| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
| Colleagues: I have taken a look at the proposed 802.15.4 project and have some comments on both the PAR and CSD. Because we are now in our pre-plenary dead week, Mr. Law may need to schedule an ad hoc meeting for the plenary week to refine 802.3 comments on this proposed Amendment PAR. Any reaction to my comments below would assist in preparation for such a meeting if felt necessary. —Bob ————— PAR: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.15/dcn/23/15-23-0040-00-0017-propsed-par-for-task-group-privacy.pdf 1.1 — Amendment projects are identified with letters that follow the base standard number. This PAR does not have such letters. It appears to an outsider that the number should be P802.15.4ac. 6.1.2 — The mention in the CSD of possible use of “randomized and changing addresses” would certainly raise RAC concern, not just the possibility of assigning a OUI to the standard. 7.1 — The sentence in 8.1 would make the correct answer to this question Yes. 8.1 — The item the to which the note applies should be stated, and grammar could be improved. Suggest: “7.1 — This topic of this project is similar to ongoing work in other IEEE standards, like IEEE Std 802.11 work on enhancing privacy, but this project will specifically address needs for 802.15.4 interfaces. This project where appropriate, will apply what has been learned in those other privacy related activites." Title in header table — The title here should agree better with with the Amendment Title, either the compete 2.1 "IEEE Standard for Low-Rate Wireless Networks Amendment: Privacy Enhancements”, or at a minimum: "Privacy Enhancements”. Title at top of page 2 — Needs to agree with PAR per previous comment. 1.1.1 — The edited answer to No now makes the response unresponsive. 1.1.1 asks where the management objects will be developed namely item a, b, or c for most all projects. 1.1.2,b — With the No answer to item a, an answer needs to be provided for why a CA document isn’t required. If true, something like: “This project will not be modifying any of the radio properties of IEEE Std 802.15.4 that would affect spectral coexistence.” 1.2.2,a — It would be appropriate to indicate if the project will be compatible with IEEE Std 802c-2017, especially since the answer to 1.2.1a hints at the use of random addresses. —————
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 |