DOC

Decline Letter Template

By Raymond Robinson,2014-11-25 09:21
11 views 0
Decline Letter Template

Standards Working Group IEEE P802.15

    Wireless Personal Area Networks? (WPANs?) Homepage at http://ieee802.org/15

     Dr. Robert F. Heile Verizon Technology Organization Mr. David Cypher Chair IEEE 802.15 40 Sylvan Road NIST, M/S 8920 Waltham, MA 02451 USA 100 Bureau Drive TEL: +1 781 466 2057 FAX: +1 781 466 2575 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8920 USA E-M: bheile@bbn.com Pager: 800-759-8888 PIN 1109355

Saturday, November 11, 2000

    Subject: IEEE P802.15.1 Letter Ballot #3 Comment Resolution Disposition

Dear Mr. Cypher,

Thank you for participating in the Letter Ballot #3 that was held from 24May00 to 3Jul00. As

    you learned this Letter Balloted Motion failed with 18/15/0 (P802-15/D0.7.2):

    ; There were 49 Voting members. 33 submitted their vote.

    ; The return ratio is 33/49 = 67 % (50 % is required) and the abstention rate was less

    than 30% of those voting. The ballot is valid. 16 failed to vote.

    ; Motion 1 failed with 18/15/0 or 55 %.

    In reviewing your comments we have decided to decline the following based on: DEC022 8.4.6.2 e N sentence split Undo split D Style convention for

    unexpectedly labeling

    DEC024 8.10.7.T Y Figure 47 is Add Link from F Location of problem:

    4 missing links. CONNECTION to State diagram of BT

    inquiry response; from baseband controller. On

    inquiry response to page 103

    Page Scan; and from

    STANDBY to inquiry REJECTED: These links

    response. doesn't add anything from

    an implementation

    perspective and doesn't

    bring any clarity to the

    state diagram

    DEC021 8.3.2 T Y Text is unclear Delete "unless a F REJECTED: This errata

    about the slave different slave was request is simply not

    being allowed to addressed in the correct and will just lead

    transmit SCO previous master-to-to possible

    data. slave slot" misunderstanding.

    IEEE Computer Society Publications Office Office European Asian Office Headquarters Office 10662 Los Vaqueros Circle 13 Avenue de l'Aquilon (rez A) Ooshima Building 1730 Massachusetts Avenue Los Alamitos CA 90720 1200-Brussels Belguim 2-19-1 Minami Aoyama Washington, D.C. 20036-1903 N.W. Phone:(714) 821 8380 Phone: +32 2 770 21 98 Minato-ku (202) 371 0101 TWX: 7108250437 IEEE Compso TWX: 25387 AVVALB Tokyo 107 Japan TWX: 7108250437 IEEE Compso FAX: (714) 821 4010 FAX: +32 3 660 30 14 Phone: +81 3 408 3118 FAX: (202) 728 9614 FAX: +81 3 408 3553

    Standards Working Group IEEE P802.15

    Wireless Personal Area Networks? (WPANs?) Homepage at http://ieee802.org/15

    DEC097 C.2.5 t Y This profile has Delete "and co-F REJECTED: This profile

    nothing to do with existence" handles co-existence

    co-existence between different

    Bluetooth devices so that

    they can operate in the

    vicinity of each other

    although they will never

    have any reason to be

    connected. Although

    baseband is designed to

    handle this, some high-

    level requirements on use

    of the baseband and link

    policies need to be

    provided to ensure that

    applications can execute

    between some devices

    unharmed from radio

    emissions and

    connection attempts

    occuring from other

    device in the vicinity.

