[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
stds-802-16: SYSREQ: Iissues for debate and discussion at 5/99 Boulder meeting
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: stds-802-16: SYSREQ: Iissues for debate and discussion at 5/99 Boulder meeting
- From: Brian_Petry@3com.com
- Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 17:32:18 -0700
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
[Notice: It is the policy of 802.16 to treat messages posted here as non-confidential.]
As editor for our System Requirements document, I am proposing some discussion
items for the Boulder meetings so that we can reach consensus on some of the
issues for system requirements. After reviewing the email discussions and
looking at the outline proposals for a document, I have come up with the
following issues. For these issues, if you have a specific point of view, I
urge you to participate in Boulder by presenting your views to the group so
that we can discuss them.
If you like, please contact Roger Marks (email@example.com) to get a spot on
the agenda. I think the Boulder meetings will focus mainly on coexistence
issues, but it would be great if we could discuss system requirements issues
[I am going to name some names in the following paragraphs in hopes that it
provokes the named people to present their valuable experience and opinions.
I appologize if I have "pigeon-holed" anyone into a certain camp, but I am
just trying to provoke discussions.]
ATM vs. IP
I saw two, maybe three points of view here. If I may, let me
1) Must support ATM, perhaps because existing products and system use
ATM and telco-ish carriers like ATM
I saw interesting comments from: Steve Farrell and David
Jarrett--maybe you could come prepared with a short presentation on
your point of view. Examples of existing systems that rely on ATM
would be particularly useful.
2) Should focus on IP, perhaps because MAC is more efficient, market
reality is migrating to IP, 802.14 experience
Comments from Chet Shirali, Jack Fijolek, Jim Mollenauer, Marianna
Goldhammer were interesting; Imed Frigui (VC from 802.14)
summarized 802.14's status
It would be great if any of you came prepared with your points of
view, supporting IP (or variable-length-frame)-centric approach.
3) Should support both ATM and IP
Comments from Jay Klein, Jim Mollenauer, David Jarrent and Peter
Ecclesine seemed to support an agnostic approach. Also, an article
from Jan/Feb of IEEE Network was mentioned.
ATM vs. IP as it relates to QoS
I sense a general agreement that we want QoS guarantees for telephony,
videophony, and maybe video broadcast services. If anyone has
anything particular to present at the Boulder meeting, I think that
would be helpful.
TDD vs FDD
Although I did not see any discussion on the list regarding TDD vs
FDD, and it may be more of a coexistence issue, I think the group
would like to see a presentation to make the case for either TDD or
FDD. Are there any "system issues" we should consider?
I saw some good comments regarding the reference diagram. If
Margarete Ralston (who drew up the proposal that was discussed
on the list), or anyone else has a new or updated proposal, that would
We have a "functional requirements" proposal from Jim Mollenauer. I didn't
see any comments on it. Does that mean we all agree with the content?
We have two proposals for a system requirements outline, one from the
task group's work in Austin and another from a group of people
submitted by Gene Robinson. There are some inconsistencies between
1) The title. What should it be? Should the System Requirements
task group focus on one document? I think some people want
two documents: a "functional requirements" document and a
"system requirements" document. Could someone (Gene Robinson?)
please explain the difference so we can figure out if we need to
produce two documents?
2) I thought we decided in Austin to leave out PHY specifics such as
bps/HZ, modulation approaches, etc.
3) The section "Layer Management" in 802.16sc-99/6 (submitted by
Gene) I think defines and describes layer management incorrectly.
It should describe network management objects, not generic protocol
4) 802.16sc-99/6 (from Gene) and 802.16sc-99/1 (from Austin) are
outlines that do not "match up" insofar as the various section
heading titles, order of sections, added sections and omitted
sections. I think the authors of 802.16sc-99/6 should be prepared
to explain why their outline is different from our Austin outline.
Best Regards, and see you in Boulder...