stds-802-16: the 802.16a/802.16b PAR problem
Folks,
We will eventually need to address our 802.16a/802.16b PAR problem.
It's time to start thinking seriously about this.
As you know, the two projects are being developed under separate PARs:
IEEE 802.16-01/16 (PAR for IEEE P802.16a)
http://ieee802.org/16/docs/01/80216-01_16.pdf
IEEE 802.16-01/17 (PAR for IEEE P802.16b)
http://ieee802.org/16/docs/01/80216-01_17.pdf
The IEEE is expecting one published document from each PAR (each will
be an amendment to IEEE Standard 802.16). However, we are currently
developing both parts in one document.
We are going to be faced with several alternatives. The following
three seem most likely:
(1) Keep the document together, but split it when it is more mature.
This is the default.
(2) Publish everything as one document.
(3) Incorporate all of the PHY and MAC stuff in P802.16a, and let
P802.16b be just the etiquette or whatever else we want to call the
unlicensed-coexistence stuff. (Since I have seen few signs of anyone
working on this problem, this might mean that 802.16b comes along
later, which would be OK.)
You may have your own preferences among these three, or you may have
other ideas. However, we cannot make any decisions without
understanding the practical ramifications of getting approval on each
of these tracks. Here is my analysis, based on the development
schedule in IEEE 802.16ab-01/10
<http://ieee802.org/16/tg3_4/docs/80216ab-01_10.pdf>.
(1) When we bring P802.16a and P802.16b to RevCom for approval, we
need to provide evidence of having balloted each separately (in the
IEEE Sponsor Ballot). That means that, on March 15, we need to ask
the 802 SEC to approve either one Sponsor Ballot or two. I don't
think the SEC will care whether we approved both parts in the same
Working Group Letter Ballot, as long as the SEC motion specifies
which parts will go where.
However, before we ask IEEE (on April 8) to start Sponsor Ballot, we
need to have either one or two Sponsor Ballot Groups in place. The
process of forming the Ballot Groups starts about six weeks before
the ballot opens. This means that Session #18 in March is too late to
reconsider the current default plan of publishing two separate
amendments. If we haven't decided by Session #17 in January to
abandon Plan (1), then we are stuck with it.
(2) If we decide at Session #17 to publish a single amendment, then
we will need to create a ballot group for that single amendment. We
may have trouble convincing the IEEE Balloting Center to create such
a Ballot Group when we have no PAR to develop the specific document
we want to ballot. However, I suspect they would probably go along if
we had already submitted an appropriate PAR revision to NesCom (the
PAR approval committee). Bottom line: the decision to merge the PARs
could be made at Session #17. We'd need the WG to approve the PAR
changes and ask the 802 SEC to vote on it electronically. We have
time to meet the NesCom deadline of February 8 (for March 21 PAR
approval). If we asked the Balloting Center, on February 8, to form
the Sponsor Ballot Group, we'd be a week behind the schedule, but
that's not a critical week.
(3) The logistics of this are probably the same as case (2). I don't
think we could form a Ballot Group based on the 802.16a PAR (whose
scope says "in licensed bands") and then ballot a draft that included
license-exempt bands. Well, I guess we could, as long as it didn't
ever say "license-exempt". Then 802.16b could be used for another
amendment which wrote those words in at the appropriate places.
So, we have a decision to make. I don't think we will be ready to
make it next month. We have time to make it January, but we need to
be prepared there. In Austin, we need to:
(1) Talk about the issues and see if we can find some kind of consensus.
(2) Make plans on how we expect to deal with this on the Session #17 agenda.
(3) Pre-authorize the group at Session #17 to take action on this
specific issue, regardless of whether we have a quorum there.
Feel free to think about this and discuss it on the reflector. I have
scheduled 15 minutes at the 802.16 Opening Plenary on this topic (and
on the 802.16a/b schedules in general), but I would like the TG3 and
TG4 leadership to take on an active role in forging some consensus.
TG4 also needs to start addressing the etiquette issue so that we can
see the whole picture.
Regards,
Roger