|
Paul,
et al,
I don't agree with
Matt's concept that, as long as you can find a "trivial distinction," two
projects
should be undertaken
with such similarities. This presents a double drain on
resources
(people,
meeting space, etc.)
with little immediately apparent benefit. In my view, the
distinction should
have to be significant,
not trivial, in order to justify two projects.
I am inclined to
support the "merge them and let the everyone bring their proposals
to
the table" approach
(that Matt seems to think is only be viable "in a perfect world,") for
two
reasons:
1) I think it makes
MUCH more sense in terms of resources
2) It might help to persuade .16 to hold its interims
at the same time/place as
.11/.15/.18/.19
... which I believe is
desirable for many reasons, including my selfish
one of not having to always
deal with .16 on .18
items via e-mail after the larger
joint interim (... not that .16 has been
uncooperative
in any way ... on the
contrary, Roger and .16 have been quite cooperative, but the simple fact is
that
having "split interims"
introduces additional delays into the approval and filing of .18 documents, when
time
is often tight to
begin with
... and I believe that it also makes it difficult for folks who would like
to participate
in, say both .11 and
.16 to do so, since the "split interim" approach either results in conflicts in
time/location
or
the need
for additional travel expense which is hard to justify to the management of
companies that sponsor
our members'
attendance). I, for one, would like to have the opportunity to participate
to some
degree in .16 and
to work with them more closely on regulatory matters, ... but can't deal with
the conflicts
or additional travel
time/expense when their meetings are not co-located with
the other wireless WGs ...
Additionally, I think
the SEC should frown on any attempt to split a unified project later
(without
a
sound and
compelling
reason, where "We just want to do our own thing." doesn't cut it)
and also
should hold
everyone's
feet to
the fire to keep focus and not do a "let's do
both" standard without
similar good
reasons.
(I'm sure
everyone recalls the
issues with the original 3 PHY 802.11 ...)
Regards,
Carl
Dear
SEC,
In the past week, so
far Mat Sherman has been the only one to weigh in on the minimal distinction
between the ECSG and 802.16 SG projects on Mobility. This is an
important topic - one that will benefit from discussion on the SEC
reflector. I'm sure there are more opinions on this subject than just
Mat's-let's air them on the reflector so that we are better prepared to make
an informed decision on how to proceed during our plenary session.
Remember, the major
reasons for requiring PARs to be submitted 30 days in advance of the plenary
was to permit enough time for discussion and debate. Let's take
advantage of the time.
Regards,
--Paul
Nikolich
-----Original
Message-----
From: Matthew
Sherman [mailto:mjsherman@research.att.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 12:37
AM
To: 'p.nikolich@ieee.org';
IEEE802
Subject: RE: [802SEC]
Mobile Broadband Wireless Access--distinction between the ECSG and 802.16 SG
project authorization requests
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.
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
-----Original
Message-----
From: Paul
Nikolich [mailto:paul.nikolich@worldnet.att.net]
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 6:35
PM
To: IEEE802
Subject: [802SEC] Mobile Broadband
Wireless Access--distinction between the ECSG and 802.16 SG project
authorization requests
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
|