RE: stds-802-16-mac: RE: new strawman
I am glad you resent it because I had not seen this email before.
I agree that we should only address the important issues. I believe the
interference issues that I identified warrant our consideration, for they
can significantly impact the mechanisms( e.g., DFS) we specify to meet our
performance objectives.
Dr. Demosthenes J. Kostas
Director, Industry Standards
Adaptive Broadband Corporation
3314 Dartmouth Ave
Dallas, TX 75205 USA
tel: 214 520 8411
fax: 214 520 9802
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Peirce [mailto:ken@Malibunetworks.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 2:10 PM
To: Ken Peirce; 'stds-802-16-mac@ieee.org'
Subject: stds-802-16-mac: RE: new strawman
I am resending this as an OC-192 went down today and I never got a copy of
it from the reflector.
Ken
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Peirce
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 12:18 PM
> To: 'stds-802-16-mac@ieee.org'
> Subject: new strawman
>
>
> All TG4 MAC team members,
> I have moved the strawman from word to framemaker. The
> new document reflects the section update assignments from the
> last session. As I also changed to the official IEEE
> amendment specification, some of the Map flexibility changes
> from the original strawman need to be discussed. I want to
> get them correct and be certain that they are still relevant.
> No changes to content were intentionally made, I simply put
> in what I was sure of and gray areas were left for discussion
> on this mailing list and at the next session. Please go
> through the new strawman and comment on it NOW so that we can
> get as much done as possible prior to Orlando.
>
> What do folks think of Demos idea of adding specific types of
> interference subclauses? I agree that it forces us to address
> all of the issues. However, if we do this, then I want to be
> sure that we vote to accept a finite set of scenarios and go
> from there. As this is a license exempt band, the number of
> scenarios could theoretically grow without bound.
>
> Cheers,
> Ken
>