[802.19] FW: [802SEC] Response to comments on 802.15.4k PAR and 5C [LECIM]
The following are responses to comments received on the 802.15 LECIM PAR.
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bob Heile
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 2:24 PM
Subject: [802SEC] Response to comments on 802.15.4k PAR and 5C [LECIM]
Below are the responses to the comments received on the 802.15.4k PAR and
5C. The revised PAR and 5C [15-10-0260-10 and 15-10-0261-06] can be found
802.11 PAR adHoc comments
5.2 Scope: the scope statement should be what would be included in the
final document. It should be in present tense and describe the document
[response] Agreed, revised scope statement is in present tense
5.4 Purpose: Consider deleting the Purpose Text and replace with "This
amendment will not have a Purpose Statement".
[response] It is a offered field in the PAR form even when amendment is
selected, and seems like a reasonable thing to do.
5.5 Need for project: The text here looks like it should be included in the
5c responses. This should be a clear statement of the need for the project.
[response] Text has been clarified.
5.6 Stakeholders: remove "government agencies, non-government agencies with
equivalent interest and "move "Location Based Services Suppliers and Users"
to the front, and delete "in addition to "
8.1 Additional Notes: clean-up and remove extraneous information that
should be in the 5c Uniqueness and Distinct Identity.
5C, WPAN-LR make consistent use. If LR is before or after WPAN.
[response] Implemented, change to LR-WPAN
2.1 title: Add acronym LECIM
[response] Implemented, spell out acronym on first use
5c-3-a) the first statement does not seem correct. Suggest remove
"uniquely". Change "will not adequately support the" to "does not support
Remove "SCADA" and just say proprietary technology.
[response] Spell out acronym [supervisory control and data acquisition ]
5c-5a) make consistent the naming of the other WG.
[response] Accept, add IEEE in front of all 802.xx references
802.19 PAR &5C comments
The scope states that it will operate in licensed, unlicensed and special
purpose frequency bands. If operation in the TVWS is included in the
standard, will the standard include the necessary hooks to support the
mechanisms defined by the upcoming 802.19.1 draft?
[response] While the scope does not preclude operation in this band, it
is not the primary band of interest. It is the intention of this group to
develop appropriate coexistence behavior for each band. From PAR 5.2 Scope:
"This amendment also provides mechanisms that enable coexistence with other
systems in the same band(s) including IEEE 802.11, IEEE 802.15 and IEEE
The scope states "These applications have unique requirements that are not
fully addressed with the current standard". This sentence should not be in
the Scope but should be in the Need section.
[response] Accept --Delete "These applications have unique requirements
that are not fully addressed with the current standard."
The Scope section is way too long and should be shortened.
[response] Accept-- Change "Specifically, the amendment supports all of
the following:"to "The amendment supports:"
In the Distinct Identity section of the 5C please elaborate on why this PAR
could not be met by 802.11, 802.16 or 802.22.
[response] Accept--add to 5C Distinct identity:
* The current 802.16 M2M PAR calls for changes to the MAC, and no
substantial change to its PHY. While it does state the enhancements as
lower power consumption at the subscriber station, support by the base
station of significantly larger numbers of devices, and efficient support
for small burst transmissions, it does not change the PHY, and as such it
will not meet the large path loss, minimal infrastructure requirements, and
multi-year battery life required by LECIM applications.
* IEEE 802.22 is intended to provide broadband services to rural
subscribers, which does not address the need for multiyear battery life.
* IEEE 802.11 is designed for higher data rates which limit both range
and battery life to less than that required by LECIM applications.
* Other Changes
* PAR section 8.1: LECIM applications are characterized by
properties including large path loss, minimal infrastructure requirements,
and multi-year battery life. The communication link budget, coexistence
characteristics, and data model for this class of applications have not
been met with existing 802 standards.
Bob Heile, Ph.D
Chairman, ZigBee Alliance
Chair, IEEE 802.15 Working Group on Wireless Personal Area Networks
Co-Chair IEEE P2030 Task Force 3 on Smartgrid Communications
11 Robert Toner Blvd
North Attleboro, MA 02763 USA
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.