Comments for Nov 2010 EC PAR proposals.

Comments for Nov 2010 EC PAR proposals.
November 2010 doc.: IEEE /1321r1 November 2010 Comments for Nov 2010 EC PAR proposals. Date: Authors: Jon Rosdahl, CSR Jon Rosdahl, CSR

November 2010 doc.: IEEE /1321r1 November 2010 Abstract This file contains the raw notes from the PAR Adhoc meetings. Comments were put into WG specific files and posted to the SEC reflector prior to the Tuesday 5pm deadline. Jon Rosdahl, CSR Jon Rosdahl, CSR

802 PARs under consideration.
November 2010 doc.: IEEE /1321r1 November 2010 802 PARs under consideration. November 8-12, 2010, Dallas, TX amendment for fast initial authentication (FIA), PAR and 5C (FIA SG to process comments) amendment for medical body area network (MBAN) services, PAR and 5C amendment for low energy critical infrastructure monitoring (LECIM) networks, PAR and 5C new standard for personal space communications, PAR and 5C -- Withdrawn…. 802.1AEbn security amendment for Galois counter mode-Advanced Encryption Standard-256 (GCM-AES-256) cipher suite, PAR and 5C Jon Rosdahl, CSR Jon Rosdahl, CSR

802.11 amendment for fast initial authentication (FIA), PAR and 5C
November 2010 amendment for fast initial authentication (FIA), PAR and 5C This our WG PAR, and FIA SG will process comments received. The PAR AdHoc will not review this PAR. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

November 2010 amendment for medical body area network (MBAN) services, PAR and 5C 5.2 Scope: Add “new” prior to physical layer. Remove “current revision”, Add “IEEE” prior to Spell out the Acronyms “FCC MBAN” and “MAC”. Split the end of the sentence into a new sentence as follows: delete “and any” end sentence: “This amendment defines modifications to the MAC that support the new physical layer” Jon Rosdahl, CSR

November 2010 amendment for medical body area network (MBAN) services, PAR and 5C 5.4 Purpose: The Scope says that you are describing a new PHY not services. Redo sentence. Delete “The definition of” in the 3rd sentence. Expand what “15.4” and “15.4e” really are “IEEE and IEEE P e” would be better not having them specifically there to begin with. Consider deleting the Purpose Text and replace with “This amendment will not have a Purpose Statement.” Jon Rosdahl, CSR

November 2010 amendment for medical body area network (MBAN) services, PAR and 5C 5.5 Need: Put in “IEEE” in front and expand “15.4” to “IEEE ”. Expand acronyms “NPRM”. Suggest change “FCC has made a” to “FCC has issued an” Change “This amendment” to This Project in the last sentence. Change 3rd sentence: Delete “may”. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

November 2010 amendment for medical body area network (MBAN) services, PAR and 5C 5.6 Stakeholders: change stakeholders statement as follows: “The stakeholders include Medical equipment manufacturers, patients and healthcare providers both within hospitals and in residential environments along with service providers that offer remote support facilities.” 7.1: similar scope: Expand the Yes description. Include a minimum of the missing “IEEE” Jon Rosdahl, CSR

November 2010 amendment for medical body area network (MBAN) services, PAR and 5C In the 5C, make it the “Low Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPAN-LR)” match…throughout the 5C. Consider (LR-WPAN). Update the 5C requirements to those found in LMSC OM 12.5. 3. Distinct Identity: is listed in 7.1, but not explained the Distinct Identity. The current wording indicates that 15.6 is similar, and it is not clear as to the differences. c) it is easy for readers….if it is a MBAN spectrum, how is that different from the MBAN uses. Missing coexistance statement Jon Rosdahl, CSR

November 2010 amendment for low energy critical infrastructure monitoring (LECIM) networks, PAR and 5C 5.2 Scope: the scope statement should be what would be included in the final document. It should be in present tense and describe the document contents. 5.4 Purpose: Consider deleting the Purpose Text and replace with “This amendment will not have a Purpose Statement.” 5.5 Need for project: The text here looks like it should be included in the 5c responses. This should be a clear statement of the need for the project. 5.6 Stakeholders: remove “government agencies, non-government agencies with equivalent interest and “ move “Location Based Services Suppliers and Users” to the front, and delete “in addition to “ Jon Rosdahl, CSR

