stds-802-16-mobile: Re: a two-PAR solution
Mark,
Your contribution IEEE C802.16sgm-02/11
<http://ieee802.org/16/mobile/contrib/C80216sgm-02_11.pdf> proposes
that we develop two PARs; I am thinking along the same lines. Your
contribution also suggests an approach to a single vehicular-speed
PAR (call it PAR V for "Vehicular"). While I think this latter effort
is valuable, it strikes me that it is going to be challenging until
we have some clarity on whether we will aim for two PARs. By the same
token, it will be tough to develop a well-supported plan to add
portability/etc. to 802.16 (PAR P, for "Portable") unless we
understand whether or not there will be a separate vehicular mobility
plan.
I am not saying that you should be developing PAR P; I think that
someone else should step up to that. But I think we need both PAR P
and PAR V to emerge roughly in parallel. I really think that, in this
situation, we have a reasonable chance of getting to a true consensus
on the tough questions.
I'm going to venture forth with two possible scenarios. It begins
with a common base assumption:
*We receive one or more proposals for PAR P and PAR V before Session #20.
*The Study Group meets at Session #20 and considers the development
of two PARs. It spends some time finding consensus on the contents of
those two PARs. It discusses whether or not PAR V ought to be
developed within the 802.16 WG. Depending on the result of this
analysis and the resulting WG decision, we proceed along one of two
scenarios:
SCENARIO 1 (if 802.16 tentatively wants to develop PAR V):
*We renew the Study Group until November, this time chartering it to
develop PAR P and PAR V.
*PAR P and PAR V are hammered out at Session #20 in September. If we
have consensus, then we submit both to the SEC for November approval.
PAR V could still be recommended for placement outside 802.16.
*In November, we refine and finalize the submitted PARs. PAR V could
still be re-considered for placement outside 802.16.
SCENARIO 2 (if 802.16 does not want to develop PAR V):
*PAR P: We create a WG Study Group to develop PAR P. PAR P is
hammered out at Session #20 in September and submitted to the SEC for
November approval. In November, we refine and finalize PAR P.
*PAR V: The MBWA Study Group makes a recommendation on whether to
pursue PAR V through a new 802 Executive Committee Study Group.
There are other possibilities too, but I propose these as the primary ones.
Roger
>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