Re: stds-802-16: 802.16 and the Single Carrier

["Eilts, Hank" <eilts@ti.com>]

Title: Re: stds-802-16: 802.16 and the Single Carrier

To all,

I do not recall any relevant inputs from RevCom when the 3 phy modes were being discussed.  It was simply a case of three factions, each with their own approach, refusing to compromise on choosing a single phy mode.  Putting all 3 modes into the standard was recognized as undesireable, but seemed like the only way forward.

Hank Eilts
Texas Instruments, Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-16@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-16@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Johnston, Dj
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 3:00 PM
To: Joanne Brett; stds-802-16@ieee.org
Subject: RE: stds-802-16: 802.16 and the Single Carrier

Joanne,

Could you point to where in the minutes it shows that "RevCom realise
that everything could be achieved with a Single Carrier FDE approach and
the OFDM and OFDMA were just added as a fashion statement of the time.".
I'm not aware that such a resolution has been made.

Some of us may want to discuss the matter with RevCom if that is what
they think, although I'm not convinced that they do actually think that.

Regards,
DJ

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-16@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-16@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Joanne Brett
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 12:32 PM
To: r.b.marks@ieee.org; stds-802-16@ieee.org
Subject: stds-802-16: 802.16 and the Single Carrier

Dear all,

My colleagues inform me that it was widely agreed at the last meeting
that
the 802.16
standard is full of quality input from a wide range of technical
personnel
contributed
over the last 4 or so years. They also agreed that having 3 phys tended
to
take away
the optimum quality that could be achieved. RevCom realise that
everything
could be
achieved with a Single Carrier FDE approach and the OFDM and OFDMA were
just added as a fashion statement of the time. OFDM and OFDMA are a
fantastic
piece
of wireless technology, but totally unrequired in the standard. I
therefore
agree that
the standard would be far more readable if the OFDM and OFDMA sections
were
deleted.
We all want our products to be 802.16 compliant but very few people have
any
desire
to read an 800 page standard in the first place.

Long live the Single Carrier.

Jo

>From: "Roger B. Marks" <r.b.marks@ieee.org>
>To: stds-802-16@ieee.org
>Subject: stds-802-16: Conformance03 approval schedule
>Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 12:17:28 -0700
>
>As you recall, the P802.16/Conformance03 draft was 100% approved in
>Sponsor
>Ballot, with comments. At our WG Closing Plenary of 15 January, we
approved
>comment resolutions, agreed to initiate a recirc, and agreed to
"request
>conditional approval from the 802 EC to forward the final balloted
draft to
>RevCom." However, the motion did not specify a time frame.
>
>Though TGC had been considering a submittal in February, I have
>discussed
>the schedule with TGC Chair Ken Stanwood and Editor Lars Lindh. We have

>decided to postpone the schedule a few weeks. The primary reason is so
that
>we can seek 802 EC approval at the March plenary instead of in an email
EC
>ballot. The EC doesn't really like to make this kind of decision by
email.
>We already have one major email motion in front of them, and I don't
want
>to push them harder. We have decided that the delay is not concern.
RevCom
>approval will be delayed to late April, instead of late March.
>
>Lars is preparing a draft for recirc.
>
>The revised schedule is here:
>       http://ieee802.org/16/tgc/C3/schedule.html
>
>Let me know if you have any concerns.
>
>Roger

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself with cool new emoticons
http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/myemo