1 / 37

802-11 PAR Review – July 2014

802-11 PAR Review – July 2014. Authors:. Date: 2014-07-15. Abstract. Review of the PARS for consideration for July 2014. http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/PARs.shtml. 2.3 II PARs for review this week.

lavada
Download Presentation

802-11 PAR Review – July 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 – July 2014 Authors: • Date:2014-07-15 Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  2. Abstract • Review of the PARS for consideration for July 2014. • http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/PARs.shtml Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  3. 2.3 II PARs for review this week • 802.1ARce - Secure Device Identity, Amendment 1: Amendment 1: SHA-384 and P-384 Elliptic Curve, PAR and CSD • 802.1AEcg - Media Access Control (MAC) Security - Amendment: Ethernet Data Encryption devices, PAR and CSD • 802.3bv- amendment, 1000 Mb/s Operation Over Plastic Optical Fiber , PAR and CSD • 802.3bw - amendment, 1 Twisted Pair 100 Mb/s Ethernet , PAR and CSD • 802.11ah, Sub 1 GHz, PAR extension request, PAR and CSD • 802.11ai, Fast initial link setup, PAR extension request , PAR and 5C (grandfathered) • 802.15.4, amendment enabling Spectrum Resource Measurement Capability, PAR and CSD • 802.22.3, Specifying Spectrum Occupancy Sensing (SOS) Measurement Devices and Means that Enable Coalescing the Results from Multiple Such Devices, PAR and CSD Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  4. 802.24 Charter Change • In the proposed process for creating Task Groups (TGs) under 802.24, a proposed TG scope document is circulated 30 days in advance of a plenary to solicit comments from the WGs.  According to the proposed process, this follows the PAR process in that comments are due by 5 pm Tuesday of the plenary week and responses are due by 5 pm on Wednesday.The 802.24 Smart Grid TAG approved a TG scope document for a Smart Grid TG, 24-14-0015-01-0000-Smart-Grid-TG-Scope.pdf, which can be found at:https://mentor.ieee.org/802.24/dcn/14/24-14-0015-01-0000-smart-grid-tg-scope.pdf Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  5. Jon Rosdahl, CSR Comments from 802.11 PAR AdHoc Committee Comments for July 2014 PARS for consideration.

