stds-802-16-mobile: a two-PAR solution
As I received IEEE C802.16sgm-02/11, I was about to post a suggestion
of my own to the MBWA Study Group. It seems that my suggestion had
much in common with Mark's.
I'm going to send along my message now. Then I'll take a closer look
at Mark's plan.
==================================
I am worried that an underlying problem is going to keep the MBWA
Study Group from reaching consensus on a PAR. I would like to propose
a solution.
At Session #19, the Study Group made progress on the Scope statement
of a possible PAR. However, it did not move forward on other aspects
of the PAR and Five Criteria. That means it has a long way to go.
I believe that the discussion has not yet fully probed the depths of
the participants' interests. I suspect that deep differences remain.
As a result, I am concerned that the Study Group will have a
difficult time moving toward a consensus.
In accordance with its charter, the Study Group has been working to
define a PAR that will address support for "Mobility at Vehicular
Speeds." However, the discussion I have heard suggests that many
Working Group members are more anxious to pursue slow mobility and/or
portability as a priority. I haven't seen the Study Group address or
try to bridge that dichotomy. My worry is that, as discussion
proceeds, we will find ourselves at odds again and again until,
ultimately, we are unable to proceed due to this split.
I suggest, therefore, that we consider the possibility of dividing
the Study Group's efforts into developing two PARs:
*PAR X would be defined as an amendment to IEEE Std 802.16 to
introduce limited mobility and portability. Depending on the WG
consensus, this might broaden to repeaters, MAC management, and some
of the other issues brought up at the last TGa meeting, as recorded
in the minutes (802.16a-02/10).
*PAR Y would focus on a standard that would support the 250 km/hour
target that has been identified. By separating the problem, I suspect
that it would be easier to resolve basic questions regarding this
aspect of the work (for example: Should it be an amendment or a new
standard? Should it be placed in the 802.16 WG or in a new WG? Should
it look more like a cellular telephone standard or more like a BWA
standard?)
I'd like your reaction so we can gauge whether this proposal could
indeed be the basis of consensus. If so, I'd like to see someone take
a crack two draft PARs.
Roger