Re: stds-802-16-mobile: RE: MBWA draft agenda & work approach
Mark and Nico,
The problem I see here is that a PAR represents far more than just a
"consensus that IEEE 802 wants to work on developing a solution." The
PAR form itself is a binding description of the document that a group
plans to publish. Among many other things, the PAR forces us to
distinguish between one of two forms:
(1) an amendment to an existing standard
(2) a new, independent standard
This is not something that can be put off to a later date, after the
PAR is approved. It is, in fact, a decision that affects the PAR
directly and fundamentally. And, ultimately, there is a lot thinking
and consensus-building behind that decision because the correct
answer hinges on technical factors and consensus.
Since the 802.16 Working Group is the "parent body" to which the MBWA
Study Group will send its report for acceptance, the WG will need to
make a judgement on this issue (and others). I think that the WG is
counting on the Study Group to organize this thinking and
consensus-building. I do believe that the WG could, in practice,
recommend either (1) or (2). However, I think that it will be seeking
an assessment and a considered opinion. And, of course, there are
many other questions to answer too.
The issue is of interest not only within 802.16 but to the SEC also.
This is reflected in the SG Charter, which includes the item "Make a
recommendation on the placement of the project within IEEE 802 and/or
existing Working Groups". I think the SEC will want to see a basis
for the recommendation.
I think we all agree that, ultimately, the development of a standard
in this area is going to require technical thinking about the
relevance of existing standards. The Study Group is a chance to get
this work started right away. I don't see it as an added burden to
get the effort off the ground. I think that the effort is already off
the ground and can start moving forward.
Roger
P.S. Keep in mind that a draft PAR that is submitted 30 days in
advance of the next Plenary need not be the final word. There will be
opportunity to revise it, even significantly, at the Plenary.
At 2:47 PM -0400 02/05/16, Mark Klerer wrote:
>Nico
>
>That can be discussed in the context of the Scope/Work Approach Agenda item
>(Mika Kasslin's contribution).
>
>But to be honest I am not keen on writing an agenda on the assumption of
>failure to get to a PAR.
>
>Also on the question of a detailed evaluation of the dot16/16a MAC my
>opinion is that that gets done at the WG level. Otherwise, since, as I
>indicated in my previous e-mail, there is no a priori endorsement of any MAC
>and the charter of the group is not limited to extensions of the dot16 MAC
>(even if that were possible), all MAC proposals would have to be evaluated
>prior to ever getting to a PAR and WG. Also if we go down this path, to then
>actually evaluate how "this [the requirements] compares to what the .16 MAC
>and .16a PHY(s) can deliver and can be tweaked to" would involve extensive
>technical work and simulations lasting longer then the expeceted lifetime of
>an IEEE SG.
>
>I am basically hoping that we can get consensus that IEEE 802 wants to work
>on developing a mobile broadband wireless access solution that is optimized
>for mobility and addressing existing carrier markets and then work further
>on detailed requirements and solutions in the working group. The burden of
>getting this working group of the ground should not be any different then it
>was for getting any other IEEE work started.
>
>I look forward to the discussions in the SG.
>
>Mark
>
>PS I also believe that IEEE C802.16SGM -02/05 tries to address the issues as
>to why you may not want to use the dot16 MAC as it stands today. But, as
>indicated before, I do not view the SG as selecting or defining the MAC that
>will be done by the WG. So I am not advocating a "popularity contest" all I
>am advocating is an open minded approach that is at least willing to
>consider that a different MAC may do a better job for mobile solutions.
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: nico.Vanwaes@nokia.com [mailto:nico.Vanwaes@nokia.com]
>Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 1:42 PM
>To: m.klerer@flarion.com
>Cc: stds-802-16-mobile@ieee.org
>Subject: RE: MBWA draft agenda & work approach
>
>Mark,
>
>I have some concerns with the MBWA draft agenda.
>I believe it isn't very helpful in structuring the discussion and the
>eventual creation of PAR and 5 criteria.
>
>In my view, the SG isn't going to be able to agree on the technical issues
>underlying the needed text for the PAR and 5 criteria based on some
>discussion of the listed contributions, especially since different sessions
>will have a substantially different audience due to the overlap with TGa.
>As soon as the discussion gets to item 4 in the PAR, the SG will have to
>have a common understanding of the functional requirements of a mobile
>system, and how this compares to what the .16 MAC and .16a PHY(s) can
>deliver and can be tweaked to. Unless of course the SG is going to run a
>popularity contest based on vague notions and intends to present that to the
>.16 plenary for serious consideration.
>
>Since it is reasonable to expect that the SG won't finish its work in the
>time allocated during this meeting, it might be helpful to agree at the
>start of the meeting on a general plan of operation, such as the one below.
>
>A. Development of MBWA functional requirements document.
> (This could be a delta to 802163-00_02r4.pdf to move things along
>or a standalone document)
>B. Evaluation of principal suitability of 802.16 MAC based on FRD.
> If found suitable, identify additional required
>functionality/restrictions, if any.
> Else goto D.
>C. Evaluation of principal suitability of 802.16a PHY(s) based on FRD.
> If found suitable, identify additional required
>functionality/restrictions, if any.
>D. Evaluate overlap of scope (possibly as modified) with existing
>standardization efforts (outside 802.16)
> If major or full overlap, terminate SG.
> Else goto E.
>E. Write 5 criteria.
> Write PAR.
>
>The major work is then under A., which will need to be done anyway
>regardless of where the project ends up.
>
>
>Hence please add the discussion of a plan of operation, such as the one
>above, to the "work approach" item on the agenda. I believe it would be
>helpful in moving the SG (and subsequent work) forward in an organized
>fashion.
>
>Regards,
>
>/Nico