Comment Text in Original PAR/CSD Remarks / Answers to the Comments Responses to IEEE 802.3 comments on IEEE802.15.3e PAR and CSD The plan is to open a 15.3 Revision PAR in What is the revision plan • July and proceed with the Revision right for IEEE Std away completing it before either It appears that there amendment. We would include the scope and purpose fixes that are currently in the are two approved 15.3e PAR so those do not get lost and we amendments IEEE Std would update the 15.3d PAR so everything and IEEE is consistent. The revision will also change Std plus an the standard from one using 64 bit MAC exising amendment project. addresses to one using 48 bit MAC The 4th amendment will be addresses, which is needed for full O&A subject to the requirement to compatibility. That is currently being addressed at the amendment level so this revise the standard after three would be much simpler and cleaner. IEEE years and three amendments. SA has agreed to provide an edition by An extension can be May 2015 which will serve as the basis for requested, but the PAR the Revision should not be approved without knowing the revision plan. The P802.15.3d PAR Noted. These comments deal mostly with • 15.3d and the consequences of the should never have been limitations of MyProject. We are aware of approved as submitted. The the issues and feel the proposed Revision 15.3e PAR fixes these plan is the most effective way to manage problems but if 15.3e is the situation approved first, these fixes and Scope and Purpose changes would then be backed out by 15.3d. This makes the two – projects contingent in some way that the PAR form is equipt to handle. A modified PAR should be – submitted for 15.3d to change Scope and Purpose language to refer to the standard, not the project. This could be part of the revision plan (modified PAR or conversion of 15.3d into a revision will be submitted when approval order is clear.) Both PARs should clearly – indicate that if 15.3d is approved after 15.3e the scope and purpose should not change from that specified in 15.3e. 2.1 (non substantive) Noted. We will advise the NesCom admin • — The correct format is to clean that up <amendment “Amendment: name>”, not “Amendment for <amendment name>”.
Comment Text in Original PAR/CSD Remarks / Answers to the Comments Responses to IEEE 802.3 comments on IEEE802.15.3e PAR and CSD • What is the revision plan for IEEE Std It appears that there are two approved amendments IEEE Std and IEEE Std plus an exising amendment project. The 4th amendment will be subject to the requirement to revise the standard after three years and three amendments. An extension can be requested, but the PAR should not be approved without knowing the revision plan. The plan is to open a 15.3 Revision PAR in July and proceed with the Revision right away completing it before either amendment. We would include the scope and purpose fixes that are currently in the 15.3e PAR so those do not get lost and we would update the 15.3d PAR so everything is consistent. The revision will also change the standard from one using 64 bit MAC addresses to one using 48 bit MAC addresses, which is needed for full O&A compatibility. That is currently being addressed at the amendment level so this would be much simpler and cleaner. IEEE SA has agreed to provide an edition by May 2015 which will serve as the basis for the Revision • The P802.15.3d PAR should never have been approved as submitted. The 15.3e PAR fixes these problems but if 15.3e is approved first, these fixes and Scope and Purpose changes would then be backed out by 15.3d. – This makes the two projects contingent in some way that the PAR form is equipt to handle. – A modified PAR should be submitted for 15.3d to change Scope and Purpose language to refer to the standard, not the project. This could be part of the revision plan (modified PAR or conversion of 15.3d into a revision will be submitted when approval order is clear.) – Both PARs should clearly indicate that if 15.3d is approved after 15.3e the scope and purpose should not change from that specified in 15.3e. Noted. These comments deal mostly with 15.3d and the consequences of the limitations of MyProject. We are aware of the issues and feel the proposed Revision plan is the most effective way to manage the situation • 2.1 (non substantive) — The correct format is “Amendment: <amendment name>”, not “Amendment for <amendment name>”. Noted. We will advise the NesCom admin to clean that up