RE: stds-802-16-mobile: RE: First Draft of Potential MBWA PAR and Five Criteria
Nico,
In response to your comments I would like to explain what I have tried to do
in drafting the preliminary PAR and Five Criteria.
1. The agreement was to establish the SG under 802.16 and empower the SG to
make a recommendation where within 802 (802.11, 802.16 or new WG) the work
should be done.
2. With respect to the issue of reuse of any existing MAC (802.11 or
802.16/16a) the discussion at the meeting clearly went in the direction that
there was no preconceived notion that the existing MAC(s) were to be used.
The minutes even indicate that there was a motion, (which was defeated) to
enlarge the scope of 802.16a to address fixed/nomadic/low speed mobile
applications using existing PHY modes, thus recognizing that the
requirements for vehicular mobility are different. Roger spoke against the
motion due to the fact that this would delay the ballot on 802.16a and
indicated that the SG should be willing to address that. Again the point was
then made that this would not be used to drive what would be done for full
mobility.
3. The draft PAR was my attempt, as chair, at jumpstarting the project
description and is intended to be neutral with respect to where the work
gets assigned. I believe it is neutral.
According to IEEE rules a single WG can draft more than one standard. So
envisioning it as a separate standard makes no judgment as to where the work
gets done. (Though I would say that having a contradiction in the title,
i.e. Fixed Broadband Wireless Access ..... for Vehicular Mobility Support,
is a sign that this is not just a syntax problem.)
Similarly putting in Roger's name and 802.16 as WG at this time would not be
neutral and would prejudge the outcome.
I expect contributions on where this work needs to be done and why. The PAR
would be completed based on these contributions and discussion.
4. With respect to deleting some of the detail (eg 1.25 MHz, FDD). I will
see what other comments I get and try to repost on May 2. (Though not
committing on some of these details works against being able to provide the
detail like capacity per user etc. but see below)
5. With respect to the technical/economic feasibility comment, the text I
used is actually modeled on what the 802.16a PAR has, including the pointer
to proprietary achievements. (See URL:
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/16/tg3/docs/802163-00_01.pdf
That PAR and the 5 Criteria were approved.
Some additional detail may be feasible, however, the question of achievable
capacity per user, per cell, per square km are questions that are more
appropriately answered as the standard is specified.
-----Original Message-----
From: nico.Vanwaes@nokia.com [mailto:nico.Vanwaes@nokia.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 5:22 PM
To: stds-802-16-mobile@ieee.org
Subject: 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 indented
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
>
>