Colleagues,
The IEEE 802.3 PAR review ad hoc teleconference met on 26 Oct 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 Bangkok, Thailand time, 9 November 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
===========================================================
P802.1Qek - Amendment - Additions for Robustness in Engineered Networks
PAR feedback:
- 5.6 – the stakeholders statement seems to be a mash-up of different things, not sure whether “e.g., in the aerospace industry” is intended to mean, but if you expand e.g., to “for example”, it doesn’t read sensibly. The CSDs give some hint that
the environments to consider this amendment are substantially broader.
Suggest – “Manufacturers, distributors, vendors, and users of Virtual local area network bridging equipment and components thereof. Relevant environments include but are not limited to aerospace, automotive, and industrial automation applications. - 5.6 – Given that 1.2.1 (f) of the CSDs mention that this is driven by a need for certification, shouldn’t certification bodies and test equipment manufacturers be included in the stakeholder list?
Suggest – consider adding ‘test and certification labs to “Manufacturers, distributors, vendors, and users..” to read “Manufacturers, distributors, vendors, test equipment vendors, certifiers, and users…”
- 8.1 – it appears the reference to #5.5 (which is the need for the project and references no standards) should be a reference to 5.3, which explains that the project relies on the revision of the base standard, without naming it.
Suggest – change 5.5 to 5.3.
CSD feedback:
1.2.1 – (g) is not a sentence, and is either a fragment of the thought, and should provide some evidence of industry interest/involvement.
Suggest – append something to the existing fragment indicating a level of industry interest and involvement – otherwise it seems this fails the CSD… (e.g., “Individuals from N vendors of networking equipment for aerospace applications participated
in, and indicated interest in the project during the study group phase…”)
P802.11bu - Amendment - AI Offload
PAR feedback:
- 5.2.b – “AP” is used without expansion first.
Suggest – Replace first instance of AP with “Access Point (AP)” - 5.2.b – “AI” is used without expansion first.
Suggest – Replace first instance of AI with “Artificial Intelligence (AI)” - 5.2b – bigger issue – the way this is written, it provides a promise of what the amendment WILL deliver – a promise of future action. That is, in general, presupposing the outcome of the project. It is written as an abstract of the completed amendment,
including it’s goals of functionality, rather than what is in scope.
Suggest – Change first sentence to: “The scope of this amendment is to define modifications…”, and change “The amendment enables:” to “The scope of the amendment is to enable the following functionality:” - 5.5 – “WLANs” – used without expansion, and both other instances say “Wireless LANs”.
Suggest – replace “WLANs” with “Wireless LANs”
CSD Feedback:
- 1.2.1.b Broad Market Potential – Multiple vendors and numerous users – the response only comments on the number of vendors in the 802.11 marketplace as a whole, and is not directed to the amendment’s purpose – 802.11 devices which would be enabled
for AI offload. This would be equivalent to justifying the CSD of a new Ethernet PHY based on the number of vendors making any device on any portion of the 802.3 standard.
Suggest - Please provide some indication of the support among vendors for the new functionality, such as level of participation in the pre-PAR phase of the project. - 1.2.2 Compatibility – The project is focused on AI offload, which is generally application-layer, and it isn’t clear how this fits with the 802 architecture, and particularly 802.11 which ends at the Data Link Layer.
Suggest: please provide additional detail on how this work is within the boundaries of 802.11, as defined by the IEEE 802 overview and architecture. - 1.2.4 Technical Feasibility – it isn’t clear from the responses whether the proposed functionality has been demonstrated or presented. General statements make it difficult to determine whether the new functionality has been shown.
Suggest - Please provide references with presentations and clarify whether the functionality described has already been shown.
P802.15.4af - Amendment - O-QPSK Extension for Sub 1GHz
PAR feedback:
- 5.2.b Scope of the project –
Acronyms: PSD (Power Spectral Density) and EVM (Error Vector Magnitude) used without expansion. Also, no need to use the acronym for PSDU – it isn’t used anywhere else in the PAR. (suggest delete “(PSDU)”)
General on Scope: Describe in some detail the specific contents of the standard. It almost sounds as if the technical changes have already been decided, prior to the PAR being even submitted. If so, this is a major process problem. - 8.1 Additional Explanatory Notes – please add to 8.1 the following items:
5.2.b: DSSS4 band & DSSS8 band (what are the band definitions/frequencies), and
5.2.b: ETSI EN 304 220-1 V1.2.1 (please give full title).
CSD Feedback: none
P802.15.17 - Standard - Surface Wave Communication
PAR feedback: none
CSD feedback:
- 1.2.1.e Broad Market Potential – Multiple vendors and numerous users – the statement by itself is pure expectation. (“is expected to attract”)
Suggest – Please provide some indication of the participation in the pre-PAR phase of the project. - 1.2.2 Compatibility – it seems the detailed explanation of the response to 1.1.2 Coexistence has been misplaced as a paragraph below the response to 1.2.2.
Suggest - Please relocate the 2nd paragraph of response (“Since the standard operates…”) to 1.1.2. - 1.2.4 Technical feasibility
Suggest – please add a couple of references or indications that the standards body has heard presentations and the reliable communication aspect. It isn’t clear that the theory being described is actually what is targeted to be standardized.