[802.3_DIALOG] Comments on PARs from other WGs

[ROBERT GROW <bobgrow@xxxxxxx>]

Colleagues:

I reviewed the PARs and CSDs from other working groups and have generated the comments below.  I personally believe the PAR and CSD for 802.15.12 need significant work (most problems related to the project scope).  Comments on the other three projects might be labeled as picking at nits.  I’m happy to engage in dialog if others disagree or find other problems in the documents.

—Bob

New Standard PAR 

IEEE 802.15.12

Upper Layer Interface (ULI) for IEEE 802.15.4 Low-Rate Wireless Networks draft PAR and CSD

PAR, 5.1 — 100 active participants seems a bit optimistic, though the PAR instruction has move back to a very liberal wording  (our WGs are different than the WGs in most of IEEE-SA).  How many will be actively involved in development of the draft (perhaps starting with anticipated TG members), not including those submitting a meaningless WG ballot to keep working group voting rights.

PAR, 5.2 — The scope is uses language and a reference architecture that does not appear to be in IEEE Std 802.15.4.  As an upper layer protocol for 802.15.4, it should use terminology consistent with that standard’s Figure-3 LP-WPAN device architecture.  The scope should also indicate how it relates to the service interfaces defined in that standard.  As written, it is very difficult to relate the proposed work to the architecture of 802.15.4.  If the proposed project will also better map 802.15.4 architectural blocks to the OSI reference model, that needs to be stated somewhere (not necessarily in the scope).

The term regulation requirements is very loaded and left very undefined.  Regulation of what, or how is it related to radio frequency regulation?

The phrase "Furthermore, the ULI integrates upper Layer 2 sub-layer (L2+) functionalities . . .” is unnecessarily loaded with jargon for an unspecified architecture.  How about “Furthermore, the ULI integrates upper Layer 2  functionalities . . .”.

How does “L2 routing (L2R) protocols” relate to IEEE 802 bridging?  The number of acronyms in the scope make it very difficult to read.  Only ULI is reused in the scope.  It is noted that 5.5 Need reuses many of the terms, but a cleaner reading Scope is recommended as it appears in the standard, and catalog listings for the standard.

PAR, 5.5 — The bulleted list seems to be two level with the last five belonging nested under the sixth from last bullet.  Consider an outline format and proper use of capitalization and punctuation for lists (first three items as sentences and the last six items as a single sentence with each list item except last ending with a semicolon).

PAR 5.6 — Missing full stop.

PAR, 6.1.b — The compression of higher layer protocols is unrelated to registration activities.  If it needs to be said, say it somewhere else.  If the only registration activity is use of EtherTypes, just say it uses the EtherType registry.  If it has other registration components, those should be explained.

CSD, 1.1.2 — This seems to be in possible conflict with the PAR scope including “regulation requirements”. (PAR, 5.2 comment notes this term is undefined and consequently fixing the scope may clarify the relationship to “regulation” so that this answer is valid.)

CSD, 1.2.1,a — The Internet of Things is more than wireless sensors.  (Wireless sensors would generally be considered some of the things in the IOT.)  Minor grammar:  line 6 should read the IOT marketplace, 

CSD, 1.2.1,b — Minor readability:  line 4, remove “and many more”.

Amendment project PARs

IEEE P802.1Qcr

Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks--Bridges and Bridged Networks Asynchronous Traffic Shaping draft PAR and CSD

PAR, 5.5 — The first sentence implies that this standard will provide zero loss due to congestion.  Near zero perhaps, but absolutely zero unlikely.

PAR, 8,1 — The item number that the note addresses is not provided.  Should this reference project purpose or need?

CSD, 1.2.1 — Excessive capitalization:  Mission critical, Automotive Systems, Automotive and Industrial network.

CSD, 1.2.4 — The term “dedicated analysis” is arguably jargon, unlikely to be universally understood as a common technique.  (The referenced document in the next sentence provides no help.)  Please expand or use different language.

IEEE P802.15.4v

Standard for Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks Amendment enabling/updating the use of Regional Sub-GHz bands draft PAR and CSD 

PAR, 5.1 — 100 active participants seems a bit optimistic, though the PAR instruction has move back to a very liberal wording (our WGs are different than the WGs in most of IEEE-SA).  How many will be actively involved in development of the draft (perhaps starting with anticipated TG members), not including those submitting a meaningless WG ballot to keep working group voting rights.

CSD, 1.2.1,b — Minor readability:  line 4, remove “and many more”.

CSD, 1.2.5,c — The answer is unresponsive.  Manufacturing methods are not installation cost.

IEEE P802.16s

Air Interface for Broadband Wireless Access: Amendment Fixed and Mobile Wireless Access in Channel Sizes up to 1.25 MHz draft PAR and CSD 

PAR. 4.3 — Completion of Sponsor ballot in four months seems a bit aggressive and will likely draw NesCom comment.  (There is no penalty for beating PAR dates, but often is NesCom pushback for aggressive dates.)

PAR, 5.3 — If a revision of 802.16 has been approved, it is complete, then it shouldn’t be listed.  If the 802.16 revision is not approved, it is inappropriate to include the year (e.g., use IEEE Std 802.16-201x)

PAR, 7.2 — A joint sponsor (3.3) but not joint development may raise questions.  If this is not new and we have missed it before … never mind.