deleted was introduced into 802.3 PARs specifically in response to an appeal filed and heard on a non-802 project. (Appealing the SASB approval of the standard because not all stakeholders were listed). This statement is simply a realistic recognition that for many technologies, it is virtually impossible to identify all potential stakeholders. To avoid conflict in approval of this PAR, the requested change will be made. Comment: 7.1 The organization name is not VDE, but that is its acronym. "Verband der Elektrotechnik, Elektronik und Informationstechnik" - missing comma and "und" Also Acronym in the "Please explain" sentance the "VDE" should be expanded at first use. Response: The acronym will be replaced with the organization name with corrections as requested. The use of the acronym in the 'Please explain' is a forward reference to the next line so is not considered to be a significant problem for readability and expansion in Sponsor Organization is preferred. The 'please explain' will be changed to read: The VDE document listed below was withdrawn. Proponents accepted encouragement of IEEE-SA to do the work in IEEE 802.3. Slide 31Jon Rosdahl, CSR November 2014

32. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/1339r4 IEEE P802.3bv 1000 Mb/s Operation Over Plastic Optical Fiber (cont) Comment: 8.1 - "The VDE document was withdrawn at the request of IEEE/IEEE 802.3." -- Withdrawn from what? Was there a formal request that could be cited? "IEEE/IEEE 802.3" is this correct? Should this be expanded? Response: We will delete the note to 7.1 and change the 'Please explain' sentence as above. Comment: Distinct Identity Slide 7 - The underlined statement says that the VDE standard was withdrawn by the "IEEE". In the PAR it states that it was done at the request of IEEE/IEEE802.3. Which is it, can this be worded better in both places? Response: IEEE 802.11 incorrectly quotes the text in Distinct Identity. It says "withdrawn at request of IEEE" (not by IEEE). To avoid inappropriate detail about the interactions between IEEE-SA and VDE, the text will simply be changed to "withdrawn". Slide 32Jon Rosdahl, CSR November 2014

33. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/1339r4 IEEE P802.3bv 1000 Mb/s Operation Over Plastic Optical Fiber (cont) Comment: Economic Feasibility - slide 8: How does "Energy Efficient Ethernet" relate to "25Gb/s Ethernet"? Response: (The following answer assumes 802.11 meant GEPOF instead of 25Gb/s Ethernet", but the following would be equally true for 25Gb/s Ethernet.) An economic feasibility consideration is cost of operation. Energy Efficient Ethernet (EEE) significantly reduces energy consumption when link utilization is low. Any 802.3 project that includes specification of a physical layer entity (what 802.3bv will do) has to define parameters and meet other technical requirements to support the EEE protocol. Therefore, commitment to define EEE support is a commitment to a specific method to reduce cost of operation, rather than a platitude about cost of operation. Based on the above an updated PAR and CSD can be found at the URL and.http://www.ieee802.org/3/GEPOFSG/P802_3bv_PAR_051114.pdfhttp://www.ieee802.org/3/GEPOFSG/CSD_GEPOF_051114.pdf Slide 33Jon Rosdahl, CSR November 2014

34. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/1339r4 IEEE P802.3by 25Gb/s Ethernet Comment: 5.6 Stakeholders: DELETE "Stakeholders identified to date include, but are not limited to,“ Response: Accept. Comment: CSD - slide 4 - Broad Market Potential: What is "on 25 Gb/s SerDes technology." - "SerDes"? should explain/expand the acroynmy and/or term. Response: The term 'SerDes' has been replaced with 'serial IO'. Based on the above an updated PAR and CSD can be found at the URL and.http://www.ieee802.org/3/25GSG/25GE_PAR_updated_051114.pdfhttp://www.ieee802.org/3/25GSG/25GE_CSD_1114_updated_adopted_with _changes.pdf Slide 34Jon Rosdahl, CSR November 2014

35. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/1339r4 P802.15.7 Comment Response Attached is a comment resolution spreadsheet (https://mentor.ieee.org/802.15/dcn/14/15-14-0658-03-007a-par-and-csd- comments-and-responses.xlsx),https://mentor.ieee.org/802.15/dcn/14/15-14-0658-03-007a-par-and-csd- comments-and-responses.xlsx a revised PAR (https://mentor.ieee.org/802.15/dcn/14/15-14-0674-00-007a-p802-15-7- par-revision1.pdf),https://mentor.ieee.org/802.15/dcn/14/15-14-0674-00-007a-p802-15-7- par-revision1.pdf a revised CSD (https://mentor.ieee.org/802.15/dcn/14/15-14-0216-05-007a-draft-csd- for-ieee-802-15-sg7a-occ.docx),https://mentor.ieee.org/802.15/dcn/14/15-14-0216-05-007a-draft-csd- for-ieee-802-15-sg7a-occ.docx and a copy of the original 15.7 PAR (https://mentor.ieee.org/802.15/dcn/14/15-14- 0675-00-007a-p802-15-7-par-original-base-standard.pdf).https://mentor.ieee.org/802.15/dcn/14/15-14- 0675-00-007a-p802-15-7-par-original-base-standard.pdf The only practical approach for dealing with the comments received regarding the inconsistencies between the proposed amendment and the base standard was to reclassify the project as a revision which allows us to update the title and base standard scope. We have removed the limitation of visible light from the title and the scope, defined the expanded wavelengths of operation, and added optical communications for cameras as an additional capability. We also updated the purpose, the need, and the stakeholders in the PAR and updated the CSD to be consistent with the comments received and the reclassification of the project as a revision rather than as an amendment. Slide 35Jon Rosdahl, CSR November 2014

36. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/1339r4November 2014 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 36 References