Re: [STDS-802-16] [Corrigenda PAR] Is it really needed?

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Phillip Barber
Sent: 04 July, 2004 5:50 AM
To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] [Corrigenda PAR] Is it really needed?

Yigal and all,

I agree, I marked several comments as Corrigenda items in the most recent 14b reply comment cycle. These were, in most cases, worthy comments seeking to clarify ambiguities or clarify function and definition in the IEEE 802.16-2004 document. But 16e could spend perpetuity in such revision. Had the comments had specific benefit to mobility, rather than simply fixing generic problems in 802.16-2004, I would not espouse remanding them to a Corrigenda. But that was not the case. I think that should be the simple litmus test: if the comment does not provide specific benefit to mobility, or a feature of mobility, or fixed interoperation with mobility, then it is best dealt with in an appropriately tasked group rather than burden the mobility tasked TG with all manner of correction and revision. With adequate demonstration of repair language to the base document, a Corrigenda group should be demanded by the membership.

Thanks,
Phil

----- Original Message -----

From: Yigal

To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 3:32 PM

Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] [Corrigenda PAR] Is it really needed?

Hi Jose,

Based on many comments I have seen in #14b ballot, I have several observations:

1. TGe is far away from concluding its work and reaching concensus on all main subjects that have to do with mobility, hence it might not be as close to finishing its work as the schedule implies.

2. Some people have a very broad interpretation of what 'backwards compatibility' means, specifically when it has to do with the OFDMA PHY

3. Some people do not make any distinction between improvements, and error fixes. We all know that given infinite time, the standard can be improved without limit, but I believe that we do have a market out there to catch, and we should live with the consensus decisions of 802.16d if we want to be there on time.

Based on these observations, and based on the fact that there are companies out there that want to start designing OFDMA systems based on the 802.16-2004 specification, I believe that it is essential to have a separate activity to handle errata. I am sure that this activity can be concluded much faster than the 802.16e effort, and result also in faster conclusion of 802.16e work, that will not be burdened with endless discussions on what's errata, and what's a new feature, and what breaks interoperability and what doesn't.

I therefore strongly support the corrigenda PAR activity.

Best Regards,

Yigal Leiba

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Puthenkulam, Jose P
Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 1:24 AM
To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [STDS-802-16] [Corrigenda PAR] Is it really needed?

Hi Roger,

On the corrigenda PAR, I had couple of questions. I maybe asking questions that have been asked before, but as we are heading into the meeting, I just wanted us to understand the implications of the decisions we are making a little more.

1) What are your thoughts on the schedule for the Corrigenda work?

2) Will the fixes that are equally applicable to fixed and mobile operation be duplicated between the P802.16e and Corrigenda documents?

a) If the answer is no, so ultimately does the 802.16e PAR target a system with 802.16-2004+Yet to be defined Errata?

b) If the answer is Yes. Then is the intent of the Corrigenda document to mainly to enable 802.16-2004 compliant systems to never to have to claim compliance to a 802.16e standard that also targets mobile operation?

From a practical view point, history shows that systems claim compliance to a standard, but are typically implemented to a particular profile of the standard based on the options vendors chose for interoperability. So when vendors typically claim compliance to 802.16-2004 or to 802.16-2004 + errata in a corrigenda document or to 802.16-2004 + errata in 802.16e document, the difference is anyways implementation dependent. The implementation profiles that determine compliance are typically driven by other organizations that certify interoperability (like WiMAX™) so the value for such an effort to split the 16e Task Group members and to get them to also dedicate extra time to co-ordinate fixes between two documents seems to be lots of work for limited benefit.

3) So is it not better to put fixes in the 16e document itself? As the scope of the amendment allows fixed and combined operation, should it be an issue?

Any thoughts on this would be helpful.

Thanks & best regards,

jose

______________________________

Jose Puthenkulam

Network Architect (802.16 Stds)

Mobile Networking Lab,

Communication Technology Lab

Intel Corporation

Tel : (503) 264 6121

Cell: (503) 7016922