1. 802.15 Response to Comments Received on the 802.15.10a PAR and CSD
November 2017
Response to Comments Received on the a PAR and CSD
Bob Heile, Wi-SUN Alliance

2. doc.: IEEE 802.15-<doc#>
<month year>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
November 2017
Comment from RAC Chair
6.2.b, Registration activity
­Comment:  5.2.b of the PAR describes the scope as including “completely define addressing”.  The use of EUIs for addressing is registration activity.  Either the scope is imprecisely stated (e.g., the addressing mentioned is not 802-style MAC addresses contrary to the response to CSD b); or there is registration activity expected in the amendment, use of MAC addresses.  Please note that engaging the RAC earlier in the process is usually better than getting surprised by RAC comments later in the process when registry content is noticed and the RAC requests coordination.
­Proposed remedy:  If the answer remains no, explain why the RAC should not need to do a mandatory coordination review.  In this case, the explanation would have the difficult task or reconciling the scope implying new address related specifications will be included.  If answer is changed to yes, explain the scope of registration activity.  If accurate, the response could indicate that the use of EUI MAC addresses is not changed from previously reviewed material, but that the RAC may want to review the new text completely defining addressing.
Bob Heile, Wi-SUN Alliance
<author>, <company>

3. Comment from RAC Chair-Resolution
November 2017
Comment from RAC Chair-Resolution
The Scope is imprecisely stated. The actual addressing (assigning of addresses, types of addresses used, etc) is not changing at all. It is the use of these addresses (how they are used and conveyed) for the different modes that is being more fully defined.
Changing the first sentence of the scope to: This amendment adds routing modes to completely fully defines how the addressing and route information (already defined in the standard) are to be used by the routing modes (also currently defined in the standard), including at least the following:
Changing 1.2.1b of the CSD to: This amendment allows for the use of the addressing and route information used in non-storing routing modes to be completely specified, permitting full support for all of the non-storing routing modes defined in the initial standard. This expands the use environment for the base standard in the very large Internet of Things (IoT) market.
Changing PAR Title to: Amendment to fully define use of addressing and route information currently in the standard
Bob Heile, Wi-SUN Alliance

4. November 2017
Comments from PAR
4.2 and 4.3 the time between dates should be at least 6 months. Suggest going to sponsor July 2018, or to REVcom in April/May (out of March Plenary). Resolution: Accept. Change will be made
5.2b As a recommended practice, this should recommend routing modes that exist rather than define them. Resolution: Reject. This is a bit of a style issue. We are really defining them for the purposes of the Recommended Practice. It would appear sufficient that as part of a Recommended Practice these definitions are not in the shall category. Besides, using the word “recommending” feels awkward and redundant for the above reason
The paragraph seems to be redundant and ambiguous as to if we are adding new modes or modifying the existing ones. One possible way to clarify the paragraph may be to make the suggested changes: This amendment adds new routing modes to completely define addressing for the routing modes currently defined in the standard, including at least the following: Resolution: Revised. Change proposed to address the RAC Chair comment appears sufficient to address this comment
Bob Heile, Wi-SUN Alliance

5. November 2017
Comments from CSD
1.2.1a: Change “capabity” to “capability” and “Interenet” to “Internet” Resolution: Accept. Corrections made
1.2.3: Change “ ” to “IEEE Std ” Resolution: Accept. All instances changed
1.2.4a: Change the sentence to “Route handling of dynamically changing networks are being implemented today using the IEEE STD Recommended Practice.” Resolution: Accept. Sentence replaced with the above.
Bob Heile, Wi-SUN Alliance

6. Comments from 802.3-PAR 2.1, Title
November 2017
Comments from PAR
2.1, Title
Comment: PAR does not appear to be output from myProject because of formatting of: Amendment adding additional routing modes, plus amendment title should start with a capital letter.
Proposed remedy: Amendment: Adding additional routing modes (the colon should be fixed by myProject, capitalization should be corrected when entered into myProject).
Resolution: Accept. Actually title was generated by myProject. Will work with the NesCon Admin to put it into the correct format at the same time as updating the PAR title to be consistent with the scope (see response to comments from RAC Chair).
5.2.b, Project scope
Comment: NesCom conventions require expansion of acronyms.
Proposed remedy: Expand E2E and P2P in this PAR item.
Resolution: Accept. Acronyms will be expanded. (end-to-end and peer-to-peer)
Bob Heile, Wi-SUN Alliance

7. November 2017
Comments from CSD
Comment: The amendment title on the CSD does not agree with the title on the PAR
Proposed remedy: Reconcile the two.
Resolution: Accept. Titles will be reconciled
Bob Heile, Wi-SUN Alliance