1. 802.15 Response to PAR/CSD Comments Bob Heile Chair, IEEE 802.15
July 2019
Response to PAR/CSD Comments Bob Heile Chair, IEEE
Bob Heile, Decawave

2. July 2019
802.3 Comments P ma
Revision: Standard for Transport of Key Management Protocol (KMP) 
PAR
5.2, Scope — The new scope reads more like the need for the project or the project purpose would read if it were an amendment project.  It is not of the quality of the previous Scope statement.  Recommend deletion of first sentence (the last sentence makes the point).  Replace “Additionally it” with “This Standard”.  Add any additional description on what the revised standard will contain.  The Scope should not contain “may be added” statements, delete the “New KPM…” sentence. Revised: had a similar comment. Suggested language accepted except for one word (see response to )
5.3, Dependence on other projects — The question is not answered. Question answered as NO
5.5, Need — Replace the last sentence with: “This revision will address the above deficiencies.”  Replaced with “This revision addresses the above deficiencies”
Bob Heile, Decawave

3. July 2019
802.3 Comments P ma (p.2) 
6.1.b, Registration activity — The current recommended practice contains registration activity (OUI, CID, and Ethertype specifications, reference to IANA Dragonfly registry, and has the KMP registry of Table E.1 where the standard itself is the registration authority).  Therefore, the answer to this question should be yes.  If no significant changes are expected in the revision, that can be added to the explanation. Accepted: Changed answer to YES and included the following in the explanatory box: “The current recommended practice contains registration activity (OUI, CID, and Ethertype specifications, reference to IANA Dragonfly registry, and has the KMP registry of Table E.1 where the standard itself is the registration authority).  At this time, no significant changes are expected in the revision.”
Bob Heile, Decawave

4. July 2019
802.3 Comments P ma (p.3)
CSD
The project number in the Title field of the document header does not agree with the number on the PAR. ACCEPTED: Fixed
1.2.4, b, Technical Feasibility — “802.1x" should be “802.1X”. ACCEPTED: Fixed
1.2.5, c, Installation Cost — The answer about “manufacturing” is non-responsive to installation.  Perhaps leverage the answer to Balanced Cost would be appropriate, e.g., existing equipment may be upgradable via firmware upgrade, and installation costs would not vary from current products implementing the recommended practice. ACCEPTED: Replaced answer with: Existing equipment may be upgradable via firmware upgrade, and installation costs would not vary from current products implementing the recommended practice.
Bob Heile, Decawave

5. July 2019
COMMENTS: ma- Standard, Transport of Key Management Protocol (KMP) Datagram
5.2 Scope: The Scope statement should describe what will be in the final standard, and not the process of getting there. This statement is similar to a need statement. Please revise.
Suggested revision:
This standard defines security key management extensions to address session key generation (both 128-bit and 256-bit key lengths), the creation and/or transport of broadcast/multicast keys, and security algorithm agility. New Key Management Protocols (KMPs) are defined considered as part of this Standard. This standard maintains backwards compatibility with IEEE Std
Accepted except for the one word noted above
Jon Rosdahl (Qualcomm)

6. July 2019
Comments: ma- Standard, Transport of Key Management Protocol (KMP) Datagram
5.5 Need: - Change “ draft Standard” to “IEEE P ” if it is a draft standard, or change to “IEEE Std ” if completed. Accepted
5.5 Need – Change “IEEE y draft amendment” to “IEEE P y” if it is a draft amendment or “IEEE Std y” if completed. Either way it should not call out “draft amendment”: Accepted
5.3 completion of another standard: need to respond to dependence question – because of this statement, we believe you have a dependency “the IEEE y draft amendment for Security Next Generation is adding support for 256-bit key lengths”. Question answered as NO. 4y is dependent on 15.9ma
Jon Rosdahl (Qualcomm)

7. July 2019
Comments: ma- Standard, Transport of Key Management Protocol (KMP) Datagram
CSD:
Note the title of the CSD does not match the PAR – “ ma”. Fixed
1.2.1 b) change IEEE to “IEEE Std “Fixed
1.2.3 change “ standard” to IEEE Std ” Fixed
1.2.4 change “IEEE “ to “IEEE Std “Fixed
1.2.4 change “IEEE y” in 2 locations to “IEEE Std y” Fixed
1.2.5 change “IEEE ” in 2 locations to “IEEE Std “Fixed
Jon Rosdahl (Qualcomm)

8. 802.11 Comments: 802.15.22.3 PAR Extension
July 2019
Comments: PAR Extension
Modify dates to comply with NesCom 6 month convention. Dates fixed
Bob Heile, Decawave