  6. 802.1ARce - Secure Device Identity, Amendment 1: Amendment 1: SHA-384 and P-384 Elliptic Curve, PAR and CSD • 1. Expand Acronyms for first usage in Scope/Title/Purpose. “SHA-384, P-384, ECDSA” Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  7. 802.1AEcg - Media Access Control (MAC) Security - Amendment: Ethernet Data Encryption devices, PAR • 4.1 and 4.2: Check the Start of Sponsor Ballot and the Submission to RevCom dates…They do not seem reasonable. • Note that the dates that are listed seem to be close to date that a new revision is needed. Have you considered just getting this amendment done in conjunction with a Revision PAR? • 5.5 Change “separate bridging systems (Ethernet Data Encryption devices, EDEs) “ to separate bridging systems, Ethernet Data Encryption devices, (EDEs) • 8.1 Add the full name of the 802.1AE, 802.1X, and 802.1Q standards. • 8.1: Where is “#7.3”? This comment may be a hold over, or miss labeled. • 5.6 – consider making the Stakeholders: Developers and users of secure networking equipment. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  8. 802.1AEcg - Media Access Control (MAC) Security - Amendment: Ethernet Data Encryption devices, CSD • 1.2 Broad Market Potential: “…number of significant users…” what number? Who are these significant users? • 1.2.2/1.2.3 missing “Std” on several of the standards cited. • 1.2.5 change “802.1AE-2006” to “IEEE Std 802.1AE-2006” • Please check in the CSD for other instances of missing proper citation. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  9. 802.3bv- amendment, 1000 Mb/s Operation Over Plastic Optical Fiber , PAR • 5.6 change Stakeholder list: “Stakeholders identified to date include but are not limited to: user…s” to “Users…” • 7.1 expand the acronym “VDE”… (not sure what VDE is). • 7.1 From the 802.3 CSD – “There are standardized specifications for data transmission over POF…leveraging those…” need to indentify the “other” standards that are similar that make up “those”. • 8.1 suggest a bit of explanation on what is being stated… • “. Its specifications” is this the VDE Document? • Is the withdrawn standard being incorporated into this amendment? Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  10. 802.3bv- amendment, 1000 Mb/s Operation Over Plastic Optical Fiber , CSD • From the title page • “The following are the CSD Responses in relation to the IEEE P802.3xx PAR” • this seems a bit Generic..Was the correct CSD provided? Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  11. 802.3bw - amendment, 1 Twisted Pair 100 Mb/s Ethernet , PAR and CSD • No Comment Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  12. 802.11ah, Sub 1 GHz, PAR extension request, PAR and CSD • No comment Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  13. 802.11ai, Fast initial link setup, PAR extension request , PAR and 5C (grandfathered) • No comment Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  14. 802.15.4, amendment enabling Spectrum Resource Measurement Capability, PAR and CSD • 1.3.4 b) needs a response: • b)Proven similar technology via testing, modeling, simulation, etc. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  15. 802.22.3, Specifying Spectrum Occupancy Sensing (SOS) Measurement Devices and Means that Enable Coalescing the Results from Multiple Such Devices, PAR and CSD • 2.1 Title – Consider that “SOS” is a internationally recognized acronym for emergency requests. Consider changing or eliminating the acronym… • 5.2 The Scope should not talk about the “project”, but rather describe the document that will be created. Please remove project specific definitions and instead describe what the standard will be defining. • 5.2 “initially” defines? The Standard will have a set definition that as far as this revision is concerned is the only one that will exist. Do not describe or promise future enhancements. • 8.1 is for extra explanation for identified clauses. The clause id is not included. Generally a history is not included in 8.1 • CSD: 1.2.2 – Cite standards correctly. • CSD: Seems the History is repeated for several responses. • CSD: Seems overly verbose Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  16. 802.24 Charter Change • In the proposed process for creating Task Groups (TGs) under 802.24, a proposed TG scope document is circulated 30 days in advance of a plenary to solicit comments from the WGs.  According to the proposed process, this follows the PAR process in that comments are due by 5 pm Tuesday of the plenary week and responses are due by 5 pm on Wednesday.The 802.24 Smart Grid TAG approved a TG scope document for a Smart Grid TG, 24-14-0015-01-0000-Smart-Grid-TG-Scope.pdf, which can be found at:https://mentor.ieee.org/802.24/dcn/14/24-14-0015-01-0000-smart-grid-tg-scope.pdf Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  17. 802.24 Comments • Concern: • Not seen large numbers interested in attending 802.24 • If we are creating White papers instead of Standards, then are we needing to create a new process. • Can the Industry Connection be a process that is sufficient rather than change 802.24? Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  18. 802.24 Response • Here are our responses.https://mentor.ieee.org/802.24/dcn/14/24-14-0023-00-0000-responses-to-comments-on-tag-process.pdfhttps://mentor.ieee.org/802.24/dcn/14/24-14-0016-03-0000-process-for-createing-new-tg.pdf Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  19. 802.3bv Response • 5.6 change Stakeholder list: “Stakeholders identified to date include but are not limited to: user…s” to “Users…” • Response: The Capitalization of “users” we believe is correct. • Retort: The idea was to delete the words “Stakeholders identified to date include but are not limited to:” and then the capitalization of “Users” would be correct. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  20. E-mail sent to Bob Grow in retort • Bob, •    can I get the ppt file so that it is easier to provide our feedback on your comments. • The idea was to delete the words “Stakeholders identified to date include but are not limited to:” and then the capitalization of “Users” would be correct. • You indicate that you will ask the 802.3 to make the changes. The rules state that the WG is to respond by 5pm Wed.I am concerned that if 802.3WG did not authorize the responses. • in the CSD, it states that there are others -- plural -- in the PAR it is stated only one.  This inconsistency is what is being pointed out. • 4. it was noted that the VDE standard was withdrawn at the request of IEEE, so not sure what standard specifications that is being reused. • 5. slide two should be fixed. • That is basically our retort to the response.Regards,Jon • on behalf of the 802.11 PAR Review AdHoc Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  21. 802.1AEcg responses • The 802.11 comments were:Comment:4.1 and 4.2: Check the Start of Sponsor Ballot and the Submission to RevCom dates…They do not seem reasonable.Response:Dates will be updated, taking into account this comments and other comments received on the dates. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  22. 802.1AEcg responses (cont) • Comment:Note that the dates that are listed seem to be close to date that a new revision is needed.  Have you considered just getting this amendment done in conjunction with a Revision PAR?Response: Yes we have. Bearing in mind the scope of the amendment and the discussions so far we believe that a focused amendment would be a timely and effective way to proceed. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  23. 