1 / 17

802-11 Review of PARs for Nov Plenary

802-11 Review of PARs for Nov Plenary. Authors:. Date: 2013-11-12. Abstract. 802.11 Review of the following PARS: 802 - Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks: Overview and Architecture - PAR extension request 802.1AX-REV -  PAR modification request

eadoin
Download Presentation

802-11 Review of PARs for Nov Plenary

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 Review of PARs for Nov Plenary Authors: • Date:2013-11-12 Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  2. Abstract • 802.11 Review of the following PARS: • 802 - Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks: Overview and Architecture - PAR extension request • 802.1AX-REV - PAR modification request • 802.1Q-REV - PAR modification request • 802.3br - amendment: Interspersing Express Traffic,  PAR and 5C • 802.3bt - amendment: DTE Power via MDI over 4-Pair,  PAR and 5C • 802.3bu - amendment: 1-Pair Power over Data Lines,  PAR and 5C • 802.22 - Revision, PAR • OmniRAN EC SG - Recommended Practice, Network Reference Model and Functional Description of IEEE 802 Access Network , PAR and 5C Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  3. 802 - Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks: Overview and Architecture - PAR extension request • There is a Concern that you will not be able to complete by Oct 2014. • A more aggressive plan to include recirculating the draft more often than 2 times a year may be necessary in order to meet the Oct 2014 target. An updated plan should be prepared and enforced by 802.1 leadership. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  4. 802.1AX • Add “5.2” to 8.1 prior to the explanation. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  5. 802.1Q-REV - PAR modification request • No Comment Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  6. 802.3br • 5.2: “This standard defines Ethernet local area, access and metropolitan area networks”. Is this sentence correct? Is “Ethernet local area” a description or is this really a “local area Ethernet”? How does “access” by itself apply? • 8.1 move the statement in 8.1 to 5.2b… (see 802.3bt) • 8.1 Need to provide the full names for standards referenced in the PAR form in 8.1. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  7. 802.3bt • No comment Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  8. 802.3bu • No comment Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  9. 802.22 • 2.1 spell out the first use of RAN • 3.1 Update the WG Vice chair • 5.2 the scope is not describing what band is truly being used. “any band” is too broad a scope. • 5.4 the added sentences of “This Revision project…” is not being added in the right place. This should be part of 5.5 Need for the project. (see slide notes for all the text that should be moved to 5.5.) • 5.5 the initial part of this section seems to be why the 802.22 was originally started, and that would not necessarily be the reason for the revision, but only the latter part of this section should be used (Why are you doing the revision not why 802.22.) Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  10. 802.22 cont • 5.2 Is the scope of the revision only to reband the existing 802.22 radio? • 5.2 Which bands do you intend to occupy? (this should be stated in the Scope statement) All Unlicensed Spectrum is not a reasonable response. A specific range of bands should be specified. • 7.1 What about 802.16? If you are expanding the bands and the type of station definition, does this become similar to 802.16? • 8.1 No section number with the text, and it seems to be a cut and paste error as it is identical to the purpose statement. Delete. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  11. 802.22 • General: Missing updated 5C – see 10.2 and 10.3 of the LMSC OM – This Project is not qualified to be considered at this Session. • General: the PAR form presented is not the correct PAR form. An old PAR form should not be used for consideration. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  12. OmniRAN EC SG - Recommended Practice, Network Reference Model and Functional Description of IEEE 802 Access Network, PAR and 5C • 4.2/4.3 Note that this PAR will not be approved by SASB until March 2014 (last week). Suggest that the initial Sponsor ballot date be set to 03/2016 and the submittal to RevCom be 10/2016 (or 02/2017) • 5.2 What is an access network? This generic term is not adequately defined or referenced. Put reference in 8.1 • 5.2 “Network Reference Model” – Should this be “Access Network Reference Model””? • 5.4 not a “specification”, but rather a “Recommended Practice”. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  13. OmniRAN cont • 5.4 – How is this going to “more easily” enable design? • 5.4 – unsure what “access networks” vs “unified access network” • 5.4 the word “extensions” and “extend” is not the same in phrase 2 and phrase 3. does the one mean amendment or new standard? Extends applicability to 802 networks? Was 802 networks not extendable to begin with? • 5.4 What are the “new deployment domains”? Which domains will inspire/require this new recommended practice? Which “deployment domains” have not progressed because this recommended practice does not exist? Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  14. OmniRAN cont • 5.5 GAP analysis pointer should be provided. At least the summary of the GAP analysis should be listed here. • 8.1 – Item #1.2 – change “specification” to “document” • 8.1 Do you need #1.2 at all? • 8.1 #3.2/#5.6 “this standard” should be “this guide” • 8.1 #3.2/#5.6 – concern on how to designate a participant, as WGs are individual based, they would not be able to claim to be a representative of the respective WG. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  15. OmniRAN cont • General - Make sure to put the full name of all standards that are referenced in the PAR into 8.1 (even if the only reference is in 8.1). • 10.5.1 Broad Market Potential: a)b) add some examples to show what your are claiming is true…How does this Guide apply to this criteria? What is the value of the Guide to the Market? • 10.5.3 Distinct Identity – Change “standard” to “guide” in all sections…. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  16. OmniRAN cont • Example of one section for change: 10.5.3 c) Distinct Identity: Proposed change: The Guide is substantially different from all other IEEE 802 standards because no current standard or guide specifies the network reference model and functional interactions for an IEEE 802 access network. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  17. References Jon Rosdahl, CSR

More Related