1. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-13/0333r1 March 2013 Jon Rosdahl, CSR Technology Inc.Slide 1 802.11 Review of March 2013 Proposed Pars Date: 2013-03-21 Authors:

2. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-13/0333r1 March 2013 Jon Rosdahl, CSR Technology Inc.Slide 2 Abstract Section 1: Review of 802 WG PARS submitted for review during the March 2013 Session – Feedback to 802 WGs. Section 2: Response to feedback given.

3. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-13/0333r1March 2013 Jon Rosdahl, CSR Technology Inc.Slide 3 PARs under consideration March 2013 802 - Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks: Overview and Architecture - PAR modification requestPAR modification request 802.1Qcb - amendment for Frame Replication and Elimination for Reliability - PAR and 5CPAR5C 802.3bm - PAR modification Request & Updated 5CPAR modification RequestUpdated 5C 802.3bq - amendment for 40GBASE-T, PAR and 5CPAR5C 802.15.4p - PAR modification RequestPAR modification Request 802.21c - PAR Extension

4. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-13/0333r1 SECTION 1: PAR REVIEW 802.11 review and feedback on PARS for March 2013 Plenary March 2013 Jon Rosdahl, CSR Technology Inc.Slide 4

5. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-13/0333r1March 2013 Jon Rosdahl, CSR Technology Inc.Slide 5 802 PAR Modification 5.2 Is the change of capitalization of “Local Area Network”, “Metropolitan Area Networks”, and Personal Area Networks” consistent with the IEEE style guide? 5.2 – If Upper case of the other “Area Networks” then “Regional Area Networks” should be upper case as well.

6. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-13/0333r1 802.1Qcb Suggest Change to 7.1: “IEC 62439-3 defines high-availability mechanisms in automation networks, but it is restricted to ring topologies, whereas this amendment will work on all LAN topologies.” 7.1 It appears that PRP or RSTP in IEC 62439-3 are not limited to “ring topologies”. (See tutorial at http://www.gridwiseac.org/pdfs/forum_papers10/harad apre_gi10.pdf) Can you please explain why PRP and RSTP are not suitable solutions? Does the revision of 62439-3 make a difference? Slide 6Jon Rosdahl, CSR Technology Inc. March 2013

7. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-13/0333r1 802.1Qcb – 5C Distinct Identity: Suggest change “provides fault tolerance” with “provides link or intermediate node failure tolerance”. Suggest change in b: “fault tolerance” with “link or intermediate node failure tolerance” Economic Feasibility: Suggested replacement of c: “The installation cost of enhanced VLAN bridges and end stations is expected to be similar to existing implementations”. Slide 7Jon Rosdahl, CSR Technology Inc. March 2013

8. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-13/0333r1 802.3bm Remove first item #5.2 from 8.1 not necessary for a PAR modification (similar to the discussion we had last November with the two PARs 802.3 submitted. This will cause confusion with the NesCom review. 5.2 Scope of Standard states that it is for “twisted pair PHY types”. If you are changing the Scope of the project, would you not want to change the scope of the resulting Standard? 5.2.b – What is Energy Efficient Ethernet (EEE) really pointing to in IEEE Std 802.3-2012? What is the real difference between this and 802.3az? Is this a marketing term? Is this a reuse of MAC functions to put the PHY to sleep? Slide 8Jon Rosdahl, CSR Technology Inc. March 2013

9. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-13/0333r1 802.3bq 4.2 and 4.3 – Suggest that the time between 4.2 and 4.3 should be at least 6 months. (per suggested NesCom conventions) Slide 9Jon Rosdahl, CSR Technology Inc. March 2013

10. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-13/0333r1 802.15.4p 8.1 should only include a statement of what is being changed. i.e. “2.1 – Change Title to better communicate what features are in the standard.” Or something similar. Slide 10Jon Rosdahl, CSR Technology Inc. March 2013

11. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-13/0333r1March 2013 Jon Rosdahl, CSR Technology Inc.Slide 11 802.21c Section 2. Change “The draft has now 61% approval.” to “The draft is now 61% stable”….if it has not had 75% approval, then you are not able to do a recirculation ballot, but would be still trying to pass a Sponsor Letter Ballot.

12. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-13/0333r1 SECTION 2: RESPONSE FROM 802 WGs 802.11 review and feedback on PARS for March 2013 Plenary March 2013 Jon Rosdahl, CSR Technology Inc.Slide 12

13. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-13/0333r1March 2013 Jon Rosdahl, CSR Technology Inc.Slide 13 802 PAR Modification- 802 Response 5.2 Is the change of capitalization of “Local Area Network”, “Metropolitan Area Networks”, and Personal Area Networks” consistent with the IEEE style guide? 802.1 response: "Yes.“ 5.2 – If Upper case of the other “Area Networks” then “Regional Area Networks” should be upper case as well. 802.1 response: "As the capitalization for the other acronyms complies with the IEEE Style Guide, the capitalization is correct."

14. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-13/0333r1 802.1Qbc Response 802.11 comment#1: Suggest Change to 7.1: “IEC 62439-3 defines high-availability mechanisms in automation networks, but it is restricted to ring topologies, whereas this amendment will work on all LAN topologies.” 802.1 response: Accepted. We have used the suggested text. Slide 14Jon Rosdahl, CSR Technology Inc. March 2013

15. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-13/0333r1 802.1Qbc Repsonse (cont) 802.11 comment#2: 7.1 It appears that PRP or RSTP in IEC 62439-3 are not limited to “ring topologies”. (See tutorial at http://www.gridwiseac.org/pdfs/forum_papers10/haradapre_gi10.pdf ) http://www.gridwiseac.org/pdfs/forum_papers10/haradapre_gi10.pdf (a) Can you please explain why PRP and RSTP are not suitable solutions? (b) Does the revision of 62439-3 make a difference? Slide 15Jon Rosdahl, CSR Technology Inc. March 2013

16. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-13/0333r1 802.1Qbc Response (cont) (a)Can you please explain why PRP and RSTP are not suitable solutions? 802.1 response: (a)PRP (like HSR described in IEC 62439-3) is a solution that provides seamless redundancy through completely doubling network topologies (which severely limits financial feasibility) and introduces a dual connection mechanism that is not compliant with IEEE 802.1 bridging. RSTP and its specific application in a ring topology described in IEC 62439-1 still is a mechanism that relies on network reconfiguration and introduces communication outages to whole networks or parts of the network. This is in conflict with the main requirement of the proposed PAR, enabling seamless redundancy without any loss of communication. Slide 16Jon Rosdahl, CSR Technology Inc. March 2013

17. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-13/0333r1 802.1Qbc Response (cont) (b) Does the revision of 62439-3 make a difference? 802.1 Response: No, the IEC 62439-3:2012-07 spec revision does not change any of the fundamental concepts of the PRP and HSR protocol described in this document. It merely corrects mistakes e.g. in the MIB and adds additional material throughout the document (e.g. HSR to PRP connections) to clarify questions and ambiguities reported to the IEC SC65CWG15 group by implementers. Slide 17Jon Rosdahl, CSR Technology Inc. March 2013

18. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-13/0333r1 802.1Qbc Response (cont) 802.11 comment#3 (on the 5C): Distinct Identity: Suggest change “provides fault tolerance” with “provides link or intermediate node failure tolerance”. Suggest change in b: “fault tolerance” with “link or intermediate node failure tolerance” Economic Feasibility: Suggested replacement of c: “The installation cost of enhanced VLAN bridges and end stations is expected to be similar to existing implementations”. 802.1 response: These were considered to be helpful improvements to the text of the 5C and have been incorporated. Slide 18Jon Rosdahl, CSR Technology Inc. March 2013

19. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-13/0333r1 New PLAN for 802.1Qcb -> Now 802.1CB 802.1 has considered the comments from 802.11 on the precirculated P802.1Qcb draft PAR/5C; our responses have been documented in an earlier email. As a result of discussion within 802.1 this week we have decided to re-cast the draft PAR as a stand-alone PAR rather than as an amendment to 802.1Q. I have therefore uploaded the revised draft PAR and 5C, now designated P802.1CB, which reflect this change along with the changes suggested by 802.11. The changes to the PAR and 5C text arising out of the change to a stand-alone standard are minor editorials; the intent and content of the project has not changed, simply how it is documented. The revised P802.1CB draft PAR and 5C are located here: http://ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2013/new-p802-1CB-draft-par-0313.pdf http://ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2013/new-p802-1CB-draft-5c-0313.pdf Slide 19Jon Rosdahl, CSR Technology Inc. March 2013

20. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-13/0333r1 802.3bm Remove first item #5.2 from 8.1 not necessary for a PAR modification (similar to the discussion we had last November with the two PARs 802.3 submitted. This will cause confusion with the NesCom review. 5.2 Scope of Standard states that it is for “twisted pair PHY types”. If you are changing the Scope of the project, would you not want to change the scope of the resulting Standard? 5.2.b – What is Energy Efficient Ethernet (EEE) really pointing to in IEEE Std 802.3-2012? What is the real difference between this and 802.3az? Is this a marketing term? Is this a reuse of MAC functions to put the PHY to sleep? Slide 20Jon Rosdahl, CSR Technology Inc. March 2013

21. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-13/0333r1 802.3bm Response The P802.3bm task force has unanimously approved the attached modification which was made to our pre-submitted PAR based upon feedback from 802.11. (We struck vestigial language from section 8.1 as directed) We appreciate your time to consider this PAR modification to allow EEE (Energy Efficient Ethernet) enhancements into the P802.3bm project. Of course, this modification is subject to Working Group approval which we plan to request at tomorrow's 802.3 WG meeting. Best Regards, Dan Dove PDF file is located. http://www.ieee802.org/3/bm/P802_3bm_PAR_0313.pdf http://www.ieee802.org/3/bm/P802_3bm_PAR_0313.pdf Slide 21Jon Rosdahl, CSR Technology Inc. March 2013

22. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-13/0333r1 Response to Questions on 80.23bm Comment #1 accepted Comment #2 – The stated scope of 802.3 includes the provision of power over selected twisted-pair cables. We aren’t changing that capability and it will remain within scope. We request the comment be withdrawn. Comment #3 – EEE is specified in Clause 78 and affects numerous points within IEEE Std 802.3-2012. Our plan is to use the existing EEE protocol and extend it to support fiber-optic interfaces with minimal changes to existing clauses. Comment #4 – The changes to IEEE 802.3 introduced by 802.3az did not address how to communicate EEE capability and state on fiber-optic cables. Our plan is to specify that with minimal change to existing specifications. Comment #5 – EEE is specified in Clause 78 of IEEE Std 802.3-2012 and may also be used as a marketing term by those implementing it. EEE also describes capability that spans numerous 802.3 clauses. It is not technically a MAC function, but rather is specified in the Management, Reconciliation Sub-layer, PCS, PMA and PMD clauses. Slide 22Jon Rosdahl, CSR Technology Inc. March 2013

23. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-13/0333r1 802.3bq 4.2 and 4.3 – Suggest that the time between 4.2 and 4.3 should be at least 6 months. (per suggested NesCom conventions) Response: Accept, the Initial Sponsor Ballot has been changed to from September 2015 to August 2015. Final draft PAR URL: http://www.ieee802.org/3/NGBASET/P802_3bq_PAR_ Detail_20_03_2013.pdf http://www.ieee802.org/3/NGBASET/P802_3bq_PAR_ Detail_20_03_2013.pdf Slide 23Jon Rosdahl, CSR Technology Inc. March 2013

24. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-13/0333r1 802.15.4p 8.1 should only include a statement of what is being changed. i.e. “2.1 – Change Title to better communicate what features are in the standard.” Or something similar. 802.15 Response: We will add to 8.1 the sentence: Title is being changed to more clearly reflect and communicate the intended use of the standard. Slide 24Jon Rosdahl, CSR Technology Inc. March 2013

25. Submission doc.: IEEE 11-13/0333r1March 2013 Jon Rosdahl, CSR Technology Inc.Slide 25 802.21c Section 2. Change “The draft has now 61% approval.” to “The draft is now 61% stable”….if it has not had 75% approval, then you are not able to do a recirculation ballot, but would be still trying to pass a Sponsor Letter Ballot. 802.21 Response: Thanks for the comment and we will reflect it. Will try to circulate the EC with this update if I get an updated version from Lisa quickly.