| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Brian,
Thanks. I thought my "becoming dangerous" and proposing something would result in someone finding the reference, I had submitted the question on the 3GPP exploder and gotten no real answer. Indeed by Nomadic/Portable I also assume stationary devices only allowing different points of attachment.
Thanks.
Mark Klerer
-----Original Message-----
We can define things any way we want, but there are some ITU-R definitions of fixed, nomadic and mobile with which we should be consistent. I have extracted them below. Note that nomadic operation draws a distinction between being able to move and communicating while moving (that is mobile).
Mobility capabilities of the terminal: fixed, nomadic (may be used in different places but the terminal must be stationary while in use), mobile, restricted mobility (e.g. within a single cell), etc. Nomadic wireless access (NWA); Wireless access application in which the location of the end-user termination may be in different places but it must be stationary while in use. Mobile wireless access (MWA); Wireless access application in which the location of the end-user termination is mobile.
Also, the original ITU-R IMT-2000 Requirements Recommendation (M.1034-1) listed the following six classes of relative speed (speed between base and mobile - the base station was allowed to be mobile):
- stationary (0 km/h) - pedestrian (up to 10 km/h) - typical vehicular (up to 100 km/h) - high speed vehicular (up to 500 km/h) - aeronautical (up to 1500 km/h) - satellite (up to 27000 km/h)
Ultimately, for purposes of evaluating the different terrestrial air interface proposals, the numbers were simplified to:
- pedestrian (3 km/h) - typical vehicular (120 km/h) - high speed vehicular (500 km/h - rural environments only)
Overall, these are not that different from Mark's classifications, except there is no speed distinction drawn between vehicular urban and vehicular highway. (It's actually very common to do 100 km/h or higher on the highways through NYC.). I suggest we drop that distinction and have a single "typical vehicular" of 120 km/h.
Brian
----Original
Message-----
All,
I plan to post a Vehicular Mobility PAR and Nomadicity/Pedestrian Mobility PAR by Thursday. This will allow people to react to PARs that have been written to provide clear daylight between the proposals. The June 25 deadline is a "suggestion" I would encourage a hard cut-off for MONDAY JULY 1. Later contributions will of course also be consideredon a time allowing basis.
Also I have not been able to locate the references for the various mobility classes. Therefore, I will be working with the following clasifications:
1. Portable/Nomadic: The device can be connected to any of several locations, be recognized and autheticated by the service provider and obtain service. 2. Pedestrian Mobility: Speeds up to 8 km/h (5 mph). 3. Vehicular Urban Mobility: Speeds up to 60 km/h (37.5 mph) 4. Vehicular Highway Mobility: Speeds up to 120 km/h (75 mph) 5. Vehicular High Speed Train Mobility: Speeds up to 250 km/h (156.25 mph)
If we locate a standardized definiton we will switch to that.
Mark Klerer
-----Original
Message-----
Folks,
If we are going to proceed with this plan, we will need a draft of PAR P. Mark has requested that input to the Study Group be submitted by June 25.
Does anyone plan to submit a draft? If so, can you let the reflector know? That way, you might be able to get the help of others who are interested.
Roger
At 12:57 PM -0600 02/06/11, Roger B. Marks wrote: >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 |