Colleagues,
The IEEE 802.3 PAR review ad hoc teleconference met on 29 June 2026 and 7 July 2026. The ad hoc participants collected the feedback below for consideration by IEEE 802.3 participants. The ad hoc participants reviewed the PARs and CSDs submitted by other
IEEE 802 WGs listed here:
https://www.ieee802.org/PARs.shtml.
Please send feedback or suggested changes to me by 9am Montreal, QB, Canada time, 13 July 2026. 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
===========================================================
P802.1EH - Standard - Telemetry Tagging of Data Frames
PAR Comments:
In Section 5.2., second sentence is difficult to parse. Should it be a list of three items that are all bridges? If yes, consider to change to:
“This standard supports Medium Access Control (MAC) bridges, Customer Virtual Local Area Network (C-VLAN) bridges, Service Virtual Local Area Network (S-VLAN) bridges, and end stations in data center networks.”
In section 5.4, there is an odd space between frame’ and s” in the first sentence. Is it a formatting issue or a typo?
In section 8.1, please consider expanding the acronym for YANG. It would be useful to add text such as “It is vital to use 'YANG' in the project title, as well as elsewhere in the PAR, to inform potential participants and the target readership of the
standard.”
CSD Comments:
None.
P802.1EJ - Standard - Backward Notification
PAR comments:
In Section 5.2., second sentence is difficult to parse. Should it be a list of three items that are all bridges? If yes, consider to change to:
“This standard supports Medium Access Control (MAC) bridges, Customer Virtual Local Area Network (C-VLAN) bridges, Service Virtual Local Area Network (S-VLAN) bridges, and end stations in data center networks.”
In section 8.1, please consider expanding the acronym for YANG. It would be useful to add text such as “It is vital to use 'YANG' in the project title, as well as elsewhere in the PAR, to inform potential participants and the target readership of the
standard.”
CSD comments:
In the response to 1.2.3, the first paragraph states that there are no other IEEE 802 standards or projects with BN. Yet paragraph two and three provide examples in Clauses in the current specification. This seems to contradict the first paragraph.
Consider striking the second and third paragraphs or making it more clear by adding an additional sentence to the first paragraph, such as “There are clauses in IEEE Std 802.1Q with similar scopes but are substantially different from BN”.
In 1.2.4 item (k), how are the modeling and simulations of “recent publications” different from those mentioned in the first paragraph (“over the course of 30 years”)? Where the previous simulations not showing feasibility?
P802.1DGei - Amendment - Time Synchronization
PAR comments:
None.
CSD comments:
In 1.2.1 item (f) response is confusing as to whether it is 802.1DG or 802.1AS is widely implemented. Consider changing the sentence to “The proposed amendment will specify how to use IEEE Std 802.1AS in automotive in-vehicle networks, which is already
widely implemented.”
P802.19.3a - Amendment - Recommended Practice Amendment: Enhanced sub-1GHz Coexistence
PAR comments: none
CSD comments:
In section 1.1.2, the response to item (b) has a reference to Std 802.11-2020. Consider aligning to the change made in the PAR modification. Also check other instances, such as in 1.2.1 (b), 1.2.2(b), 1.2.4(b), and consider whether an undated reference
is appropriate.
IEEE 802 Nendica Work Item Proposal: Backward Notification for Traffic Management in AI Data Center Networks
Comments:
Slide 3: Work Item Proposal – Purpose of the Work Item:
It appears that the content of the second paragraph of the “Scope of the Work Item” would be a better statement of the purpose. The content of the second paragraph under the “Scope of the Work Item” could be used as the basis for the response to the purpose.
If so, it should be moved from the “scope” to the “purpose” and rephrased accordingly.
Slide 6: there responses to the criteria questions reference IEEE 802 while the scope on slide 3 references IEEE 802.1 specifically. Is the intended scope of the effort to be IEEE 802 wide or specific to IEEE 802.1? For example, the resultant output
might call out a need for a service interface primitive from IEEE 802.3, which would be out of scope.