1 / 8

STF 279

STF 279. ETSI Guide & Pro-forma Document STF 279 004 Barry Cartman. ETSI Guide ETSI EG 201 299 v1.3.1 General. Generally sound, particularly section 5 on role and purpose of harmonized standard

virginia-boyer
Download Presentation

STF 279

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. STF 279 ETSI Guide & Pro-forma Document STF 279 004 Barry Cartman

  2. ETSI Guide ETSI EG 201 299 v1.3.1General • Generally sound, particularly section 5 on role and purpose of harmonized standard • Much of section 4 on general background now of historical interest after 5 years of R&TTED. Perhaps remove or put in Appendix. • Should set a consistent policy on multi-part standards where one part which is harmonized cross-references another (currently some harmonized, some not). STF 279

  3. ETSI Guide ETSI EG 201 299 v1.3.1Definitions Formal definitions in section 3 suggested for: • test suite (already defined in context) • essential radio test suite • other test specifications The purpose of the EN Requirements Table should be made clear in relation to the definitions (ie: it maps the test suite not just essential radio test suites) STF 279

  4. ETSI Guide ETSI EG 201 299 v1.3.1Annex A • Normative clauses cannot be applied without vital reliance on the informative material in Annex A • Sub-clause 6.4.2 “When requirements are included as essential, the HS shall include a justification derived from the decision tree in clause 6.1.3…” • Sub-clause 6.1.3 “…the responsible ETSI technical body shall use the decision tree…” • Sub-clasue 6.1.3 “…The decision tree is: … For each phenomenon listed in table A.2…” • Initial review suggests standards do not, in general, provide the required justification derived from the decision tree. • Accordingly, section 6 / Annex A structure requires review. Perhaps an alternative checklist approach? STF 279

  5. ETSI Guide ETSI EG 201 299 v1.3.1Other Points • Guidance should be included about when receiver parameters (beyond spurious emissions) can be considered essential • The interpretation of TCAM Guidance in A3 needs to be reconsidered in the light of TCAM discussion on document TCAM 17(04)57 STF 279

  6. Pro-forma ETSI SR 001 470 v1.1.6 • Consider incorporating the standard introduction in the Guide now R&TTED is established • Need to clarify whether guidance on references in section 2 requires references to or in a harmonized standard to be dated (not consistent observance of either) • Instructions for Annex A EN-RT should require the key to be customised to the standard so that it does not contain redundant standard text which may confuse STF 279

  7. General Points • Taking account of earlier slides: • may be sensible to combine the EG and SR into a single document • generate a “harmonized standard” template that is held as part of the general ETSI repertoire • Consider the possibility of introducing an additional control via the Secretariat or an expert to trap irregularities in structure at an early stage rather than trying to edit them out later • Should TB chair be required to seek dispensation for deviation from EG/SR? STF 279

  8. Points still under discussion in STF • Need for information on equipment marking that appears in some harmonized standards • Some HS have sections on “choice of samples”. How should this be reflected in EG/SR? • Is a pro-forma too restrictive? Why do TBs sometimes ignore? • What is the relevance of informative material in a HS? • Is the style which simply cross-references other standards to be encouraged or not? STF 279

More Related