RE: stds-802-16-mobile: RE: MBWA draft agenda & work approach
Mark,Nico,
I agree that the SG should evaluate the suitability of the 802.16 PHY/MAC
as base-lines for the MBWA. This will not preclude further
enhancements/modifications to the base-line.
If the SG will find that is suitable to replace the UMTS PHY/MAC, attention
should be paid to interoperability with higher UMTS layers.
If there is also intention to provide some mobility, at low vehicular
speeds,
for 802.16a compatible equipment, this may be in the scope of a different
PAR,
that will target mainly the selection of one PHY and authentication/roaming
between different Service Providers.
Being aware of Hiperlan sustained activity for 3G inter-working, I view a
lot of work
far beyond MAC and PHY issues.
In conclusion, the SG may come out with 0,1,2 PARs. Roaming mode
is one of the key factors and should be addressed by the PAR.
Marianna
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Klerer [mailto:M.Klerer@flarion.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 9:47 PM
To: 'nico.Vanwaes@nokia.com'; Mark Klerer
Cc: stds-802-16-mobile@ieee.org
Subject: stds-802-16-mobile: RE: MBWA draft agenda & work approach
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