|
Hi
Paul & Everyone,
I
actually have a lot of strong opinions here, but prefer to be brief for
now. Perhaps I'll get boo'd, but I've always been very pro "let the market
decide". In a perfect world, I think only the ECSG PAR should go forward,
since in my mind it has the broader scope (allows solutions other than 802.16),
and then the 802.16 folks should propose a solution within the ECSG group based
on 802.16. The ECSG PAR might require a few small updates to absorb any
minor outages from the 802.16 PAR but I doubt that's an issue.
However, I recognize that if people don't find an outlet in 802, they will
probably take it somewhere else. Even if we force them to merge, they
would either try to split later, or (as seems to be the rule these days) come up
with a let's do both standard. So procedurally, I think we should make
sure the PARs are distinct it their goals (usually it's not that hard to find
some trivial distinction). We should probably encourage them to have close
ties and consider merging if at all possible along the way. But I feel we
should let both go forward if at all possible.
Mat
Matthew Sherman
Vice Chair, IEEE 802
Technology Consultant
Communications Technology Research
AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
Room B255, Building 103
180 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 971
Florham Park, NJ
07932-0971
Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877
EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com
Dear SEC
members,
Both the Executive Committee Study
Group on Mobile Broadband Wireless Access and the 802.16 Mobile Wireless
Access Study Group have submitted Project Authorization Requests for projects
that, as far as I can tell from the PARs, address the same market and
application space. This concerns me.
The only substantive difference in
the PARs that I can see is that the 802.16 SG proposes to amend the 802.16
MAC/PHY to enable mobile operation, while the ECSG does not presume using the
802.16 standard as a starting point. This confuses me-when we approved
the 802.16 SG in July, it was to focus on enhancements to the 802.16a PHY/MAC
for 'limited mobility' in the 2-11GHz band, whilst the ECSG was targeting
'high mobility' in the sub 3.5GHz band. This established some, albeit
small, distinction between the ECSG (0-3.5GHz, up to 250km/h) and 802.16 SGs
(2-11GHz, limited mobility) activities. Now, the gap has
narrowed-narrowed to the point that I think the SEC must consider whether or
not it makes sense to have two projects with such similar scope.
I would like to hear what other
members of the SEC think about the overlap between these two PARs-any opinions
out there?
Regards,
--Paul
Nikoich
|