1 / 18

WG11 response to Proposed 802 PAR - March Orlando Plenary

WG11 response to Proposed 802 PAR - March Orlando Plenary. Date: 2010-03-16. Authors:. Abstract. 802.11 WG comments on the proposed PARs for the 2010 March Plenary. 802.23: slides3-12 – 3 major issues, one suggested change 802.16: slides 12-17 – one suggested change, and one issue

mcgoldrick
Download Presentation

WG11 response to Proposed 802 PAR - March Orlando Plenary

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. WG11 response to Proposed 802 PAR - March Orlando Plenary Date: 2010-03-16 Authors: Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  2. Abstract 802.11 WG comments on the proposed PARs for the 2010 March Plenary. 802.23: slides3-12 – 3 major issues, one suggested change 802.16: slides 12-17 – one suggested change, and one issue 802.1: slide17 – one comment 802.3: slide 18 – no comment Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  3. From the 802.23 PAR (ES-ECSG) • 5.2 Scope: This standard defines a mechanism that supports compliance within IEEE 802 to applicable civil authority requirements for citizen-to-authority emergency services packet data communications. Specifically, it supports the need for consistent data that is required for citizen-to-authority emergency services packet data encoded session initiation requests. A new MAC or PHY is outside the scope of this effort. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  4. From the 802.23 PAR (ES-ECSG) • 5.4 Purpose: The purpose of this standard is to support compliance to civil authority requirements complementary to IETF ECRIT specifications for citizen to authority emergency services functionality. This standard intends to encompass voice, data and multi-media requests across IEEE 802 using a new Layer 2 entity and associated behaviors and provide a uniform Structure of Management Information (SMI) for transferring required data for emergency services requests. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  5. From the 802.23 PAR (ES-ECSG) • 5.5 Need for the Project: VoIP emergency calls are currently less effective than those provided by traditional wireline and cellular networks. Emergency calls across IEEE 802 technologies need to support regulatory requirements to assure successful completion (and all associated requirements) of these calls to the correct Public Service Access Point (PSAP), and to do so utilizing the existing set of IEEE 802 PHYs and MACs. • 5.6 Stakeholders for the Standard: Emergency Service authorities and government agencies (e.g. National Emergency Number Authority (NENA), and the equivalent bodies in the rest of the world); IETF; other telecom, cellular and emergency services standards development organizations (e.g. IETF, Third generation Partnership Project (3GPP), ETSI-Emergency Telecommunications (EMTEL)). Within IEEE 802, the expected stake holders will be 802.1, 802.3, 802.11, 802.16, 802.20 and 802.22 as potential Layer 2 alternatives and 802.21 for related handover development. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  6. From the 802.23 PAR (ES-ECSG) • 8.1 Additional Explanatory Notes (Item Number and Explanation): There are increasingly uniform regulatory requirements that are being imposed on telephone systems across the world on the handling of calls to Emergency Services (911 calls in the US, for example). These requirements have been extended to cellular telephony and are being further extended to cover all cases of packet based telephony services. Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) is the most common of these. VoIP calls can easily originate on an 802 network. There is a need for such calls to be handled uniformly at the interface between the 802 Layer 2 network and the Internet. IETF-ECRIT is the group tasked with developing the Internet standards to meet these requirements for the upper layers of the protocol stack. This 802 effort will work with ECRIT to develop a complete solution. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  7. Concerns with the Emergency Services Study Group 802.23 PAR (ES-ECSG) • Missing Requirement definition • Regulatory Authorities’ requirements not listed • ECRIT Requirements and coordination • Support level is insufficient • Timing of moving from SG to WG (TG) Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  8. Missing Requirement definition (EC-ECSG) • Regulatory Authorities’ requirements are not listed • Request for specific requirements that can be identified to be listed in the PAR. • ECRIT Requirements missing from PAR and 5c; Coordination with ECRIT did not occur in SG activities • Specific Requirements from ECRIT for 802 be included in PAR • Specific plan for coordination with ECRIT. • Create a Liaison relationship with ECRIT to ensure close coordination and cooperation with ECRIT. • Please describe the plan for addressing these points. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  9. Support level is insufficient (ES-ECSG) • Concern: The participation level at the SG meetings has been fairly light. Concern that for a new project that sufficient support be demonstrated to warrant the new effort. Attendance by practical Experts is also a concern. • Suggestion: delay the start of the WG/TG until more support is garnered. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  10. Timing of moving from SG to WG (TG)(ES-ECG) • Concern: The Study Group should continue to gather the complete set of requirements from Regulatory Authorities and ECRIT before progressing to a WG/TG. • Concern: IEEE-SA expects that the SG is convened for 6 months, and then a project is given opportunity to progress. Without a PAR the group does not have full indemnity. • Concern: Prior to creating a WG, the requirements of the Project should be defined. • Please explain how the SG has evaluated the competing concerns Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  11. Specific Suggested PAR changes(ES-ECSG) • 8.1 …(Item Number and Explanation): • The 8.1 clause does not include an “Item Number” suggest “5.2 Scope” be inserted. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  12. 802.16 PARas stated in proposed PAR • 5.2 Scope of Proposed Standard: • This amendment specifies changes to the most recently approved version of the IEEE 802.16 MAC with its management and data interfaces for operation with increased robustness in degraded infrastructure. It will make no PHY changes. This amendment will support path redundancy, mobile and local relaying, multi-hop relaying, Mobile Base Station, Low Duty Ratio, as well as operation in licensed, unlicensed and lightly licensed spectrum bands below 6 GHz with means and mechanisms to coexist with other radio access technologies (RATs). Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  13. 802.16 PAR • Scope Issues/Questions: • What is “the most recently approved” it is not specific. What is “mobile and local relaying”? What is multi-hop relaying? Is a Mobile base station mobile, or is it talking to a Mobile Station? What is “low duty Ratio”? What bands are left after licensed, un-licensed and lightly licensed bands are excluded? • The Scope statement seems loaded with terms lacking definition, but not substance. • The Scope statement should be in present tense…”will support” should be changed to indicate what will be in the document. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  14. WG11 proposed update to 802.16 PAR • Propose that the PAR Scope statement be replaced with the following: • This amendment specifies changes to the IEEE 802.16 MAC and its management and data interfaces for operation with increased robustness in degraded infrastructure. No PHY changes are included. This amendment identifies means and mechanisms to coexist with other radio access technologies (RATs) in licensed, unlicensed and lightly licensed spectrum bands below 6 GHz. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  15. 802.16 PAR • Reference in the 5C is not available: • In your 5C Technical Feasibility  clause a) there are references that we cannot access. Would you please provide a means for dot11 to get to this material? • a) The IEEE 802.16 GRIDMAN Study Group and prior NRR WG Ad Hoc Committee have reviewed several presentations indicating that the proposed functions are technically feasible. The technical reference documents and in particular the NRR report (C802.16nrr-08_004r3) are available on the link; http://dot16nrr.wirelessman.org. Moreover there are examples of prototypes that have demonstrated that the goal of the project is achievable. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  16. 802.1AX PAR • In the “5.5 Need for the project” a reference to 802.1AX is made, but on the 802.1 website we could not find that reference. • We did find a copy of 802.1AX-2008 in the “GET 802” website. • Suggest updating the 802.1 Website. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  17. 802.3bg • No comments from WG11 for the WG. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

  18. References • Pars under consideration: http://ieee802.org/PARs.shtml • Input documents for comment https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/10/11-10-0281-00-0000-comments-on-802-23-par-and-5c.ppt Jon Rosdahl, CSR

More Related