| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Colleagues: I'm rather slow getting around to my review of PARs from other WGs for the upcoming meeting, but here are my observations. I personally find the 802.1 and 802.11 submissions of high quality, and would extend my congratulations to those groups. Unfortunately, the 802.15 submission isn’t of similar quality. If any of you wish to comment on the below this week, it would be appreciated. —Bob P802.1ABdh - Amendment Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks - Station and Media Access Control Connectivity Discovery Amendment: Support for Multiframe Protocol Data Units No comment. 1.2.4,b, Technical Feasibility — Though the CSD does not go to NesCom, it might be helpful to some if “ISIS” was expanded. 1.2.5, Economic Feasibility — Arguable if the second paragraph ("The incremental costs of the new capability are minimal compared to the benefits specified by the amendment.”) adequately answers the three cost issues (known costs, installation costs, operational costs). After thought, I personally am content with the answer. ————— P802.1Qdj - Amendment Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks--Bridges and Bridged Networks Amendment: Configuration Enhancements No comment. No comment. ————— P802.11ay- PAR extension No comment. ————— P802.11az - PAR extension No comment. ————— P802.15.9ma - Revision Standard for Transport of Key Management Protocol (KMP) NOTE - The revision upgrades the document from a Recommended Practice to a full Standard. 5.2, Scope — The new scope reads more like the need for the project or the project purpose would it it were an amendment project. It is not of the quality of the previous Scope statement. Recommend deletion of first sentence (the last sentence makes the point). Replace “Additionally it” with “This Standard”. Add any additional description on what the revised standard will contain (no mays) could be added. The Scope should not contain “may be added” statements, delete the “New KPM…” sentence. 5.3, Dependence on other projects — The question is not answered. 5.5, Need — Replace the last sentence with: “This revision will address the above deficiencies.” 6.1.b, Registration activity — The current recommended practice contains registration activity (OUI, CID, and Ethertype specifications, reference to IANA Dragonfly registry, and has the KMP registry of Table E.1 where the standard itself is the registration authority). Therefore, the answer to this question should be yes. If no significant changes are expected in the revision, that can be added to the explanation. The project number in the Title field of the 802.15 document header does not agree with the number on the PAR. 1.2.4, b, Technical Feasibility — I think “802.1x" should be “802.1X”. 1.2.5, c, Installation Cost — The answer about “manufacturing” is non responsive to installation. Perhaps leverage the answer to Balanced Cost would be appropriate, existing equipment may be upgradable via firmware upgrade, and installation costs would not vary from current products implementing the recommended practice. —Bob To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-DIALOG list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-DIALOG&A=1 |