|
I have an additional comment on the 802.15.11 PAR
- (5.2) "The standard adheres to applicable eye safety regulations."
All 802 standards include the following disclaimer:
IMPORTANT NOTICE: IEEE Standards documents are not intended to ensure safety, security, health,
or environmental protection, or ensure against interference with or from other devices or networks.
Implementers of IEEE Standards documents are responsible for determining and complying with all
appropriate safety, security, environmental, health, and interference protection practices and all
applicable laws and regulations.
the statements in 5.2 directly contradict this prohibition. Delete the sentence.
On 3/14/2017 11:36 AM, James Gilb wrote:
Bob
I have the following comments.
For 802.15.3f
- Change the completion date to 03/2018 to avoid RevCom comments. It will still finish early, but this avoids having to explain this.
For 802.15.4
- Change the completion date to 03/2019 to avoid RevCom comments. It will still finish early, but this avoids having to explain this.
- RevCom requests that the full title of the standards referenced are provided in the PAR. These can be spelled out in 5.5 or they can be listed in 8.1, with the number 5.5 to indicate the section to which the clarification appears. Please add the titles
of the standards for 802.15.4n, 802.15.4q, 802.15.4s, 802.15.4t, 802.15.4u, and 802.15.4v
For 802.15.11
- (5.2) "The standard adheres to applicable eye safety regulations." The standard cannot adhere to safety regulations (unless some really bad writing makes it through the process). Devices compliant to the standard could adhere to applicable eye safety regulations.
Will the people developing the standard review all eye safety regulations for all countries?
I would suggest deleting the sentence.
Also note, that in the Style manual it says "The word safety should be avoided if it is being used to address a set of conditions or practices that have not been established for the purpose of promoting safety under all situations in which such conditions or
practices will be employed. For example, 'the following 10 safety considerations should be reviewed before implementing this practice' should not be used."
- (5.2) The Scope statement needs to be written in past tense, hence "may" is not correct in the sentence "For coordinated topologies, there may be one or more coordinators with the possibility of a global controller." Also, "global" is probably not correct,
there will not be one controller for every system on the planet.
Instead, I would suggest "For coordinated topologies, more than one peer coordinator is supported as well as topologies with multiple peer coordinators with master coordinator."
- (5.2) The Scope statement needs to be written in past tense, hence "may" is not correct in the sentence "The standard may include MIMO, relaying, and mechanisms enabling heterogeneous operation with existing RF wireless data communications standards"
Also, relaying is out of scope, this should be handled by 802.1, not by creating a new bridging method.
The best bet here is to delete the sentence.
- (5.4) "to provide a global solution initially", is confusing and too limiting. Is it only one solution for the entire globe?
It would be better to say "to provide a solution initially"
- (5.4) "unlicensed" change to "license exempt"
- (5.4) "(ii) inherent communication security due to inability to penetrate through optically opaque wall" would be true only if it is operated in an area completely enclosed with optically opaque materials, i.e., no windows, vents, etc.
This is a pretty weak claim and should be deleted.
- (5.4) editorial: "low latency data transferring that meet" should be "low latency data transfer that meets"
James Gilb
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
|