November 2008

Jon Rosdahl, CSR

Slide 1

doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/1310r0

Submission

Pending PARs for approval at November Plenary

Date: 2008-11-10

Name Affiliations Address Phone email Jon Rosdahl CSR Highland, Utah jrosdahl@ieee.org

Authors:

November 2008

Jon Rosdahl, CSR

Slide 2

doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/1310r0

Submission

Abstract

At the November 2008 802 Plenary, there are a number of PARs from various Working Groups that are being proposed for 802 EC approval. This Submission lists those PARs for discussion and attempts to provide a base location to collect the comments from 802.11 members.

November 2008

Jon Rosdahl, CSR

Slide 3

doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/1310r0

Submission

Required Process• At the Plenary meeting in Dallas next month, the

proposed PARs should have been reviewed by the membership of each WG prior to the 802 EC consideration. 

• We (WG11) have until Tuesday 5pm (17:00) to provide any comments on any of the proposed PARs.  If we provide any comment ( or requested changes), the WG proposing PAR will respond by Wed 5pm (17:00).

• The WG chairs will then be able to determine the final dispositions during the closing 802 EC (Approve or Disapprove).

November 2008

Jon Rosdahl, CSR

Slide 4

doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/1310r0

Submission

PAR Comment Discussion Meeting

• Monday 19:30-21:30 (7:30pm-9:30pm)

• Mtg Room: Baker -- 2nd Floor Atrium

November 2008

Jon Rosdahl, CSR

Slide 5

doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/1310r0

Submission

Proposed PARs 802.3 (1)

• IEEE P802.3.1 Standard for Management Information Base (MIB) definitions for Ethernet

– Draft PAR [http://www.ieee802.org/3/maint/public/par_draft_p80231.pdf]

– Draft 5C [ http://www.ieee802.org/3/maint/public/frazier_2_0908.pdf]

• IEEE P802.3-2008/Cor 1 (IEEE 802.3bb) Corrigendum 1 Timing considerations for PAUSE operation

– Draft PAR [ http://www.ieee802.org/3/maint/public/par_draft_p8023bb.pdf ]

November 2008

Jon Rosdahl, CSR

Slide 6

doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/1310r0

Submission

Proposed PARs 802.3 (2) • IEEE P802.3bc Amendment: Ethernet

Organizationally Specific TLVs – Draft PAR [

http://www.ieee802.org/3/maint/public/par_draft_p8023bc.pdf].

• IEEE P802.3at DTE Power Via MDI Enhancements, modification to Existing Approved PAR– Draft modified PAR [

http://www.ieee802.org/3/at/802d3at_modified_PAR.pdf]

November 2008

Jon Rosdahl, CSR

Slide 7

doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/1310r0

Submission

Proposed PARs 802.11

• IEEE P802.11 Revision PAR for IEEE Std 802.11-2007– Draft PAR [ 

https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/file/08/11-08-1149-01-0000-revision-par-proposal-802-11-2007.doc]

• IEEE P802.11 Very High Throughput 60 GHz PAR– Draft PAR and 5C [

https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/file/08/11-08-0609-03-0vht-below-6ghz-par-and-5c-s-submission.doc]

November 2008

Jon Rosdahl, CSR

Slide 8

doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/1310r0

Submission

Proposed PARs 802.15 (1)• IEEE 802.15.4f Wireless Medium Access

Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications for Low Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) - Amendment: Active RFID System PHY

– Draft PAR [https://mentor.ieee.org/802.15/file/08/15-08-0664-03-rfid-draft-par.pdf].

– Draft 5C [https://mentor.ieee.org/802.15/file/08/15-08-0665-02-rfid-draft-5c-document.pdf].

