1 / 8

802.11 Review of March 2013 Proposed Pars

802.11 Review of March 2013 Proposed Pars. Authors:. Date: 2013-03-18. Abstract. Review of 802 WG PARS submitted for review during the July 2013 Session. PARs under consideration. July 1x-1x, 2013, Geneva, Switzerland

jaeger
Download Presentation

802.11 Review of March 2013 Proposed Pars

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 March 2013 Proposed Pars Authors: • Date:2013-03-18 Jon Rosdahl, CSR Technology Inc.

  2. Abstract • Review of 802 WG PARS submitted for review during the July 2013 Session. Jon Rosdahl, CSR Technology Inc.

  3. PARs under consideration • July 1x-1x, 2013, Geneva, Switzerland • 802.1Qcc - amendment for Stream Reservation Protocol (SRP), PAR and 5C • 802.1Qcd - amendment for Application Virtual Local Area Networks (VLAN) Type, Length, Value (TLV), PAR and 5C • 802.3br - amendment for Specification and Management Parameters for Interspersing Express Traffic, PAR and 5C • 802.15.10 - recommended practice on Layer 2 Routing, PAR and 5C • P802.19.1 - PAR Extension Jon Rosdahl, CSR Technology Inc.

  4. 802.1Qcc • PAR • In general the PAR appears to be written by and for a community already knowledgeable in 802.1Q. However, one of the purposes of a PAR is to advertise the start of a new project to a broad community. 802.11 members can not read the PAR and determine the scope. Do you plan to issue a press release if the project is approved. How would you describe the project in a press release? • In 5.2.b • Change “amendment provides” to “amendment describes new” • Change “and provide:’ to “which provides:” • “Configurable SR (stream reservation) classes and streams “ wording is confusing. Can this be written more clearly? • What is the current stream limit. What will the new limit be? • What are the characteristics of the streams before and after Qcc? • What types of layer three support do you plan to offer? • 8.1 is empty. Could some of the 5C material be used to further explain the project? • 5.2, 5.4 and 5.5 do not seem to describe the same project – please clarify. • 5C • Technical feasibility • What is the AVnu Alliance and what is its relationship to 802.1Q? • Did AVnu supply use cases or requirements that could be referenced/made available? • What does C mean? “The technology re‐use, and other augmented methods are deemed proven for their reliability.” • What assumptions are being made of 802.11 and its ability to participate in SRP? Jon Rosdahl, CSR Technology Inc.

  5. 802.1Qcd • PAR • Does IETF provide any similar VLAN tag? • How does VLAN tag simplify management? • In 5.2.b, the last scope sentence is actually a need statement and should be moved to 5.5. • 5C • Slide 6 • Please define the scope of “end stations” or provide some examples. • The 5C alternately claims that Qcd will simplify network management and end station management – which is it? Jon Rosdahl, CSR Technology Inc.

  6. 802.15.10 • PAR • Section 1.2 Is this really a Recommended Practice or a Standard? • Section 5.2 Change to “This standard defines a protocol that routes packets in a dynamically changing network (changes on the order of a minute time frame), with minimal impact to route handling. • Section 5.4 • What L3 mechanisms are to be considered? • Section 8.1 Clarify the relationship between 15.4e and 15.10. Are there any new functions being added by 15.10? Does 15.10 use only features previously defined by 15.4e? • Is 15.10 for use only with 15.4 based networks? • Should the project be called 802.15.4.1 because this is a recommended practice (standard) for 15.4? • 5C Jon Rosdahl, CSR Technology Inc.

  7. 802.3br • PAR • 2.1 Change to: Standard for Ethernet Amendment Specification and Management Parameters for Interspersed Express Traffic. • 5.2.b Clarify the scope regarding whether the project will add only Qos parameters or also a management protocol. • 5.2.b Change “The scope of this project is to specify” to “This amendment specifies” • Is there any dependency between 802.1Qbu and 802.3br? • Please explain what “interspersed express traffic” is. Could the term be described in either 5.2 or 8.1? • 5.5 the last sentence does not seem to be appropriate. • 5.5 replace “, including but not limited to,” with “such as” • 5.6 Delete “stakeholders included to date include but are not limited to:” • 5C • Distinct Identity (slide 5) What does close to zero delay on converged networks mean? Jon Rosdahl, CSR Technology Inc.

  8. 802.19.1 extension • PAR • In 2 delete “and therefore an extension of the PAR is required” • Insert in 2 an explanation of expected project timeline to justify a two year extension. • Fix 3.5. What percentage of the Draft is stable: % (blank) • 5C • N/A Jon Rosdahl, CSR Technology Inc.

More Related