November 2010 amendment for low energy critical infrastructure monitoring (LECIM) networks, PAR and 5C 8.1 Additional Notes: clean-up and remove extraneous information that should be in the 5c – Uniqueness and Distinct Identity. 5C, WPAN-LR make consistent use of the if LR is before or after WPAN. 2.1 title: Add acronym “LECIM” 5c-3-a) the first statement does not seem correct. Suggest remove “uniquely”. Change “will not adequately support the” to “does not support specific” Remove “SCADA” and just say proprietary technology. 5c-5a) make consistent the naming of the other WG. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

November 2010 amendment for low energy critical infrastructure monitoring (LECIM) networks, PAR and 5C 5c-5b) remove “the estimates” from the first sentence. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

November 2010 802.1AEbn security amendment for Galois counter mode-Advanced Encryption Standard-256 (GCM-AES-256) cipher suite, PAR and 5C 2.1 title: Identify the document being amended, and include WG title and boiler plate. Suggest add a semicolon between Security and amendment. 1.1 Project Number: the PAR form listed for review has 802.1AEbk, the link indicates it should be AEbn, which should be correct? Correct the incorrect one. 5.2: Scope: suggest removal of “as well as the Default Cipher Suite, GC-AES-128”. This is in the standard already. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

November 2010 802.1AEbn security amendment for Galois counter mode-Advanced Encryption Standard-256 (GCM-AES-256) cipher suite, PAR and 5C 5c – Title needs to be updated to the correct Project Number. Check for usage in the 5c document to ensure consistent use of 802.1AEbn (remove “AEbk”) 5c-1a) Change “MACsec” to “MAC Security” 5c-2) Change “This will be fit” to “This will fit”. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

November 2010 PAR review 2.1 Title: should include the 802 boiler plate intro including the WG identifier. Acronyms need to be spelled out at first use. A tutorial should be considered for the March 2011 plenary to help explain the PAR and the intent of the project Remove ambiguous words 5.6 Stakeholders: just list the stakeholders do not need “but are limited to:” 7.1 need explanation to be put in. 5.5 Need: the statements seem contradictory. Is this a new standard that replaces other things, or is this an overlay to the existing standards and explains the intercommunication? It is not apparent that you can do both at the same time. 8.1 Need to identify which item number the comments are explaining. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

Wednesday Comment Responses
November 2010 Wednesday Comment Responses Responses to Feedback comments Jon Rosdahl, CSR

November 2010 Response from j Below are the responses to the comments received on the j PAR and 5C. The revised PAR and 5C [ and ] can be found at Comments on j 5C Comment 3 In the 5C, make it the Low Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPAN-LR)match&throughout the 5C. Consider (LR-WPAN). [Response] Agree. We will consistently refer to LR-WPAN in the 5C document. [Action:] Update the 5C to consistently use LR-WPAN. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

Response from 802.15.4j - 2 November 2010
Comment 4 Update the 5C requirements to those found in LMSC OM [Response] See Comment 1 & 2 [Action:] none additional Comment 5 3. Distinct Identity: is listed in 7.1, but not explained the Distinct Identity. The current wording indicates that 15.6 is similar, and it is not clear as to the differences. -c) it is easy for readers...if it is a MBAN spectrum, how is that different from the MBAN uses. [Response] State more clearly the difference between 15.6 and MBAN [Action:] Keep first sentence. Replace remaining text with: The proposed amendment to IEEE targets both on and off body applications. IEEE is addressing communication in the vicinity of or inside a human body. The proposed amendment to IEEE will address low data rate applications. IEEE P is targeting significantly higher data rates and lower power consumption applications. The proposed amendment to IEEE will not address SAR [specific absorbed radiation]. IEEE P may take SAR into consideration Jon Rosdahl, CSR

