Re: stds-802-16: 802.16 and the Single Carrier
Dear Hank,
Do you not think as I do that a standard is by definition designed to focus
the
required implementation within a given subject area? It is most desireable
that
the wireless world and their customers should take this standard seriously.
Having succumbed to the attitude that the working group couldn't make a
decision so decided on the, "lets use all three", rather makes a nonsense of
the standard. We all agree that the input has been of a very high quality,
but
why have a standard if the subject matter isn't standardised. You and RevCom
will agree, the single carrier approah can achieve all that OFDM and OFDMA
can
achieve.
Kind regards,
Joanne
>From: "Eilts, Hank" <eilts@ti.com>
>To: "'stds-802-16@ieee.org'" <stds-802-16@ieee.org>
>Subject: Re: stds-802-16: 802.16 and the Single Carrier
>Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 07:22:01 -0600
>
>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
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself with cool new emoticons http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/myemo