November 2008

Jon Rosdahl, CSR

Slide 9

doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/1310r0

Submission

Proposed PARs 802.15 (2)

• IEEE 802.15.4f Wireless Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications for Low Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) - Amendment: Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications for Low Data Rate Wireless Neighborhood Area Networks (WNAN)

– Draft PAR [ https://mentor.ieee.org/802.15/file/08/15-08-0705-03-0nan-wnan-par.pdf]

– Draft 5C [ https://mentor.ieee.org/802.15/file/08/15-08-0706-01-0nan-wnan-5c.pdf].

November 2008

Jon Rosdahl, CSR

Slide 10

doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/1310r0

Submission

Proposed PARs 802.15 (3)

• IEEE 802.15.7 PHY and MAC standard for short-range wireless optical communication using visible light

– Draft PAR [ https://mentor.ieee.org/802.15/file/08/15-08-0656-01-0vlc-par-document.pdf]

– Draft 5C [ https://mentor.ieee.org/802.15/file/08/15-08-0667-01-0vlc-5c-draft.pdf]

November 2008

Jon Rosdahl, CSR

Slide 11

doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/1310r0

Submission

Proposed PAR 802.20

• IEEE P802.20b MAC Bridging Support

– Draft PAR [ http://ieee802.org/20/WG_Docs/802.20-08-15.pdf]

November 2008

Jon Rosdahl, CSR

Slide 12

doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/1310r0

Submission

Proposed PARs 802.21

• IEEE P802.21 Media Independent Handover Services - Extensions for Supporting Downlink Only Broadcast Technologies

– Draft PAR and 5C [ https://mentor.ieee.org/802.21/file/08/21-08-0260-04-bcst-broadcast-handovers-sg-par-5c.doc]

November 2008

Jon Rosdahl, CSR

Slide 13

doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/1310r0

Submission

802.15.4 RFID PAR and 5C Comments Received from Andrew Myles

• The 802.15.4 RFID PAR & 5C are incomplete and should not be approved because:– The 5C & PAR incorrectly claim there is no existing international

standard 

– The 5C & PAR need to include evidence that there is user demand for yet another RFID standard 

– The 5C & PAR need explain what technical deficiencies of existing systems the proposed standard will address 

– The 5C & PAR needs to provide a better justification of technical feasibility for a unified standard that addresses the requirements of all market segments

– The 5C & PAR need to acknowledge the use of 802.11 in this space today and explain why a 802.15.4 based solution will be significantly better

November 2008

Jon Rosdahl, CSR

Slide 14

doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/1310r0

Submission

802.15.4 RFID PAR and 5C Comments (2)

• The 802.15.4 RFID 5C & PAR incorrectly claim there is no existing international standard– It is asserted in the 5C that there is a need for an international

standard for active RFID, and it is asserted in the PAR that is there in no international standard.

– However, it appears that this is not true, with the 5C even quoting the number of an ISO standard. 

– There are also other quasi international standards in this space that need to be acknowledged

– The 5C and PAR need to be modified to correct this error.– I suspect what is meant is that there no suitable international

standard, but such a statement needs justification.

November 2008

Jon Rosdahl, CSR

Slide 15

doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/1310r0

Submission

802.15.4 RFID PAR and 5C Comments (3)

• The 802.15.4 RFID 5C & PAR need to include evidence that there is user demand for yet another RFID standard– The 5C and PAR asserts that active RFID tags have not been

successful so far because there are too many options available, which has reduced interoperability and economies of scale.

– This may be true – However, it is not explained how the development of yet another

standard will actually assist solve this problem, particularly in a context where 802.15.4 does not have much scale today, certainly in comparison with, say, 802.11.

– The 5C and PAR need to be modified to include evidence that there is user demand for yet another standard.

November 2008

Jon Rosdahl, CSR

Slide 16

doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/1310r0

Submission

802.15.4 RFID PAR and 5C Comments (4)

• The 802.15.4 RFID 5C & PAR need explain what technical deficiencies of existing systems the proposed standard will address– One reason that would justify a new standard is that all the

existing mechanisms are missing functionality from a technical perspective

– If this is not the case, why not just submit one of the existing mechanisms to EPCGlobal, IEEE or ISO.