Response from 802.15.4j - 3 November 2010 Jon Rosdahl, CSR
Comment 6 Missing coexistence statement [Response] See Comment 2 [Action:] none additional Comments on j PAR Comment Scope: Add "new" prior to physical layer. Remove "current revision", Add "IEEE" prior to Spell out the Acronyms "FCC, MBAN, and MAC". Split the end of the sentence into a new sentence as follows: delete "and any" end sentence: "This amendment defines modifications to the MAC that support the new physical layer" [Response] Agree. [Action:] Update the PAR with recommended changes Comment Purpose: The Scope says that you are describing a new PHY not services. Redo sentence. Delete "The definition of" in the 3rd sentence. Expand what "15.4" and "15.4e" really are "IEEE and IEEE P e" would be better not having them specifically there to begin with. Consider deleting the Purpose Text and replace with "This amendment will not have a Purpose Statement." [Response] IEEE prefers for all amendments to have a Purpose and it is an offered NesCom field. Agree with the recommended changes to Purpose statement. [Action:] Reword first sentence to make clear that we are not planning to specify a service. Delete "The definition of" in the 3rd sentence. Use the full name IEEE Remove reference to e since this is an example and is not necessary Comment Need: Put in "IEEE" in front and expand "15.4" to "IEEE ". Expand acronyms "NPRM". [Response] Agree [Action:] Add recommended text and expand acronym Comment Need: Suggest change "FCC has made a" to "FCC has issued an" [Response ] Agree. [Action:] Implement wording change in text Comment Need: Change "This amendment' to "This Project" in the last sentence. [Response] Agree [Action:] Change wording in the text Comment Need: Change 3rd sentence: Delete "may". [Response] Agree. [Action:] Remove the offending "may" Comment Stakeholders: change stakeholders statement as follows: "The stakeholders include Medical equipment manufacturers, patients and healthcare providers both within hospitals and in residential environments along with service providers that offer remote support facilities." [Response] Agree [Action:] Remove the first sentence of 5.6 and combine the final two sentences as recommended Comment : similar scope: Expand the Yes description. Include a minimum of the missing IEEE [Response] Agree [Action:] Use new text in 5C Criteria 3 from Comment 5 to outline difference between 15.6 and MBAN and place explanation in section 7.4 Additional Explanatory Notes Jon Rosdahl, CSR

November 2010 Response from k Below are the responses to the comments received on the k PAR and 5C. The revised PAR and 5C [ and ] can be found at PAR adHoc comments 5.2 Scope: the scope statement should be what would be included in the final document. It should be in present tense and describe the document contents. [response] Agreed, revised scope statement is in present tense Jon Rosdahl, CSR

Response from 802.15.4k - 2 November 2010
5.4 Purpose: Consider deleting the Purpose Text and replace with "This amendment will not have a Purpose Statement". [response] It is a offered field in the PAR form even when amendment is selected, and seems like a reasonable thing to do Need for project: The text here looks like it should be included in the 5c responses. This should be a clear statement of the need for the project. [response] Text has been clarified Stakeholders: remove "government agencies, non-government agencies with equivalent interest and "move "Location Based Services Suppliers and Users" to the front, and delete "in addition to " [response] Implemented 8.1 Additional Notes: clean-up and remove extraneous information that should be in the 5c Uniqueness and Distinct Identity. [response] Implemented Jon Rosdahl, CSR

November 2010 Response from k – 3 5C, WPAN-LR make consistent use. If LR is before or after WPAN. [response] Implemented, change to LR-WPAN 2.1 title: Add acronym LECIM [response] Implemented, spell out acronym on first use 5c-3-a) the first statement does not seem correct. Suggest remove "uniquely". Change "will not adequately support the" to "does not support specific" [response] Accept Jon Rosdahl, CSR

November 2010 Response from k -4 Remove "SCADA" and just say proprietary technology. [response] Spell out acronym [supervisory control and data acquisition ] 5c-5a) make consistent the naming of the other WG. [response] Accept, add IEEE in front of all 802.xx references Jon Rosdahl, CSR

Response from 802.1AEbn November 2010
Thank you for your comments ( on the proposed P802.1AEbn amendment to Std 802.1AE Media Access Control (MAC) Security to add the GCM-AES-256 Cipher Suite. Our responses on the points raised follow in the order that there were made in your presentation. 1) [Your comment on Section 2.1 of the PAR form - title:"Identify the document being amended and include WG title and boiler plate. Suggest add a semicolon between Security and amendment.] The PAR input form auto generates this text from the separate fields for inputting the base document and amendment titles, so we cannot control the detailed formatting. The document to be amended and the amendment are however present, and the former is displayed in the "Type of Project" field in the PAR "Amendment to IEEE Standard 802.1AE-2006" while the Working Group is identified not just in the proposed project designation (1.1 Project Number) "P802.1AEbk" but also in 3.1 Working Group. There is no boiler plate to be added. The actual title appearing on the standard will include an appropriate separator between "Security" and "Amendment", and also an Amendment number which will be assigned as is normal practice by the IEEE staff/editor. The actual presentation of the information in 2.1 is thus not ours to control, but is believed (together with other PAR fields) to meet the identification requirements fully. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