    IEEE Computer Society Publications Office Office European Asian Office Headquarters Office 10662 Los Vaqueros Circle 13 Avenue de l'Aquilon (rez A) Ooshima Building 1730 Massachusetts Avenue Los Alamitos CA 90720 1200-Brussels Belguim 2-19-1 Minami Aoyama Washington, D.C. 20036-1903 N.W. Phone:(714) 821 8380 Phone: +32 2 770 21 98 Minato-ku (202) 371 0101 TWX: 7108250437 IEEE Compso TWX: 25387 AVVALB Tokyo 107 Japan TWX: 7108250437 IEEE Compso FAX: (714) 821 4010 FAX: +32 3 660 30 14 Phone: +81 3 408 3118 FAX: (202) 728 9614 FAX: +81 3 408 3553

    Standards Working Group IEEE P802.15

    Wireless Personal Area Networks? (WPANs?) Homepage at http://ieee802.org/15

    DEC10C.5 T Y The statement Change item 1 to M for F It is suggested that the

    1 made in C1 is a mandatory note for C1 be removed. violation of Also what's the real profiling. If a purpose of item 1?

    feature is

    mandatory at a Although LMP-

    lower layer a authentication and LMP-

    profile cannot pairing are mandatory, undo that there are several ways requirement. they can be combined.

    GAP section 5.1 defines

    one way to combine

    them, but this way is only

    required in case a device

    implements a higher

    security level than

    defined by security mode

    1. Although a device has

    implemented

    authentication according

    to LMP, it is not required

    that it has an operational

    mode where it ever

    initiates authentication.

    Proposal: No action on

    C1. In case a device do

    want to implement a

    security level higher than

    provided by security

    mode 1, it has to

    implement security mode

    2 or security mode 3(or

    both). This is expressed

    by C2. Proposal: No

    action on C2.

    IEEE Computer Society Publications Office Office European Asian Office Headquarters Office 10662 Los Vaqueros Circle 13 Avenue de l'Aquilon (rez A) Ooshima Building 1730 Massachusetts Avenue Los Alamitos CA 90720 1200-Brussels Belguim 2-19-1 Minami Aoyama Washington, D.C. 20036-1903 N.W. Phone:(714) 821 8380 Phone: +32 2 770 21 98 Minato-ku (202) 371 0101 TWX: 7108250437 IEEE Compso TWX: 25387 AVVALB Tokyo 107 Japan TWX: 7108250437 IEEE Compso FAX: (714) 821 4010 FAX: +32 3 660 30 14 Phone: +81 3 408 3118 FAX: (202) 728 9614 FAX: +81 3 408 3553

    Standards Working Group IEEE P802.15 Wireless Personal Area Networks? (WPANs?) Homepage at http://ieee802.org/15

    DEC10C.5 T Y Item 2 lists three No specific suggestion F What is the real meaning 2 possible security is made due to the of "C2"? References for

    modes, but confusion of the security modes 1, 2, and

    places C2 on two current specification. 3 are missing.

    of them relating

    to the first. If this See also comment on

    is the real report nr 1271 for use of

    association then C1 and C2. Could maybe

    the question be clarified, but not

    must not be a necessarily needed. It is

    list, but separate common in the

    items. conformance tables to

    refer to the sections

    where the features are

    defined. In table 5.1, it is

    seen that the security

    modes are defined in

    sub-section 5.2.

    Proposal: No action

    needed.

The IEEE 802.15 Working Group for WPANs? appreciates your interest and we look forward

    to your participation in the next Letter Ballot. For future information on LB3 status please point

    your browser here: http://ieee802.org/15/pub/LB3/LB3.html

    Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,

Bob Heile, Chair 802.15

cc: Ian Gifford, Chatschik Bisdikian, Tom Siep, Pat Kinney, WG File

IEEE Computer Society Publications Office Office European Asian Office Headquarters Office 10662 Los Vaqueros Circle 13 Avenue de l'Aquilon (rez A) Ooshima Building 1730 Massachusetts Avenue Los Alamitos CA 90720 1200-Brussels Belguim 2-19-1 Minami Aoyama Washington, D.C. 20036-1903 N.W. Phone:(714) 821 8380 Phone: +32 2 770 21 98 Minato-ku (202) 371 0101 TWX: 7108250437 IEEE Compso TWX: 25387 AVVALB Tokyo 107 Japan TWX: 7108250437 IEEE Compso FAX: (714) 821 4010 FAX: +32 3 660 30 14 Phone: +81 3 408 3118 FAX: (202) 728 9614 FAX: +81 3 408 3553

Report this document

For any questions or suggestions please email
cust-service@docsford.com