1 / 19

Feedback on New WG PARs from WG11 for July Plenary

Feedback on New WG PARs from WG11 for July Plenary. Authors:. Date: 2009-07-13. Other Guidelines for IEEE WG Meetings. All IEEE-SA standards meetings shall be conducted in compliance with all applicable laws, including antitrust and competition laws.

nishan
Download Presentation

Feedback on New WG PARs from WG11 for July 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. Feedback on New WG PARs from WG11 for July Plenary Authors: Date: 2009-07-13 Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  2. Other Guidelines for IEEE WG Meetings • All IEEE-SA standards meetings shall be conducted in compliance with all applicable laws, including antitrust and competition laws. • Don’t discuss the interpretation, validity, or essentiality of patents/patent claims. • Don’t discuss specific license rates, terms, or conditions. • Relative costs, including licensing costs of essential patent claims, of different technical approaches may be discussed in standards development meetings. • Technical considerations remain primary focus • Don’t discuss or engage in the fixing of product prices, allocation of customers, or division of sales markets. • Don’t discuss the status or substance of ongoing or threatened litigation. • Don’t be silent if inappropriate topics are discussed … do formally object. --------------------------------------------------------------- See IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, clause 5.3.10 and “Promoting Competition and Innovation: What You Need to Know about the IEEE Standards Association's Antitrust and Competition Policy” for more details. Slide #4 – March 08 Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  3. Abstract This document contains the comment responses received from members of 802.11 WG. The WG11 requested that a submission be used as the 802.11 WG response to the new 802 PARs that were under consideration for July 2009 Plenary. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  4. Pars under consideration by 802 EC July 2009 • 802.21.1 New standard for Support for Emergency Services, PAR and 5C • 802.1Qbc, Provider Bridging -- Remote Customer Service Interface, PAR and 5C • 802.1Qbe, MIRP, PAR and 5C • 802.1Qbf, PBB-TE Infrastructure Protection, PAR and 5C • PAR extension request for P802.1AR, PAR • PAR extension request for P802.11n, PAR Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  5. 802.21.1 New standard for Support for Emergency Services, PAR and 5C • 802 EC had a discussion on where this topic should be processed. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  6. 802.1Qbc, Provider Bridging -- Remote Customer Service Interface, PAR and 5C • WG11 has no comments or questions Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  7. 802.1Qbe, MIRP, PAR and 5C • WG11 has no comments or questions Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  8. 802.1Qbf, PBB-TE Infrastructure Protection, PAR and 5C • WG11 has no comments or questions Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  9. PAR extension request for P802.1AR, PAR • WG11 has no comments or questions Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  10. PAR extension request for P802.11n, PAR • WG11 has no comments or questions Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  11. The 802.11 WG has developed questions related to the proposed 802.21 Emergency Services project • The 802.21 WG has proposed a PAR and 5 criteria for Emergency Services • 21-09-000027-r6 • The 802.11 WG has reviewed these documents and have developed variety of questions for consideration by the 802.21 WG • This document lists those questions Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  12. What are the specific requirements being addressed (by regulatory domain)? • Situation • 5.4 defines a purpose for the proposed standard that includes references to requirements related “Next Generation E911”, “Emergency Alert Broadcast” and “Authority to Authority” • Complication • However, nowhere does the PAR or 5 criteria provide references to any documents that specify these requirements or associated regulations • This makes it difficult to measure the success of the project. • Question/comment • What are the specific requirements or regulations that this project is proposed to satisfy? • How do these requirements or regulations vary in different regulatory domains? Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  13. Is a new MAC and PHY in scope … or not? • Situation • 5.2 defines the scope of the proposed standard, including a statement that the project will not include a new MAC and PHY • Complication • However, 5.5 states that they will provide new PHY and MAC functionality • Question/comment • Why is this not contradictory? Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  14. How can the project goals be achieved without changing 802.3/11/15/16/20/22 • Situation • 5.5 states that the project will provide new PHY and MAC functionality, presumably in 802.3/11/15/16/20/22 • Complication • However, it is not within the scope of 802.21 to make changes to any of these standards • Question/comment • How is it intended that the project accomplish the provision of new PHY and MAC functionality without changing any existing MAC or PHY, or defining a new MAC and PHY? Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  15. What does “parity with traditional emergency service transport functions” mean? • Situation • 5.5 states that the project will achieve “parity with traditional emergency service transport functions” • Complication • However, it is unclear what this means given “traditional emergency service transport functions” is not defined • It is also not clear that parity can even be achieved between a system based on 802.11 in unlicenced spectrum (for example) and traditional wire-line and cellular systems • Question/comment • How is “traditional emergency service transport functions” defined? • What does “parity” mean in this context? Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  16. What about ECRIT … ? • Situation • 7.1 states that there are no other projects or standards with similar scope • Complication • However, IETF ECRIT is a project with a scope that is arguably greater that the proposed scope of this project • Question/comment • Why was ECRIT not referenced? • Have the layer 2 requirements implied by ECRIT been considered in developing this project proposal? • Please identify any functionality or interfaces that 802.21 ES could provide at layer 2 that would support ECRIT at layer 3? Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  17. Does the project have measurable goals that can be achieved within three years? • Situation • It is “best practice” to define a project for a new standard such that it is able to be meet measurable goals within three years • Complication • However, this PAR and 5 criteria does not define any measurable goals and it is unclear whether it can be done within three years • Question/comment • Please define measurable goals? • Please explain how the scope of the project is such that it can be completed within three years? • Given the vagueness of the goals of the proposed project, why haven’t you considered defining a recommended practice? Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  18. What work is the WFA undertaking? • Situation • In the 5 criteria in the broad market potential section it is claimed “This proposed standard may simplify changes currently under consideration by external organization such as IETF ECRIT, WiFi Alliance and WiMAX Forum • Complication • However, the WFA has not announced any such work • Question/comment • Please justify the claim? • Have the WMF announced any such work? Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  19. Why not do the work in 802.1? • Situation • The 802.21 WG current scope and name is limited to handover • Complication • It is recognised that the proposed emergency services project is outside the scope of 802.21 as currently named and understood • Question/comment • The proposed emergency services project cannot be approved until the scope of 802.21 is resolved • Why isn’t the proposed work better suited to the 802.1 WG? Jon Rosdahl, CSR

More Related