– However, the PAR & 5C does not even address the issue of whether existing systems are technically deficient

– The PAR & 5C need to be modified to explain what technical deficiencies of existing systems the proposed standard will address 

November 2008

Jon Rosdahl, CSR

Slide 17

doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/1310r0

Submission

802.15.4 RFID PAR and 5C Comments (5)

• The 802.15.4 RFID 5C & PAR needs to provide a better justification of feasibility for a unified standard that addresses the requirements of all market segments– One reason that the active RFID market is segmented today is that

each market segment has different requirements

– However, the 5C and PAR assume that a unified standard can achieve the goals of every market segment

– Even worse, it bases technical feasibility for the unified standard on an argument that the existing standards are technically feasible

– The 5C and PAR need to demonstrate technical feasibility for the unified standard, not just a subset

November 2008

Jon Rosdahl, CSR

Slide 18

doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/1310r0

Submission

802.15.4 RFID PAR and 5C Comments (6)

• The 802.15.4 RFID 5C & PAR need to acknowledge the use of 802.11 in this space today and explain why a 802.15.4 based solution will be significantly better– It is asserted in the 5C that the proposed active RFID functionality is not

addressed in any existing 802 standard.– However, there is a growing opinion among many in the industry that

802.11 based systems could dominate this space– There are already several start-ups that are showing WiFi based sensor

chips with very low power and cost – and of course with WiFi you don’t require a separate infrastructure.

– The PAR & 5C need to be modified to recognise the existing use of 802.11 in the active tag space, and explain why 802.15.4 offers significant benefits over 802.11. 

– The answer should account for the fact that 802.11 based solutions exist today, whereas 802.15.4 based solutions will not exist for some years (5 years?)

November 2008

Jon Rosdahl, CSR

Slide 19

doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/1310r0

Submission

802.15 NAN PAR & 5C Comments from Andrew Myles

• 1) This amendment proposes operation within at least the 2.4 GHz band, including ranges of up to 5 km with omni antennas, and simultaneous operation for at least 3 co-location orthogonal networks. Further, at the NAN tutorial proponents advocated a frequency hopping PHY technology. In 8.1, a transmit power up to 1W is indicated.

• Yet 2.4 GHz is a crowded band with dense WLAN deployments and regular Bluetooth usage, each offering tremendous value to their users. We have seen that coexistence with frequency hoppers is difficult as they consume the whole band making frequency planning impossible.

November 2008

Jon Rosdahl, CSR

Slide 20

doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/1310r0

Submission

802.15 NAN PAR & 5C Comments (2)

• Accordingly, coexistence is a grave concern: the PAR is for a latecomer to a mature band, the technology's impact will be at high TX power and over a wide area, and the technology's proponents favor a technology with poor coexistence characteristics. In this context, the language in the scope "This amendment also addresses coexistence with other 802 wireless standards operating in the same bands." is inadequately weak.

• The 2.4 GHz band should be removed from the PAR scope, or the PAR language should be strengthened. Proposed substitute language is "Devices complying with this amendment shall minimally impact the operation of 802.11 and 802.15 devices, along with other 802 wireless devices, already operating in the same bands.“

November 2008

Jon Rosdahl, CSR

Slide 21

doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/1310r0

Submission

802.15 NAN PAR & 5C Comments (3)

• 2) The PAR does not acknowledge that 802.11 or 802.16 is likely a better home for its work than 802.15.– a) 5km range is wildly outside the scope of Personal

Area Networking. 802.11 (through 11y) and 802.16 both have far greater expertise in outdoor channel models, and systems for same.

– b) Contrary to 5.5 "The 802.11 standards have been optimized for high data rates along with support for star network topologies with centralized control.", 802.11 is already providing a mesh amendment that addresses is concern. 802.16 also has work in this area.