stds-802-16-mobile: RE: First Draft of Potential MBWA PAR and Five Criteria
Just resending this to the reflector (with minor modifications), as the original ran into the filter.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: VanWaes Nico (NET/MtView)
> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 1:13 PM
> To: 'stds-802-16-mobile@ieee.org'; 'm.klerer@flarion.com'
> Subject: Re: First Draft of Potential MBWA PAR and Five Criteria
>
> Mark,
>
> Regarding the MWBA PAR and 5 criteria, I have a few brief initial comments. Some may not seem particularly helpful, but I hope they help initiate the necessary discussion.
>
> Clearly the proposed PAR is written to initiate a new WG. I find that this is contradictory to the decision made at session #18, where the study group was established as part of 802.16 and not as an LMSC study group.
> Consequentially, there is a burden of proof to be met that the intented functionality cannot be accomplished by an amendment to the 802.16 standard as modified by the 802.16a amendment.
> As long as this burden is not met, it is in my opinion appropriate to assume that this project will remain a part of 802.16 and hence will be an amendment.
>
> Pending this technical evaluation, in which the placement of this project within 802 or 802.16 should be determined based on the analysis of .16/.16a features vs. the desired features in this mobile system, drafting the PAR and 5 criteria seems a bit premature to me, since both the PAR and 5 criteria text will unavoidably have to reflect the conclusion of such an evaluation.
>
> I would in the meanwhile propose the following changes to the draft PAR.
>
> Item 4:
> "Amendment to IEEE Standard for
> Local and Metropolian Area Networks - Part 16
> Air Interface for Fixed Broadband Wireless Access Systems -
> Medium Access Control and Physical Layer Modifications for Vehicular Mobility Support"
>
>
> Despite the contradiction in terms, this is the proper syntax for an amendment.
>
> Item 6:
> Revision of existing standard [802.16-2001 ]
>
> Item 7:
> Insert Roger's contact info
>
> Item 12:
> "This amendment specifies the medium access control and physical layer modifications necessary to support vehicular mobility (speeds up to 322 km/hour), at peak data rates exceeding 2 Mbps per user in licensed bands between 450 MHz and 3.5GHz."
>
> I believe inserting 1.25MHz FDD and 3 mile cell range is a premature restriction. 2 Mbps is an appropriate translation of "broadband" (If I recall correctly, this is the definition 802.16 has been using since the initial FRDs) and a necessary differentiation from 3G. Lastly, international standards ought to be specified using the metric system.
>
> Item 13:
> Scrap the last sentence.
>
> Item 15:
> This item needs to explicitly state all organizations drafting 2.5 and 3rd generation mobile standards, as well as the main characteristics of each of these standards. It also needs to quantify the differences between those standard efforts and this proposed project much better. The current text is both incorrect and inadequate.
>
> Item 17:
> "[??] The amendment will take into consideration terminal EIRP limitations resulting from regulatory SAR requirements."
>
>
> Regarding the 5 criteria:
> In general, I think the "market potential" and "distinct identity" need, similar to item 12 above, focus much more on the added value over current 3G systems, and not on vague statements.
> The "technical feasibility" and "economic feasibility" need to focus on such issues as the achievable capacity per user, per cell and per square km, and the feasibility of specific mobile aspects such as very fast hand-offs that are required. It will need to be credible in technical description, because the claim of proprietary achievements doesn't really prove anything to anybody not intimately familiar with that implementation.
>
> Regards,
>
> /Nico
>
>
> Dr.Ir. Nico van Waes
> Systems Engineer / Algorithm Jockey
> Nokia Wireless Routers>
> http://www.nwr.nokia.com
> nico.vanwaes@nokia.com
>
>