RE: stds-802-16-mobile: RE: First Draft of Potential MBWA PAR andFive Criteria
Without taking sides, I have a few comments:
>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.
I agree. We should focus on the approved SEC motion to establish the
802.16 MBWA Study Group:
-Scope: Mobile Broadband Wireless Access Network Operating in
Licensed Frequency Bands and Supporting Mobility at Vehicular Speeds
-Charter:
The MBWA Study Group is responsible for activities leading to the
authorization of a Mobile Broadband Wireless Access project within
IEEE 802. In particular the SG shall:
* Develop the PAR for MBWA;
* Complete the Five Criteria for MBWA; and
* Make a recommendation on the placement of the project within IEEE
802 and/or existing Working Groups
>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 question of what MAC to use is clearly an appropriate topic for
the Study Group.
>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.
This is not quite right. Just before the close of the 802.16 Closing
Plenary, there was an attempted motion to "Enhance the 802.16a PAR to
support fixed, nomadic and low speed mobile applications, using the
existing MAC and PHY modes." As Chair, I ruled this out of order;
this was not the appropriate time to initiate a PAR change of any
kind. Anyway, I don't think that the discussion at the Closing
Plenary meeting indicates any kind of guidance to the Study Group as
to the applicability of the 802.16 MAC. On the other hand, I believe
that the discussion at the Call for Interest session strongly
emphasized the commonality with the existing 802.16 projects; that's
why the Study Group was placed in 802.16.
Also, given that the Study Group is a part of 802.16, it's
appropriate for it to think about mobility in the context of the
existing 802.16 projects. If, for example, if it decided against
bringing vehicular mobility into 802.16, it could still recommend
introducing low-speed mobility there.
>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.
Although it's not forbidden to have two independent standards in one
WG, it's unusual in 802 [802.15 is the one exception]. I think that
802.16 would be more likely to undertake a new project if it would be
sharing part of the existing 802.16 body of work.
>(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.)
I think that the use of the word "fixed" really is no more than a
syntax problem. The standards that we have developed have the word
"fixed" in the title because that reflects their scope. If we
developed an amendment that expanded the scope to mobility, the
amendment could, at the same time, strike the word "scope" from the
title.
Roger