802.1AEcg responses (cont) • Comment:5.5 Change “separate bridging systems (Ethernet Data Encryption devices, EDEs) “ to separate bridging systems,  Ethernet Data Encryption devices, (EDEs) Response:Change "separate bridging systems (Ethernet Data Encryption devices, EDEs)" to "separate bridging systems known as Ethernet Data Encryption devices (EDEs)" Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  24. 802.1AEcg responses (cont) • Comment:8.1 Add the full name of the 802.1AE, 802.1X, and 802.1Q standards.Response:Everywhere that 802.1AE, 802.1X, and 802.1Q appears we will show the name in full. Only IEEE Std 802.1AE appears in 8.1. Changes to be made in 5.5 and 8.1. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  25. 802.1AEcg responses (cont) • Comment:8.1: Where is “#7.3”?  This comment may be a hold over, or miss labeled.Response: This appears to be an accidental hold over from previous versions of the form and will be removed. Delete "#7.3" from 8.1. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  26. 802.1AEcg responses (cont) • Comment:5.6 – consider making the Stakeholders: Developers and users of  secure networking equipment. Response: Accept. Add the word "secure". Note however that a large fraction (to the extent that we are aware without discussing market share) of recently deployed 802.3 based equipment is MACsec capable so the stakeholders and interested parties include many who might not be traditionally recognized as being associated with secure networking equipment. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  27. 802.1AEcg responses (cont) • Comment:1.2 Broad Market Potential: “…number of  significant users…” what number? Who are these significant users?Response:We do not believe it is appropriate to quote the names of companies without their approval (which might be hard to get since the CSD would then take on aspects of a press release) and deciding on precise criteria for "significant" is too close to discussing market share issues for our comfort. However we would note that the ESS specification mentioned in 1.2 is aimed at supporting security of US businesses as a whole and is the subject of a public comment period. Individual task group members have discussed the identified needs with the originators of that specification who are interested in seeing the work go forward. The specification does publicly identify the use of the technology within national security systems in additional to commercial use. No change is proposed to the 1.2 text, which is repeated below."This amendment will support the use of MACsec in a number of scenarios deemed important by a number ofsignificant users. In particular it will support requirements that have been identified during the development of the`Ethernet Security Specification' (ESS) by the NSA." Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  28. 802.1AEcg responses (cont) • Comment:1.2.2/1.2.3  missing “Std” on several of the standards cited.1.2.5 change “802.1AE-2006” to “IEEE Std 802.1AE-2006”Please check in the CSD for other instances of missing proper citation.Response: Accept. Will update. • The revised proposed PAR for P802.1AEcg is now at:http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2014/cg-draft-aecg-par-0714-v3.pdfThe revised CSD is now at:http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2014/cg-draft-aecg-csd-0714-v3.pdfComments, responses, and proposed changes to the pre-circulated P802.1AEcg PAR text follow. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  29. 802.15.4s responses • Comment responses at https://mentor.ieee.org/802.15/dcn/14/15-14-0462-00-0sru-repsonsess-to-802-15-4s-pa-csd-comments.pptxRevised CSD at: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.15/dcn/14/15-14-0175-05-0sru-working-draft-of-sg-sru-csd.docx Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  30. 802.1ARce Responses • The updated P802.1ARce PAR is now at:http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2014/ce-draft-arce-par-0714-v3.pdfThe CSD, which has not been changed, can be found at:http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2014/ce-draft-arce-csd-0514-v2.pdfComments, responses, and proposed changes to the pre-circulated P802.1ARce PAR text follow. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  31. 802.1ARce Response (cont) • The 802.11 comment was:Expand Acronyms for first usage in Scope/Title/Purpose. “SHA-384,  P-384,  ECDSA .Response:"SHA" stands for Secure Hash Algorithm but the name of the algorithm being referenced is "SHA-384" not Secure Hash Algorithm 384, the latter would be incorrect and regarded as an error by the intended users of this standard. Similarly P-384 is the name of an elliptic curve, and in this case has no expansion. The title should remain unchanged. • In 5.2.b "Scope of the project" replace "use of SHA-384" with "use of the secure hash algorithm SHA-384".In 5.2.b "Scope of the project" replace "ECDSA" with "Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA)" . Note it is important to retain the acronym here since the full form is so rarely used by those familiar with the technology. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  32. 802.15 response to Comment from 802.11 • Comment: 1.2.4 b) need a response: b) Proven similar technology via testing, modeling, simulation, etc. Response and Action: The following has been added to 1.2.4 b) in the CSD: Same as 1.2.4 a). Similar capabilities have already been deployed and demonstrated in many proprietary implementations. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  33. 802.22 Response • The PAR and CSD (final and after track changes) have been attached. • They can also be found here: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.22/dcn/14/22-14-0075-04-0003-spectrum-occupancy-sensing-par-form.docx • https://mentor.ieee.org/802.22/dcn/14/22-14-0061-06-0003-802-22-spectrum-occuoancy-sensing-criteria-for-standards-development.docx Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  34. Response from 802.22WG to Comments from the 802.11 WG • 2.1 Title – Consider that “SOS” is a internationally recognized acronym for emergency requests. Consider changing or eliminating the acronym… • Response: Accept: Eliminated the acronym • 5.2 The Scope should not talk about the “project”, but rather describe the document that will be created. Please remove project specific definitions and instead describe what the standard will be defining. • Response: Accept, the word Project has been changed to ‘Standard’ • 5.2 “initially” defines? The Standard will have a set definition that as far as this revision is concerned is the only one that will exist. Do not describe or promise future enhancements. • Response: Accept. The word ‘initially’ has been removed

  35. Response from 802.22 WG (Cont) • 8.1 is for extra explanation for identified clauses. The clause id is not included. Generally a history is not included in 8.1 • Response: Accept. Some of the contents from Section 8.1 has been moved back to Section 5.5 Need for the Standard and the new Section 8.1 only contains a reference • CSD: 1.2.2 – Cite standards correctly. • Response: Accept • CSD: Seems the History is repeated for several responses. • Response: Accept. Redundant information has been removed • CSD: Seems overly verbose • Response: Reduced the verbosity by eliminating repetitions

  36. 802.22 Retort • 2.1 Suggest title be “Spectrum Characterization and Occupancy Sensing (SCOS)“ • Suggest that the PAR be delayed until it can be better written with consistent use of the new proposed title. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  37. References Jon Rosdahl, CSR

More Related