Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Jon, When 802.3 reviewed the 802.15ma PAR, we briefly discussed the rule on CSD requirements. When I personally reviewed the 802.15.3ma PAR, it hit me that my similar assumption that a CSD was not required might be wrong. Though most of us know significant new functionality is in scope for a revision project under SA rules, and such new functionality may be introduced during balloting and not known at the time a revision PAR is created, the appropriateness for a CSD response is ambiguous between historical application of the rules and the exact text in the rules. What made me personally not propose a similar “CSD not required” comment was going back and reading the rule after seeing that a new frequency band was planned to be added in the revision, I think 802.15 was wise to include a CSD based on the text of the exemption to a CSD in LMSC Operations Manual 9.2: "PARs that which introduce no new functionality are exempt from the requirement to provide a CSD statement." They plan to add new functionality and therefore per my reading of the above sentence are not exempt. I think it was very appropriate for them to fill out a CSD per the rules. Perhaps this is something for the “Rules" folk to think about clarifying. Mr. Kinney, feel free to use anything above in generating a response to the 802.11 comment below on a CSD not being required. I assume though your group saw the same problem with the LMSC Ops Man CSD exemption text quoted above and LMSC typically exempting revisions from a CSD response. —Bob
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1 |