RE: stds-802-mobility: Re: stds-802-16-mobile: Creating Unique Id entities for the two mobility PARs
Dear S&A&M,
I do not believe that, if we look to 250km/h, we will use exactly the PHY
that we have now.
On the other side, the 802.16a has the ability to change the PHY burst
characteristics dynamically.
Right now, we have adaptive modulation and coding, we can also add
mobile PHY burst profiles to support 250km/h.
So, in this way, I do not see a problem with back-ward compatibility.
Regarding the speed issue, the existing OFDM PHYs work at 64QAM,
at 120km/h and more. I would prefer to use this number, being in line
with ITU-R speed classes. I see that speeds between 120-250Km/h
can be supported as a special system profile, that will implement the
"mobile PHY burst" capability.
If the difference between the two PARs will be based on backward
compatibility issue, I do not see why to limit one or the other in its
goals.
Dear Paul,
Will help us, in defining the PARs without artificial constraints, if the
SEC will indicate the willingness to accept 2 mobility PARs, before
the Hawaii meeting.
Marianna
-----Original Message-----
From: Shawn Taylor [mailto:ShawnT@Wi-LAN.com]
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 4:26 AM
To: 'Avi Freedman'; Marianna Goldhammer; Mark Klerer; 'Kiernan, Brian G.';
r.b.marks@ieee.org
Cc: stds-802-mobility@ieee.org; stds-802-16-mobile@ieee.org;
stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: RE: stds-802-mobility: Re: stds-802-16-mobile: Creating Unique Id
entities for the two mobility PARs
Dear A&M&M :-),
I would agree with Mark on this one. I believe that backwards compatibility
is definitely something we should strive for. Converging the fixed and
mobile services will definitely be easier if, for example, both services use
the same PHY. I definitely believe that some of the PHYs can support
mobility while maintaining backwards compatibility to the fixed system. I
have no problem in stating that in a PAR. I'm not yet sure what changes will
be required for the MAC. But again, backwards compatibility should be a
goal.
I also agree with Avi on the speed issue. I would rather we start with the
existing standard and see what level of mobility can be obtained rather than
set a target which could require a change to the standard to reach it.
Shawn
-----Original Message-----
From: Avi Freedman [mailto:avif@hexagonltd.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 3:16 PM
To: Marianna Goldhammer; Mark Klerer; 'Kiernan, Brian G.';
r.b.marks@ieee.org
Cc: stds-802-mobility@ieee.org; stds-802-16-mobile@ieee.org;
stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: stds-802-mobility: Re: stds-802-16-mobile: Creating Unique
Identities for the two mobility PARs
Dear M&M
I tend to agree with Mark's spirit, in the sense that a distinction can be
made between the two mobility groups based on the fact that 802.16 is
working on adding mobility functionality to the 16a standard, while ECSG is
an blank slate. But I also agree with Marianna that backward compatibility
was never the issue.
Perhaps indicating the 250kmh speed in the 802.15 PAR conveyed the wrong
idea, and might have caused a misinterpretation of the intention. However,
speed has to be included in the PAR, as it is an essential measure of a
mobile system performance. Maybe a minimal speed of 90kmh should be set and
higher speed should be considered as "best effort"
Avi
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marianna Goldhammer" <marianna.goldhammer@alvarion.com>
To: "Mark Klerer" <M.Klerer@flarion.com>; "'Kiernan, Brian G.'"
<Brian.Kiernan@interdigital.com>; <r.b.marks@ieee.org>
Cc: <stds-802-mobility@ieee.org>; <stds-802-16-mobile@ieee.org>;
<stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 12:17 PM
Subject: RE: stds-802-16-mobile: Creating Unique Identities for the two
mobility PARs
> Dear Mark,
>
> I think that we disagree on the 802.16 scope. We are not looking for
> "backward compatibility" with our existing 802.16a standard.
>
> We are looking to improve the existing 802.16a standard, to support
> high speed, high data rates mobility.
>
> We think that we can take advantage of > 80% of 802.16 MAC, by adapting
> it to support mobility.
>
> And we do not target "pedestrian mobility". We know, due to work done
> within 802.16 SG, that even the existing 802.16a OFDM and OFDMA
> PHY work at very high speeds.
>
> I think that a key difference issue is the data rate. We look to converge
> the
> fixed and mobile wireless service, based on high data rates provided by
> both BS and CPE equipment. We will be able to target mobile terminals,
> as well as to provide mobile symmetrical feeding for moving "Hot Spots".
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Marianna
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Klerer [mailto:M.Klerer@flarion.com]
> Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 1:44 AM
> To: 'Kiernan, Brian G.'; 'r.b.marks@ieee.org'
> Cc: 'stds-802-mobility@ieee.org'; 'stds-802-16-mobile@ieee.org';
> stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> Subject: stds-802-16-mobile: Creating Unique Identities for the two
mobility
> PARs
>
>
> Roger, Brian
>
> In response to the SEC chair's request that we work toward defining unique
> identities of the two mobility PARs, I would like to suggest the
following.
>
> The 802.16 Study Group has the charter of allowing the evolution of 802.16
> compliant systems toward supporting mobility. To that end it would appear
> logical that changes to the PHY and MAC be fully backward compatible with
> the existing specification and that no a priori statement be made about
the
> station speed that can be supported by such a system. I would like to
> suggest that the PAR therefore focus on these aspects and that the project
> scope be described as:
>
> To amend the 802.16 standard to support combined fixed and mobile
operation
> from within a single system. The extension will address PHY and MAC
changes,
> that are fully backward compatible, while supporting mobile subscriber
> operation and roaming between 802.16 base-stations or their sectors. This
> amendment will allow high spectral efficiency (3~4 bits/s/Hz), macrocell
> sizes and NLOS operation.
>
> The ECSG PAR's objective, on the other hand, is to develop a standard that
> is optimized for broadband wireless data mobility without any a priori
> assumptions about the technologies used to realize that objective. The
PAR,
> therefore, states the design objective of developing a spectrally
efficient
> solution that will support mobility classes up to 250 Km/h. I believe that
> there are no changes required in the wording of that PAR.
>
> In essence we then have two PARs with, one addressing the need for a
> solution optimized for full vehicular mobility and the other the need for
> extending the capabilities of 802.16 systems to support a level of
mobility.
>
>
> This is a new proposal that I believe should allow the SEC to approve both
> PARs. I am copying the two mobility groups in order to get their reaction
to
> this proposal and see if they will agree to such PARs. If this is
acceptable
> we could formally revise the PAR on Monday or Tuesday and approach the SEC
> on Friday with a consensus position.
>
>
> Regards
>
> Mark Klerer
> Chair - MBWA-ECSG
> 135 Route 202/206 South
> Bedminster, NJ 07921
>
> . E-mail: m.klerer@flarion.com
> ( Phone: 908-997-2069
> 6 Fax: 908-997-2050
>
>
> This mail was sent via mail.alvarion.com
>
>
****************************************************************************
********
> This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
> PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer
viruses.
>
****************************************************************************
********
>
This mail was sent via mail.alvarion.com
************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses.
************************************************************************************