Colleagues,
The IEEE 802.3 PAR review ad hoc teleconference met today and collected the feedback below for consideration by IEEE 802.3 participants. The ad hoc
Please send feedback or suggested changes to me by 9am Bangkok, Thailand time, 10 November 2025. If none is received, I intend to submit the feedback below on behalf
of IEEE 802.3.
With regards,
-Kent
Chair, IEEE 802.3 PAR review Ad Hoc
===============================================
P802.1AEef - Amendment - Ascon Cipher Suite
PAR comments:
In 8.1: the first note indicates that Ascon is “in the NIST… publication….” Which publication is it or is Ascon in all of them? Suggest to reference a specification publication such as the one in the last note of this section.
CSD Comments:
In 1.2.4 item (b), please send the sentence with a full stop “period”.
P802.1AReg - Amendment - Support for the Module-Lattice-Based Digital Signature Algorithm
PAR comments:
In section 5.5, the first sentence suggests that quantum may provide the computer power then the second sentence says that it will protect against quantum attacks.
And the “expected computing capability of quantum computer attacks”.
In the third sentence,it is unlikely that all governments in the world will require the proposed requirement. Consider changing to “some government procurements” or “many government”.
In section 6.1.1 Explanation, Change “will” to “expected to” unless the solution is already adopted by the group. If already adopted, then please add more detail to explain its adopting. Regarding the copyright permission and the prior statement, consider
adding “if needed” to the end of the sentence.
Lastly in 6.1.1, is the referenced IETF RFC the same one as stated in 5.3 If not, please clarify or provide specific reference.
In 8.1, please denote that NIST is a part of the US Department of Commerce, which may not be clear to individuals outside the USA. Such as “NIST is the National Institute of Standards and Technology (U.S. Department of Commerce)”.
CSD comments:
Section 1.2.1: restructure the last sentence to remove “We”. The issue of saying “We have” is ambiguous to as to “We” are. In IEEE 802, “we” cannot be vendors as IEEE 802 is an individual process. Consider revising to be “Multiple vendors are known
to be preparing…”
P802.1CBec - Amendment: Sequence Recovery Function Refinements and Parameter Configuration
PAR comments: none
CSD comments:
Section 1.2.3: It was unclear to us if there are no other standards related to the sequence recovery function of Frame Replication and Elimination for Reliability. Please clarify. Change to “the” before “expected operational…” and end with “ expected
in this amendment”.
P802.11bi - Amendment - Enhanced Service with Privacy Protection
PAR comments: none