1. Comments for Nov 2010 EC PAR proposals.
November 2010
doc.: IEEE /1321r0
November 2010
Comments for Nov 2010 EC PAR proposals.
Date:
Authors:
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

2. November 2010
doc.: IEEE /1321r0
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

3. 802 PARs under consideration.
November 2010
802 PARs under consideration.
November 8-12, 2010, Dallas, TX
amendment for fast initial authentication (FIA), PAR and 5C
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new standard for personal space communications, PAR and 5C -- Withdrawn….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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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