1. 802.11 Comments on Pending 802 PARs March 2011
doc.: IEEE /0433r0
March 2011
Comments on Pending 802 PARs March 2011
Date:
Authors:
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

2. March 2011
doc.: IEEE /0433r0
March 2011
Abstract
For the March Plenary, there were 4 PARs for consideration by the EC. Comments from were provided by 5pm on Tuesday, and responses from the respective WG was expected back on Wed 5pm.
Final consideration of these PARs was done by the EC during their closing meeting.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

3. Proposed 802 Pars under consideration for March 2011
new standard for personal space communications, PAR and 5C
802.1Qbp amendment for equal cost multiple paths (ECMP), PAR and 5C
802.1 PAR modification to P802.1Qbh, PAR. The 5C is unchanged.
PAR modification to correct editorial issues in scope and purpose, PAR. The 5C is unchanged
PAR – Discussed in on Tues AM2, we will discuss if we have time on Thurs PM1
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

4. 802.1Qbp amendment for equal cost multiple paths (ECMP), PAR and 5C
March 2011
802.1Qbp amendment for equal cost multiple paths (ECMP), PAR and 5C
5.2 Scope: “It is anticipate” is not verbiage that should be in the scope.
2.1 Title: says Multiple path, but the Scope seems to say a single path.
5.2 Scope: Is the scope a change to resultant standard or just scope of amendment within the scope of the base standard?
5.2 Scope: We have difficulty in reading the following sentence: would this suggested change to the sentence be correct?
Suggested change to sentence: “The standard will ensure that Connectivity Fault Management (CFM) can be used to proactively monitor and diagnose the paths that data takes through the network.” to “The standard defines Connectivity Fault Management (CFM) enhancements that can be used to….”.
PAR: 802.1aq : Check the number should it be 802.1Qaq? Seems typo in several places in the PAR.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

5. 802.1Qbp amendment for equal cost multiple paths (ECMP), PAR and 5C
March 2011
802.1Qbp amendment for equal cost multiple paths (ECMP), PAR and 5C
5.4 Purpose Statement: Present tense sentence rather than future vision of “proposed” or “envisioned” should be used.
5.4 Proposed Change: ” It is expected that both the current 802.1aq ECT and ECMP would be used at the same time in the same network …..” to “Both ECT and ECMP may be used at the same time in the same network….”
Feature Creep in Scope/Purpose/need…is the last feature listed in each section the same thing? FCM vs OA&M
8.1 add item number to descriptions.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

6. 802.1 PAR modification to P802.1Qbh, PAR. The 5C is unchanged.
March 2011
802.1 PAR modification to P802.1Qbh, PAR. The 5C is unchanged.
8.1 add item number.
5.2 Scope: “is “envisioned”, “is expected”…not description of present tense. Reword to be present tense as if it were describing the final document.
Note: Even though there was an “is expected” in the original scope, it should be corrected to be a present tense description of what is going to be in the amendment.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

7. March 2011
PAR modification to correct editorial issues in scope and purpose, PAR. The 5C is unchanged
8.1 include item numbers
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

8. 802.15.8 new standard for personal space communications, PAR and 5C
March 2011
new standard for personal space communications, PAR and 5C
5.2 Scope: remove “more info” sentence
5.2 Scope: Clearly state which bands you are intending to operate.
5.4 Purpose: change case for present tense
5c-4a; can these assertions be cited?
Point to documents or papers… documents?
5c- Unique Identity: How is PSC really unique from existing technologies?
On Slide 11 of Tutorial doc 15-11/158: Please explain use of PSC devices in this diagram (e.g. is a PSC device on the cell tower?)
Is it intended that multiple PSC domains will be meshed together?
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

9. March 2011
new standard for personal space communications, PAR and 5C (cont)
5c-1a) 1st paragraph [This PAR is limited to 50Mbps, how does this address the higher speed that is discussed]
5c-1a) 2nd paragraph: [Seems to imply that the standard will address network connectivity (e.g. cellular, wifi), which is well beyond the apparent scope of personal space.]
5c-1a) 3rd paragraph: [This is not true. As described, and address these applications]
5c-1a) 4th paragraph: [All these features are addressed by existing standards. The issue of whether it needs to be addressed by a single standard is debatable since combo chips are very successful in the market place.]
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

10. March 2011
new standard for personal space communications, PAR and 5C (cont)
5c-3a) [This is not a convincing argument. The market and wireless industry today has already fully embraced the multi-radio era. Laptops, netbooks, smartphones, desktops, tablets, TVs, etc., they all come with a plethora of wireless technologies ranging from Bluetooth, , 2G, 3G, HSPA, 4G, etc. There is no evidence whatsoever that there is a need in the market to “to have a new solution with one technology” for the applications listed in this PAR. In fact, the PAR seems to be largely trying to “reinvent the wheel”, so to speak.]
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