Response from 802.1AEbn - 2 November 2010
2) [Your comment on the project number (use 802.1AEbn consistently).] The project number has indeed been updated through the process of soliciting feedback on the PAR and will be revised to 802.1AEbn. 3) [Your comment on 5.2 Scope: ""suggest removal of "as well as the Default Cipher Suite, GC-AES-12" This is in the standard already."] The Security Task Group considered it important, based on comments received early in the process of generating this PAR, to emphasize that the addition of GCM-AES-256 would not replace GCM-AES-128 or cause its removal (and thus potentially leading to a lack of interoperability). It was felt important that the scope was clear on the point of retaining the existing mandatory default cipher suite as the new cipher suite was added as an option - following the conformance structure already in 802.1AE-2006 and emphasized by a point made in the 5c's. Following your comment we propose to attempt additional clarification (while remaining short and to the point) by replacing "as well as the" by "in addition to the existing ": the explanation in 5.5 (Need for the Project, "will add the GCM-AES-256 Cipher Suite as an option") was clearly not sufficient for those not familiar with 802.1AE-2006. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

November 2010 Response from 802.1AEbn - 3 4) [Your further comment on Project Number with respect to the 5 criteria]. As the project number has been updated in response to comments received during pre-circulation that pre-circulated information necessarily showed the original anticipated project number, but this will be updated throughout the document. 5) [Your comment on using the full title "MAC Security" in the 5 criteria instead of the abbreviation "MACsec" (defined in 802.1AE-2006).] This abbreviation will be expanded to refer to "Media Access Control (MAC) Security". Hopefully the use of the text from the Std 802.1AE-2006 title will remove any lack of clarity. 6) [Your comment on changing "This will be fit" to "This will fit" in the 5c's] This correction will be made. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

Feedback on updated PARs
November 2010 Feedback on updated PARs Response to changes made after feedback. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

PAR Comment AdHoc Responses for 802.15.4j
November 2010 PAR Comment AdHoc Responses for j j – used incorrect template for PAR Form. 5.4 don’t need last sentence. Change in 7.4 (which should be 8.1) “The proposed amendment” to “This amendment” The explanation of how this amendment to 15.4 is different from what 15.6 is. How does the SAR calculations differentiate15.4 from 15.6? Targeting high data rates and low transmit power may be a better way to express the differences in 15.4 and 15.6. The “on and off body” seems equal to “in the vicinity of” statement. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

Further response from 802.15.4j
November 2010 Further response from j We have moved the PAR information to a more correct PAR form as requested. The only change we made in the MBAN PAR text was to correct the reference in section 7.1 to Additional Explanatory Notes. In the incorrect form the reference was to section 7.4 and now it is to section 8.1. Thanks again for the help. Kind regards, Raymond Krasinski Jon Rosdahl, CSR

PAR Comment AdHoc 2nd Responses for 802.15.4k
November 2010 PAR Comment AdHoc 2nd Responses for k Bob Heile’s contact info should be checked. Paul Nikolich contact info should be updated. The form used in the word doc is not the correct form. 4.2 and 4.3 are incorrect. 5.2 Scope: Remove “only those” 5.2 Scope is too long. 5.4 Purpose: what is “addresses”… consider changing sentence. When noting docs, need url to get to them. 5.5 Need for Project: still seems a bit wordy, but ok. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

Further response from 802.15.4k
November 2010 Further response from k I have updated the PAR word document form for SG LECIM on the document server as requested. I made no other changes to content. The document is David Howard Chair SG LECIM Jon Rosdahl, CSR

PAR Comment AdHoc 2nd Responses for 802.1AEbn
November 2010 PAR Comment AdHoc 2nd Responses for 802.1AEbn 802.1 – Still Need to use proper title. The colon should be at the end of the main document title, then followed by the word “Amendment – “ then the title of the amendment. It is understood that does their titles a bit different from the other 802 WGs, but the title should be complete. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

References 802 webpage link for PARs under consideration:
November 2010 References 802 webpage link for PARs under consideration: Comments for WG: Comments for WG: Jon Rosdahl, CSR

Comments for Nov 2010 EC PAR proposals.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Comments for Nov 2010 EC PAR proposals."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Comments for Nov 2010 EC PAR proposals.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Comments for Nov 2010 EC PAR proposals."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback