Submission doc.: IEEE 802-11- 15/0229r3 March 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSR Slide 1 802-11 PAR Review March 2015 Date: 2015-03-12 Authors: N am e A ffiliations A ddress Phone em ail Jon Rosdahl CSR TechnologiesInc 10871 N 5750 W Highland, UT 84003 +1-801-492-4023 [email protected]
38
Embed
Submission doc.: IEEE 802-11-15/0229r3 March 2015 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 1 802-11 PAR Review March 2015 Date: 2015-03-12 Authors:
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Submission
doc.: IEEE 802-11-15/0229r3March 2015
Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 1
802-11 PAR Review March 2015Date: 2015-03-12
Name Affiliations Address Phone email Jon Rosdahl CSR Technologies Inc 10871 N 5750 W
802c- Amendment: Local Media Access Control (MAC) Addressing, PAR (cont)
5.4 – Problem statement not clearly defined in the need statement. “While we agree that the number of IoT devices may use more of the Local MAC Address space, please explain in the need section why the Local MAC Address space requires the simultaneous use of Multiple Local MAC Address Administrators.”
6.1b – CID is not defined and is only used once…just spell it out “Company Identifier ”
5.2b and 6.1b – “Company ID” – Should be “Company Identifier” (2 instances)
802.1Qcj- Amendment, Automatic Attachment to Provider Backbone Bridging (PBB) services, PAR and
CSD
5.2 Scope – First use of LAN/VLAN/MAC should have been spelled out…WG may consider for revision project, we understand that it was missed when the base standard PAR was approved.
IEEE 802.24 approved a scope document for a new IEEE 802.24 TAG Task Group focused on Internet of things (IoT) vertical applications.
The document was approved 7/0/0 by IEEE 802.24 and can be found at:https://mentor.ieee.org/802.24/dcn/15/24-15-0003-00-0000-iot-scope-form.docx
I expect to bring this for approval during the Friday closing meeting during the March plenary.
According to the procedure adopted by the IEEE 802 EC, such documents need to be circulated 30 days in advance of the plenary meeting.
Comments from WGs are due by 6:30 pm local time on Tuesday during the plenary meeting.
Responses from IEEE 802.24 are due by 6:30 pm local time on Wednesday during the plenary meeting.
Members of IEEE 802.24 will be seeking votes of support from IEEE 802 WGs during the week. I will advise the appropriate WG Chairs when such a motion will be requested.
2. Customer – ‘Customer’ is what is being asked to be identified…please identify “who the customer” is to answer the question.
3. Similar Groups – What are the “in identified IoT vertical applications”? What are the liaison opportunities? Would a liaison with “IEEE P2413” be one of those opportunities? What about any opportunities with those groups identified in #4?
Slide 16
March 2015
Submission
doc.: IEEE 802-11-15/0229r3
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
Motion to Send Feedback to 802 WGs
Move to send feedback prepared by PAR Review SC to the respective IEEE 802 WGs as documented in 11-14/0229r1.
Moved: Dan Harkins
2nd: Michelle Turner
Results: 8-0-0 motion passes.
Slide 17
March 2015
Submission
doc.: IEEE 802-11-15/0229r3
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
Email sent to EC Reflector – 10 March 2015Hello, 802.11 Par Review SC has posted comments on behalf of 802.11 in document 11-15/229r1.: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/15/11-15-0229-01-0PAR-802-11-par-review-meeting-slides-and-minutes-march-2015.pptx
Comments were provided for the following: 802c - slide 4, 5, 6
802.1Qci - slide 8
802.15.3e - slide 12, 13
Privacy Recommendation EC Study Group: slide 14
802.24 IoT New Task Group Request slide 16
No comments were submitted for : 802.1Qci
802.3bq
802.3bz
Thank you for consideration of our comments.The file has also been attached for your convenience,JonChair PAR Review SC, IEEE 802.11
802c - Amendment: Local Media Access Control (MAC) Addressing, PAR and CSD
2.1 Expand Acronym “MAC” – “Media Access Control (MAC)”
5.2b Change “local address space” to “local MAC address space”
5.4 – Change “unique addresses” to “unique MAC addresses”
Change “local address” to “local MAC address” - 3 places.
–Agree with all except it is Medium Access Control
Slide 21
March 2015
Submission
doc.: IEEE 802-11-15/0229r3
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
802c - Amendment: Local Media Access Control (MAC) Addressing, PAR and CSD
5.4 – Problem statement not clearly defined in the need statement. “ While we agree that the number of IoT devices may use more of the Local MAC Address space, please explain in the need section why the Local MAC Address space requires the simultaneous use of Multiple Local MAC Address Administrators.”
–Accept (but need is 5.5), see following slide
•6.1b –CID is not defined and is only used once...just spell it out “Company Identifier ” – Accept
5.2b and 6.1b – “Company ID” – Should be “Company
Identifier” (2 instances) – Accept
Slide 22
March 2015
Submission
doc.: IEEE 802-11-15/0229r3
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
802c - Amendment: Local Media Access Control (MAC) Addressing, PAR and CSD
Compatibility – Just say “Yes”, delete the rest. –Accept
• Distinct Identity – Suggested change: “There are no guidelines for using the Local MAC Address space in existing standards.”
–Accept • Technical Feasibility – Check the cited standard (possibly incorrect citation format) and include the full name of standard inline or as a note.
–Accept • Economic Feasibility – change “...local address distribution or claiming…” to “…local MAC Address distribution or claiming…”
802.15.3e Response to Commentsa word doc containing responses to the comments received from 802.3
and 802.11 on the 15.3e PAR and CSD. Also attached is a revised CSD including the proposed changes. Final changes to the PAR must be done by the NesCom Admin so a revised PAR is not attached but the suggested changes are included in the comment responses. Please let me know if you have any further comments or questions.
Responses to IEEE 802.11 comments on the 802.15.3e PAR and CSD
5.2.a. Scope of the complete standard: This standard defines PHY and MAC specifications for high data rate wireless connectivity with fixed, portable and moving devices. Data rates are high enough to satisfy a set of consumer multimedia industry needs, as well as to support emerging wireless switched point-to-point and high rate close proximity applications.
Action: Modify the scope of the 802.15.3 standard to the following. We did not elect to use the suggested resolution since 1 bps would qualify as high rate with that wording.
Also a reminder that this is the revised scope for the base standard not this project hence the lower number.
This standard defines PHY and MAC specifications for high data rate wireless connectivity (typically over 200 Mbps) with fixed, portable and moving devices. Data rates are high enough to satisfy a set of consumer multimedia industry needs such as streaming HD video, as well as to support emerging wireless switched point-to-point and high rate close proximity applications.
Submission
doc.: IEEE 802-11-15/0229r3
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
Responses to IEEE 802.11 comments on the 802.15.3e PAR and CSD
Slide 27
March 2015
5.4 – “High” and “Low” are relative terms that should be defined as what is “High” or “Low” reword without “high” or “low”
“Wireless switched point-to-point” – what is this? Does “switched” relate to a packet or connection type switch?
Should intra-device really be inter-device?
Wireless backhaul/fronthaul? – what is meant by this?
5.4 Purpose: The purpose of this standard is to provide for low complexity, low cost, low power consumption, high data rate wireless connectivity among devices supporting a variety of applications including things like a set of consumer multimedia industry needs, wireless switched point-to-point applications in data centers, wireless backhaul/fronthaul intra-device communications and a wide variety of additional use cases such as rapid large multimedia data downloads and file exchanges between two devices in close proximity, including between mobile devices and stationary devices (kiosks, ticket gates, etc.), and/or wireless data storage devices.
Action: Disagree. This language has already been approved by NesCom as part of 802.15.3 base standard revised purpose included in the 802.15.3d PAR.
Note: The use of the term “intra-device” is correct.
Submission
doc.: IEEE 802-11-15/0229r3
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
Responses to IEEE 802.11 comments on the 802.15.3e PAR and CSD
Slide 28
March 2015
7.1 Similar Scope – 802.11ad and 802.11ay are similar. Please note similarities and differences.
7.1 Are there other standards or projects with a similar scope?: No
802.15.3 and 802.15.3c preceded 802.11ad and 802.11ay. 802.15.3e merely builds on 802.15.3 and 802.15.3c to support new applications in the 802.15.3 family. 802.11ay was not available while this PAR was being drafted.
Submission
doc.: IEEE 802-11-15/0229r3
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
Responses to IEEE 802.11 comments on the 802.15.3e PAR and CSD
Slide 29
March 2015
CSD:
Broad sets of applicability: “high rate” –nebulous – give range to define what is “high rate”
a) Broad sets of applicability.
There is a need for close proximity high rate communications to service the transmission and rapid exchange of large data files based on close proximity, point-to-point connections, potentially to large numbers of mobile devices in the same space. This amendment consists of IEEE 802.15.3 MAC additions and an unlicensed 60GHz Physical layer, delivering date rates up to 100Gbps, for use in a wide variety of use cases such as rapid large multimedia data downloads and file exchanges between two close proximity devices, i.e. mobile devices, stationary devices (kiosks, ticket gates, etc.), and other wirelessly enabled data storage devices.
Action: Revise CSD 1.2.1a to read as follows:
There is a need for close proximity high rate communications to service the transmission and rapid exchange (subseconds) of large data files (on the order of 25 Gbits) based on close proximity, point-to-point connections, potentially to large numbers of mobile devices in the same space. This amendment consists of IEEE 802.15.3 MAC additions and an unlicensed 60GHz Physical layer, delivering date rates up to 100Gbps, for use in a wide variety of use cases such as rapid large multimedia data downloads and file exchanges between two close proximity devices, i.e. mobile devices, stationary devices (kiosks, ticket gates, etc.), and other wirelessly enabled data storage devices.
Submission
doc.: IEEE 802-11-15/0229r3
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
Responses to IEEE 802.11 comments on the 802.15.3e PAR and CSD
Slide 30
March 2015
CSD:
Multiple vendors: Please answer the question about the market potential not the attendees affiliations.
b) Multiple vendors and numerous users.
There have been 20-30 people, affiliated with 10 or so companies, participating in the development of this project and actively showing interest. Participants include international wireless carriers/service providers, academic researchers, government research laboratories, semiconductor manufacturers, communication equipment manufacturers, system integrators and end users.
Action: Revise CSD 1.2.1b to read as follows.
There are a large number of multimedia companies who are expected to serve this application space. The application is aimed at a broad consumer market which is comprised of a large number of users. Participants in the standard include chip vendors, chip designers, technology suppliers, radio frequency (RF) equipment manufacturers, infrastructure providers, international wireless carriers/service providers, academic researchers, government research laboratories, semiconductor manufacturers, communication equipment manufacturers, system integrators and consumers.
Submission
doc.: IEEE 802-11-15/0229r3
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
Responses to IEEE 802.11 comments on the 802.15.3e PAR and CSD
Slide 31
March 2015
1.2.4 don’t list the corporations in the CSD, but do cite reference to the evidence alluded to.
1.2.4 Technical Feasibility
Each proposed IEEE 802 LMSC standard shall provide evidence that the project is technically feasible within the time frame of the project. At a minimum, address the following items to demonstrate technical feasibility:a) Demonstrated system feasibility.
The sequence of link setup, data transfer and link release occurring within a short duration has already been demonstrated for point-to-point wireless communication systems by Sony, Toshiba and others.
b) Proven similar technology via testing, modeling, simulation, etc.
Similar main components of the technology and signaling are being used in today’s systems by Sony, Toshiba and others. Hence, the involved testing overhead associated with a commercial development undertaken by manufacturers is known to be reasonable.
Action: Revise CSD 1.2.4a and b to read as follows.
a) Demonstrated system feasibility.
The sequence of link setup, data transfer and link release occurring within a short duration has already been demonstrated for point-to-point wireless communication systems by a number of multimedia organizations and universities such as TU Braunschweig.
b) Proven similar technology via testing, modeling, simulation, etc.
Similar main components of the technology and signaling are being used today in proprietary commercial systems and in research laboratories at University institutions such as TU Braunschweig.
Submission
doc.: IEEE 802-11-15/0229r3
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
Responses to IEEE 802.11 comments on the 802.15.3e PAR and CSD
Slide 32
March 2015
1.2.5c) do not use “Wi-Fi” change to “WLAN” or delete
c) Consideration of installation costs.The installation of fixed standalone terminals would be similar to that of installing Wi-Fi access points and when included in devices like ticket gates would not add to the installation cost of that gate
The Privacy EC SG has received several comments on the PAR/CSD. We appreciate the feedback received. Comments have been captured in the following file:
The group believes that some comments require further and more detailed consideration. Therefore, I have been appointed by the group to request to the EC withdrawing the Privacy EC SG PAR proposal from the March 13th Agenda.
Comment responses will still be provided by March 12th.
Best regards,
Juan Carlos (Privacy EC SG Chair - http://www.ieee802.org/PrivRecsg/)
4.2 and 4.3 need to include target dates for completion. Should be at least 6 months apart.
See previous response to Roger Mark’s comment
5.2 Change “document” to “recommended practice”
5.4 delete “document” result “The recommended practice…”
5.5 change “and certain threats” to “and certain privacy threats”
5.5 change “with IETF in many” to “with IETF on many”
5.5 change “guidelines” to “recommendations”Agree with the above
CSD:
Distinct Identity: change “defines privacy” to “defines a privacy” and “practice” to “practices”
Economic Feasibility – Question was not answered need to provide evidence and address the requested specific areas “a) through e)”.
See previous response to Roger Mark’s comment. We will address this in a future version of the CSD
Slide 34
March 2015
Submission
doc.: IEEE 802-11-15/0229r3
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
Privacy EC SG: Comments from Roger Marks
CSD Economical Feasibility
The response does not address economic feasibility.
Increased privacy has economic benefits to some parties and is an economic threat to others. These issues should be articulated. Should probably state that Privacy control should enhance, not
degrade, security and functionality. Please see: https://mentor.ieee.org/omniran/dcn/15/omniran-15-0015-00-CF00-privacy-engineered-access-network.pptx
(Consider adding a clear statement like the one used in IETF)
There are examples of solutions that improve privacy without increasing significantly the cost (e.g. MAC address randomization)
IEEE 802.24 TAG has created a response to the comments received regarding the scope document for the formation an IEEE 802.24 TAG Task Group on IoT.
The responses can be found at:https://mentor.ieee.org/802.24/dcn/15/24-15-0010-00-IoTg-response-to-scope-comments.pdf
Changes were made to the scope document in response to the comments and the updated document can be found at:https://mentor.ieee.org/802.24/dcn/15/24-15-0003-01-0000-iot-scope-form.docx