RE: stds-802-16-mobile: 802.16a schedule (was: Creating Unique Identities for the two mobility PARs)
Roger:
Thanks for your prompt reply, you just answer my concern by saying
"strictly limited". To me, that implies very limited PHY/MAC changes.
Arthur
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:marks@boulder.nist.gov]
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 9:54 AM
To: stds-802-16-mobile@ieee.org
Subject: stds-802-16-mobile: 802.16a schedule (was: Creating Unique
Identities for the two mobility PARs)
Arthur:
I'm not sure what you mean about schedule impact. I understand your
concern about limiting changes in the specification, but I don't see
any connection between the mobility discussions and "completing
existing 802.16".
IEEE Std 802.16 was published in April. The latest 802.16a draft has
already been submitted for RevCom approval, pending the results of
Confirmation Ballot. Depending on the outcome of that ballot, we may
need to look at some comments in Kauai, but the scope will be
strictly limited.
Roger
At 9:33 AM -0800 02/11/04, Arthur Wang wrote:
>Roger & dear 802.16 members:
>
>As the discussion on mobile PAR becomes heavy, can anyone estimate
>the schedule impact? From a pure fix wireless player point of view,
>I am more concerned about the delay of completing existing 802.16
>than missing the additional market opportunity to include mobility
>support. I have no doubt that 802.16 team has the resource to put
>out a standard with combined taste, fixed and mobile access, we just
>need to watch schedule cautiously.
>
>Let's agree to finish 802.16 (fixed part) first then expand the same
>effort to include mobility. We have to create enough interest for
>chip makers to build 802.16 standard ASIC. Consistent SPEC change,
>even minor, will never be favorable and may be jeopardize our main
>course. As for the MBWA group, I am not quite sure why they want to
>separate from 802.16, well, it may be another SG4 story, smaller
>crowd does not guarantee to reach destination faster if losing the
>critical mass of industrial support. It is a standard that we are
>talking about, after all, a standard requires joint compromise.
>
>Regards
>
>Arthur
>PROXIM Corporation
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
>Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 6:33 AM
>To: stds-802-16-mobile@ieee.org
>Cc: stds-802-mobility@ieee.org
>Subject: RE: stds-802-16-mobile: Creating Unique Identities for the two
>mobility PARs [Procedural Request]
>
>
>Folks,
>
>I would like to make a procedural request regarding this interesting
>discussion.
>
>Namely: Please confine the discussion to
><stds-802-16-mobile@ieee.org> and/or <stds-802-mobility@ieee.org>.
>
>Please do not copy the SEC reflector. The SEC doesn't want to be
>involved in the details of this debate.
>
>Also, you need not copy a list of people. Anyone interested is
>already subscribed.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Roger