11. March 2011
new standard for personal space communications, PAR and 5C (cont)
5c-4a) [No references are provided of a demonstration of this technology. We believe any such simulations, test results, and demonstrations can be demonstrated from existing examples from BT and Wi-Fi which have already provided real world examples of feasibility.]
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

12. March 2011
new standard for personal space communications, PAR and 5C (cont)
5.2 Scope: 1) If the target data rate is less than 50Mbps, why not amend the standard (or even upgrade the standard) for this purpose?
2) All the ongoing activities in 60GHz in the IEEE 802 as well as throughout the industry have focused on multi-Gbps wireless communication. As an example, this is the case with both c and ad. The reason for this is that the 60GHz band is ideally suited for such high performing networks due to the large swath of available spectrum worldwide. Therefore, creating a new standard in this band to provide data rates < 50Mbps would severely compromise QoS sensitive applications such as wireless display, wireless docking, sync&go, etc., that depend on the multi-Gbps speeds of 60GHz. We suggest to explicity exclude 60 GHz from the PAR, so as to not polute the spectrum with low data rate applications that are well suited by other bands.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

13. March 2011
new standard for personal space communications, PAR and 5C (cont)
5.2 Scope (cont) 3) Even though c and ad are being developed in different WGs, a significant amount of work has been jontly done by both groups to ensure adequate coexistence between these technologies. For example, they use the same channelization, sampling frequency, similar preamble structure, and so on. If any new activity is to be formed under IEEE 802 in the 60GHz band, it must adopt the same common parameters as to ensure proper coexistence between all the technologies in this band.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

14. March 2011
new standard for personal space communications, PAR and 5C (cont)
5.2 Scope: 4) The wording seems to imply that the scope covers ALL unlicensed bands. As one example, how does the task group plan on addressing 5 GHz radar detection with the type of applications it highlighted. Other examples include the TVWS bands, etc.
5) Need to better explain how this is any different from and/or BT in 2.4 GHz, and why we need yet another interfering system in an already crowded band.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

15. 3) It is not clear what “group communication” means, please explain.
March 2011
new standard for personal space communications, PAR and 5C (cont)
5.2 Scope – 2nd Paragraph: 1) Apparently, all the features mentioned above can be provided by existing specifications such as c and ad in the 60GHz band, and and in the 2.4GHz band. It is not clear why a new task group is needed to address these commonly found features.]
2) Coverage extension seems counter to “personal space” and would allow the task group to create a specification that covers any range, further overlapping with existing standards.
3) It is not clear what “group communication” means, please explain.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

16. March 2011
new standard for personal space communications, PAR and 5C (cont)
5.4 Purpose: 1) This is no different than a piconet in terms and a PBSS in terms. This can already be addressed by existing technologies.
2) It is not clear what “automatically configured” has to do with a MAC/PHY Specification. Automatically configuring multiple devices surrounding a person would be handled by a higher layer in the protocol stack.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

17. March 2011
new standard for personal space communications, PAR and 5C (cont)
5.5 Need: 1) This is not a convincing argument. The market and wireless industry today has already fully embraced the multi-radio era. Laptops, netbooks, smartphones, desktops, tablets, TVs, etc., they all come with a plethora of wireless technologies ranging from Bluetooth, , 2G, 3G, HSPA, 4G, etc. There is no evidence whatsoever that there is a need in the market to “to have a new solution with one technology” for the applications listed in this PAR. In fact, the PAR seems to be largely trying to “reinvent the wheel”, so to speak.
2) The best case scenario of this activity would be an extra radio appended to existing combo chips
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

18. March 2011
new standard for personal space communications, PAR and 5C (cont)
5.5 Need:3 ) The PAR argument goes that no one standard supports all their use cases, so a new standard for a new unified radio is needed. Call this new unified radio “Esperanto”. This has two problems, illustrated via example.
(1) Assume the PAR argument is true. Assume further that the TG can convince device manufacturers to agree to this vision. Manufacturers make devices with just the Esperanto radio, but they do not interoperate with other people’s Bluetooth/WiFi systems. To get value, customers would have to buy a completely new set of equipment and move all their data to the new systems. Accordingly, these new Esperanto devices do not sell.
Manufacturers try again, and now make combo chips with Bluetooth/WiFi and the new Esperanto radio. Assume the Esperanto radio has some additional perceived value. These devices do sell. But the Esperanto radio has made the problem of combo chips worse, not better – now there are Bluetooth/WiFi and Esperanto radios in the combo.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

19. March 2011
new standard for personal space communications, PAR and 5C (cont)
(2) Assume the Esperanto radio successfully solves all use cases, so over time more and more devices omit Bluetooth/WiFi. After 5-10 years, there would be only the one Esperanto radio (ignoring FM, GPS, etc). But, let’s assume that 2 years into this transition period, a new use case is discovered that cannot be met by the existing Esperanto radio. And, using the logic of the PAR, adding an additional radio to devices in order to address this new use case is an inadequate approach because it would be a combo Esperanto/”additional radio” chip.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

