Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

[802SEC] Fwd: My REVCOM comment form for 5 December 2001 RevCom meeting



Attached are my REVCOM Comments on the 802 items that are on their agenda.

The items on submittals other than 802.15 are (hopefully) minor and can be fixed or explained before REVCOM meets next Wednesday. Dave Ringle is already working on solving the balloting group discrepancies.

If anyone wishes to discuss any of these items with me, I will be in all week and mostly at my desk.

Geoff


Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 22:23:40 -0800
To: d.ringle@ieee.org
From: Geoff Thompson <gthompso@nortelnetworks.com>
Subject: My REVCOM comment form for 5 December 2001 RevCom meeting
Cc: thompson@ieee.org

Subject: Comment form for 5 December 2001 RevCom meeting
(Couple of ugly ones in here, mine ain't so good either)

New

P802.15.1/D1.0.1 (C/LM) Standard for Information Technology -
Telecommunications and Information Exchange Between Systems - Local and
Metropolitan Area Networks - Specific Requirements - Part 15.1: Wireless
Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications for
Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs?)

ISSUES
substantive changes made to document:
Sponsor rebuttal to unresolved negative comments: X
balance of balloting group:
patent issues: X
editorial staff comments:
SCC14 comments:
legal issues/legal counsel comments: X
electronic files:
title change:
draft labeling:

DISAPPROVE
I have several major issues with this submittal:

1) The submitter (Vice-Chair) is not the WG Reporter from whom we have the copyright release.

2) Do we have a formal position from Counsel and Staff that establishes that (1) the Bluetooth assurance letter conforms to PatCom requirements for an assurance letter and (2) that the Bluetooth assurance letter relieves 802.15 participants from (a) being subject to a Call for Patents and (b) providing the IEEE with Assurance Letters separate from whatever is provided to the BlueTooth SIG?

3) What happens in general, and with respect to IP Assurance in particular, if the Bluetooth SIG disappears?
What was promised in the PAR was that the project would follow the normal IEEE process regarding assurance letters.

4) The response to item 13 of the submittal form would not be an allowed activity under the terms of the current agreement (item 10).

5) As closely as I can tell, this proposal does not fulfill the Scope and Purpose of the PAR. There seems to be no satisfaction nor mention whatsoever of the implied goal of through the air transfer of data between P802.15 and devices compliant with the established IEEE Std. 802.11.

6) There seems to be an (implicit?) agreement between the IEEE and an outside group which may limit the extent to which IEEE voters could make technical changes for good technical reasons to the starting document. I can't tell. It is my opinion that any agreement which may limit, restrict or change the basis of development of an IEEE Standard must be submitted as part of the REVCOM package in order for REVCOM to provide its proper oversight of the IEEE Standards Development Process. I am suspicious that this may be the underlying cause of the other problems.

7) I am EXCEEDINGLY unhappy with the responses to DISAPPROVE ballots.
The responses are patronizing and flip (e.g. #15) or blatantly non-technical (#1 & #2). In particular, it is my opinion that the response to comments #1 & #2 are (a) technically inadequate (b) are likely to produce user chaos in the marketplace if allowed to proceed according to the BRG scenario (i.e. perhaps neither 802.11 nor 802.15 will work or the implementation that bullies the most will win.) and finally violate the wording and what was understood from that wording in the Scope of the issued PAR.

Additional comments:

I am highly disappointed that 802 (of which I am a member of the governing council) has failed to deal adequately with this coexistence issue. Other similar issues with respect to resolution of conflicting protocols has been adequately dealt with in the past (Auto-negotiation between 802.3 UTP, 802.9a and 100 Mb Token ring, all at the RJ-45 interface).

There is no explanation of what portion of the proposed Standard is required for posting, CD or diskette (item 15b).

The 2001 list of Standards board members in the submitted front matter is incorrect.

P802.16/D5 (C/LM) Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks -
Part 16: Air Interface for Fixed Broadband Wireless Access Systems

ISSUES
substantive changes made to document:
Sponsor rebuttal to unresolved negative comments:
balance of balloting group:
patent issues:
editorial staff comments:
SCC14 comments:         NOT RECEIVED
legal issues/legal counsel comments:
electronic files:
title change:           DOESN'T MATCH PAR
draft labeling:

DISAPPROVE

Additional comments:
Text in Scope and Purpose of draft does not match that on the PAR

(Minor, for future reference)  Incorrect entry in submittal form:
        Item 4, should be "Computer Society/LMSC
        Item 5, should be "Computer Society/LMSC"


....(non 802 items edited out)



Revision
....(non 802 items edited out)


P802.3ag/D2.0 (C/LM) Standard for Information Technology -
Telecommunications and Information Exchange Between Systems - Local and
Metropolitan Area Networks - Specific Requirements - Part 3: Carrier Sense
Multiple Access with Collision Detection (CSMA/CD) Access Method and
Physical Layer Specifications: Maintenance Ballot #6

ISSUES
substantive changes made to document:
Sponsor rebuttal to unresolved negative comments:
balance of balloting group:
patent issues:
editorial staff comments:
SCC14 comments:
legal issues/legal counsel comments:
electronic files:
title change:
draft labeling:

DISAPPROVE

Additional comments:
 - The submittal draft does not meet the requirements of the SB-Operations Manual clause 5.5 para 1 and 9.2 para 3. What was submitted was the final balloted text. The revised entire Standard is under preparation by the publications and should be available in time for the REVCOM meeting.
 - The hoped for Assurance Letter mentioned in my submittal cover letter has not yet appeared. I hope it will  show up before the REVCOM meeting and thus avoid major embarrassment.
....(non 802 items edited out)

Reaffirmation

802.1H-1997 (C/LM) IEEE Recommended Practice for Media Access Control (MAC)
Bridging of Ethernet V2.0 in IEEE 802 Local Area Networks

ISSUES
substantive changes made to document:
Sponsor rebuttal to unresolved negative comments:
balance of balloting group:     One balloter is not categorized, (Rocher)
patent issues:
editorial staff comments:
SCC14 comments:
legal issues/legal counsel comments:
electronic files:
title change:
draft labeling:

DISAPPROVE

Additional comments:

|================================================|
| Geoffrey O. Thompson                           |
| Chair IEEE 802.3                               |
| Nortel Networks, Inc.  M/S SC5-02              |
| 4401 Great America Parkway                     |
| P. O. Box 58185                                |
| Santa Clara, CA 95052-8185  USA                |
| Phone: +1 408 495 1339                         |
| Fax:   +1 408 495 5615                         |
| E-Mail: thompson@ieee.org                      |
| Please see the IEEE 802.3 web page at          |
| http://www.ieee802.org/3/index.html
| To download your FREE copy of Std. IEEE 802.3  |
| http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/802.3.html