1 / 22

802-11 PAR Review November 2014

802-11 PAR Review November 2014. Authors:. Date: 2014-11-03. Abstract-Snapshot. Review of Proposed PAR documents 802c, Amendment: Local Media Access Control (MAC) Addressing, PAR and CSD 802.1AS-rev - Timing and Synchronization for Time-Sensitive Applications, PAR and CSD

bianca-atkins
Download Presentation

802-11 PAR Review November 2014

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 802-11 PAR Review November 2014 Authors: • Date:2014-11-03 Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  2. Abstract-Snapshot • Review of Proposed PAR documents • 802c, Amendment: Local Media Access Control (MAC) Addressing, PAR and CSD • 802.1AS-rev - Timing and Synchronization for Time-Sensitive Applications, PAR and CSD • 802.1Qch- Amendment: Cyclic Queuing and Forwarding, PAR and CSD • 802.3bv- Amendment, 1000 Mb/s Operation Over Plastic Optical Fiber , PAR and CSD • 802.3by- Amendment: Media Access Control Parameters, Physical Layers and Management Parameters for 25 Gb/s Operation, PAR and CSD • 802.15.7a- Amendment for a Physical Layer Supporting Optical Camera Communications,  PAR and 5C • Meeting times: Monday PM2, Tuesday AM2, Thursday AM2 Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  3. PAR SC – November 2014Chair: Jon Rosdahl • Monday Agenda: • Welcome • Determine order of review • Review PARs/CSD posted for review this week. • Recess • Tuesday Agenda: • Complete review of PARs/CSD and post comments to 802 WGs • Recess • Thursday Agenda: • Review Response to Comments • Prepare Report for 802.11 WG closing plenary • Adjourn Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  4. 802.15.7a- Amendment for a Physical Layer Supporting Optical Camera Communications,  PAR and 5C • LED – Expand to define on first use of acronym. • QR – Expand to define on first use of acronym. • 5.2b – “Techniques are put forward which do not require any • hardware modifications for many classes of applications in existing mobile and/or other devices such as those defined above, as well as techniques which may require some level of hardware modification to support new capabilities” • This last sentence seems like it may be more of a prediction than a definition of the scope for the project. Consider putting into section 8.1 or just deleting altogether. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  5. 802.15.7a (cont) • 5.4 – “The purpose of this standard is to provide a global standard…” change to “This standard provides a global standard…” • 5.5 “air plane” vs “airplane” – • 5.6 – “etc,” list of Stakeholders is the list. Delete the “etc.” • Website calls out a “5C” for the 802.15 CSD…all others are CSD…Suggest ask Recording Secretary change to “CSD” Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  6. 802.15.7a CSD(cont) • 14.2.1 a) ““air plane” vs “airplane” – Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  7. 802c, Amendment: Local Media Access Control (MAC) Addressing, PAR and CSD • In General, we believe that discussion on this topic has identified multiple stakeholders that have not been sufficiently consulted or involved in the development of the PAR/CSD. • An EC Study Group should be created to allow multiple Stakeholders, across all 802 WGs, to participate in the development of a PAR/CSD. Timing conflicts need to be addressed to allow for an inclusive opportunity of the stakeholders. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  8. 802c PAR Comments • 1.2 Type of Document: Standard • Comments: • Recommended practice vs a standard. Either a set of informative changes (Informative Annex) to the existing 802 Architecture document or a stand-alone recommended practice document should be developed to meet the PAR objectives. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  9. 802c, Amendment PAR (cont) • 5.1 Approximate number of people expected to be actively involved in the development of this project: 30 • no comment • 5.2.a. Scope of the complete standard: This standard contains descriptions of the IEEE 802(R) standards published by the IEEE for frame-based data networks as well as a reference model (RM) for protocol standards. The IEEE 802 architecture is defined, and a specification for the identification of public, private, and standard protocols is included. • No specific changes identified, however changes likely to be required if a recommended practice is developed. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  10. 802c, Amendment PAR (cont) • 5.2.b. Scope of the project: The amendment will provide recommendations and rules for using the local address space.. This will allocate a portion of the address space for protocols using an IEEE Registration Authority assigned Company ID. Another portion of the local address space will be allocated for assignment by local administrators. • Comments: • Punctuation error – 2 periods at the end of the first sentence • In the first sentence, delete “and rules”. The scope (5.2.b) refers to “recommendations” Change to recommended practice. 1.2.2 of the CSD describes “providing a guideline for use of the existing Local Address space”. • The entire local address space is available for local administration today. There is a coexistence and backwards compatibility issue with changing this: “Another portion…by local administrators.” • The second 2 sentences are providing a solution. There may be other solutions or alternatives that are identified. Delete the second and third sentences. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  11. 802c, Amendment PAR (cont • The RAC does not allocate local addresses and should not begin doing so. • “A CID has the X bit (U/L bit) equal to one and consequently that places any address with the CID as its first three octets in the local address space (U/L = 1). Local addresses are not globally unique, but a network administrator is responsible for assuring that any local addresses assigned are unique within the span of use.” from IEEE RAC document “Guidelines for Use Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI) and Company ID (CID)” • The scope statement should not imply a change to the current RAC policy. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  12. 802c, Amendment PAR (cont) • 5.5 Need for the Project: Currently, global addresses are assigned to most IEEE 802 end stations and bridge ports. Increasing use of virtual machines and Internet of Things (IoT) devices could exhaust the global address space if global addresses are assigned. This project will enable protocols that automatically configure addresses from a portion of the local address space. Such protocols will allow virtual machines and IoT devices to obtain a local address without local administration. Comments on next slide Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  13. 802c, Amendment PAR (cont) • 5.5 Need for the Project -Comments:  • The sentences “This project will enable protocols that automatically configure addresses from a portion of the local address space. Such protocols will allow virtual machines and IoT devices to obtain a local address without local administration.” do not state a need. Delete the 2 cited sentences or reword to describe a need. • “Organizations will be able to use a CID address block as a default address space for their protocol without conflicting with other protocols following the guideline.” • Organizations are already able to use the local address space. A local administrator can allocate local addresses without a CID. A local administrator can use a CID to allocate addresses from the local address space as an alternative. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  14. 802c Amendment – CSD Comments • Section 1.1.2 – Coexistence. While the proposed document is not a wireless document, we believe that the coexistence issue must be addressed to describe how the new mechanisms or recommendations will coexist with deployed devices and uses of the local MAC address space, in particular, existing 802 wireless standards. • 1.2.1 includes the example of “Fibre Channel over Ethernet (FCoE) has standardized a protocol for distributing FCoE virtual port MAC addresses from blocks in the Local MAC address space.” This example is in conflict with the statement in the PAR (5.2.b) “This will allocate a portion of the address space for protocols using an IEEE Registration Authority assigned Company ID.”as protocols can assign addresses today. This strengthens the case for either a recommended practice or development of a protocol. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  15. 802c Amendment – CSD Comments (cont) • The last paragraph in 1.2.1 asserts that “A first step in enabling protocols for claiming or assignment of Local MAC addresses is to organize the MAC address space so that entities can be assigned a block of the Local Address space through the Company ID (CID) as a default. Another part of the space will be defined for local administration.” This is an assertion that is not substantiated and is disproven by the Fibre Channel example in 1.2.1. • Section 1.2.4 asserts “Organizations will be able to use a CID address block as a default address space for their protocol without conflicting with other protocols following the guideline.”Organizations are already able to use the local address space. The local administrator can use the CID to allocate addresses from the local address space is not necessary. Definition of a protocol to assign a local address is sufficient. The RAC does not allocate local addresses and should not begin doing so. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  16. 802c Amendment – CSD Comments (cont) • Section 1.2.4 asserts “Another part of the space will be defined as the preferred area for local address administration.” This creates a backwards compatibility issue, as the entire space is used today for local address assignment. • Section 1.2.5 asserts that “CIDs are available from the RAC for a known cost.” If there is a requirement for using CIDs from the RAC, then additional cost are incurred. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  17. 802.1AS-rev - Timing and Synchronization for Time-Sensitive Applications, PAR and CSD • Please add the full name of the cited Stds in section 8.1 • Misspelled “been” (is “ben”) 5C –Economic Feasibility – slide 8. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  18. 802.1Qch- Amendment: Cyclic Queuing and Forwarding, PAR and CSD • No Comment Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  19. 802.3bv- Amendment, 1000 Mb/s Operation Over Plastic Optical Fiber , PAR and CSD • 5.6 Stakeholders: • Delete “Stakeholders identified to date include but are not limited to:” • 7.1 The organization name is not VDE, but that is its acronym. “Verband der Elektrotechnik,Elektronik und Informationstechnik“ – missing comma and “und“ • Also Acronym in the “Please explain” sentance the “VDE” should be expanded at first use. • 8.1 – “The VDE document was withdrawn at the request of IEEE/IEEE 802.3.” -- Withdrawn from what? Was there a formal request that could be cited? • “IEEE/IEEE 802.3” is this correct? Should this be expanded? Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  20. 802.3bv- Amendment CSD • Distinct Identity Slide 7 – • The underlined statement says that the VDE standard was withdrawn by the “IEEE”. In the PAR it states that it was done at the request of IEEE/IEEE802.3. • Which is it, can this be worded better in both places? • Economic Feasibility – slide 8 • How does “Energy Efficient Ethernet” relate to “25Gb/s Ethernet”? Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  21. 802.3by- Amendment: Media Access Control Parameters, Physical Layers and Management Parameters for 25 Gb/s Operation, PAR and CSD • 5.6 Stakeholders: • DELETE “Stakeholders identified to date include, but are not limited to,” • CSD – slide 4 – Broad Market Potential: • What is “on 25 Gb/s SerDes technology.” – “SerDes”? • should explain/expand the acroynmy and/or term. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  22. References Jon Rosdahl, CSR

More Related