20. March 2011
new standard for personal space communications, PAR and 5C (cont)
Instead, the IEEE must design a new single radio that meets all the old use cases and the new use case. Call this a “Klingon” radio. Manufacturers make devices with just the Klingon radio, but they do not interoperate with the (still hanging-on) Bluetooth/WiFi systems or even the Esperanto radio. These Klingon devices do not sell.
Manufacturers try again, and now make combo chips with Bluetooth/WiFi/Esperanto and the new Klingon radio. These devices do sell. But the Klingon radio has made the problem of combo chips worse, not better – now there are Bluetooth/WiFi plus Esperanto plus Klingon radios in the combo.
Summary: given the rich ecosystem of Bluetooth and WiFi products, backwards compatibility (and extending the user experience) is vastly more important than avoiding combo chips
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

21. March 2011
PAR
On Thursday we had a discussion on the PAR and provided some comments back to them.
The attached files are the PAR and 5C for with embedded comments captured.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

22. March 2011
Response from 802.1Qbp
The WG has reviewed the comments received from EC members on this draft PAR/5C. The attached document records the comments receoved from James Gilb and Jon Rosdahl, and the responses from the WG. The final text for this draft PAR can be found here:
The 5C are unchanged, and can be found here:
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

23. Response from 802.1Qbp (cont)
March 2011
Response from 802.1Qbp (cont)
-Click to read comment response
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

24. Response on 802.1Qbh Par Modification
March 2011
Response on 802.1Qbh Par Modification
During discussion of this project, has decided that there are further modifications to this PAR that are required, the details of which will need more detailed discussion within the WG this week and during the May interim.
We have therefore decided not to submit a PAR modification at this time. It is anticipated that we will be bringing a revised PAR modification to the July Plenary.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

25. March 2011
Response from
contains the responses to the comments received on P PAR. The content of this document is as follows:  From : Comment: 8.1 Add item numbers Disposition: Agree.  Section 8.1 now is, "5.2 (Scope): Change [verb tense] to match Scope in draft, and remove word "any" in last sentence.  5.4 (Purpose): change [verb tense] to match Purpose in draft.  2.1 (Title): delete redundant "Standard" and simplify title."
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

26. Response from 802.15.7 (cont) March 2011
 From James Gilb: Comment: Section 2.1:  In the title, the word Standard is used twice.  I would suggest the title of: "Standard for Physical (PHY) Layer and Medium Access Control (MAC) Layer for Short-Range Wireless Optical Communication using Visible Light" or an even simpler one: "Standard for Short-Range Wireless Optical Communication using Visible Light" Disposition: Principle: Changed title to the simpler one as suggested by commenter.  From James Gilb: Comment: Section 5.1:  A suggestion: Although I agree with the change in tense in the last sentence, I think it would be best to simply delete it as it would be difficult to show that it adheres to any of the many eye safety regulations.  Also, we need to be careful with any claims of safety in a standard. Disposition: Principle: The word "any" has been deleted as a resolution to another comment, but the sentence has been retained.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

27. Response from 802.15.7 (cont-3) March 2011
 From James Gilb: Comment: Section 5.4:  An editorial suggestion: In the rest of the standard, a acronym when spelled out is not capitalized unless it is a proper name or occurs in a location in which the word would be capitalized anyway.  Hence, I suggest changing "Radio Frequency" to be "radio frequency" Also make this change to "radio frequency" in section Disposition: Agree: We will let IEEE staff make any such trivial changes.
From James Gilb: Comment: Section 5.5:  Editorial suggestions: More mistakes in capitalization, change to "location based services", "point-to-multipoint", and "intelligent transportation systems" Disposition: Agree: We will let IEEE staff make any such trivial changes.  From Ted Olsen (NesCom member) Comment: In 5.2, scope, I suggest that "adheres to any applicable" in the last sentence be changed to "adheres to applicable". Disposition: Agree
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

28. March 2011
Response from
Comments were received from James Gilb, , and along with a couple of comments from NesCom Members. Bottom line, the Study group decided it needed to withdraw the PAR from further consideration this week. One of the main motivators for this decision is that the permission to publicly share some of the material referenced in the PAR, and requested in some of the comments, has been withdrawn.  The Study Group felt that reworking the PAR in the light of this development and in an attempt to address the other inputs received during the tutorial and comment process could not be effectively done in 24 hours. 
They have requested an extension to the Study Group which was approved by the Working Group (45-0-0). Thanks for the many valuable comments and stay tuned. The Study Group is looking to have a revised PAR back in your hands for consideration in July.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR