[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 |
| To download your FREE copy of Std. IEEE 802.3 |
|
http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/802.3.html