RE: stds-802-16: 802.16 and the Single Carrier
[Forwarded for a non-subscriber.]
Re: stds-802-16: 802.16 and the Single Carrier
The market will decide which of the 3 PHYs is "best." These decisions cannot be made by standards committees composed by people from industry. As the former Convenor of IEC 65C/WG6, we wound up with 8 PHY/DL's in the Fieldbus standard. The tradition in IEEE802 is to not compromise, but to include. The market decided between 802.3, 802.4, and 802.5. It took a few years and a lot of pain, but the decision is clear.
Dick Caro
============================================
Richard H. Caro, CEO
CMC Associates
2 Beth Circle, Acton, MA 01720
Tel: +1.978.635.9449 Mobile: +.978.764.4728
Fax: +1.978.246.1270
E-mail: RCaro@CMC.us
Web: http://www.CMC.us
Buy my book: Automation Network Selection
http://www.isa.org/rd.cfm?id=3573
============================================
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-16@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-16@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Eilts, Hank
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 8:22 AM
To: 'stds-802-16@ieee.org'
Subject: 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
------=_NextPart_000_00C7_01C3E99B.52DAF5B0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Re: stds-802-16: 802.16 and the Single =
Carrier</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1276" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D636403819-02022004>The=20
market will decide which of the 3 PHYs is "best." These decisions cannot =
be made by standards committees composed by people from industry. =
As the=20
former Convenor of IEC 65C/WG6, we wound up with 8 PHY/DL's in the =
Fieldbus=20
standard. The tradition in IEEE802 is to not compromise, but to include. =
The=20
market decided between 802.3, 802.4, and 802.5. It took a few years and =
a lot of=20
pain, but the decision is clear.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Dick=20
Caro<BR>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D<BR>Ric=
hard H. Caro,=20
CEO<BR>CMC Associates<BR>2 Beth Circle, Acton, MA =
01720<BR>Tel: =20
+1.978.635.9449 Mobile: +.978.764.4728<BR>Fax: =
+1.978.246.1270<BR>E-mail:=20
RCaro@CMC.us<BR>Web: <A href=3D"http://www.cmc.us/"=20
target=3D_blank>http://www.CMC.us</A><BR>Buy my book: Automation Network =
Selection<BR> <A =
href=3D"http://www.isa.org/rd.cfm?id=3D3573"=20
target=3D_blank>http://www.isa.org/rd.cfm?id=3D3573</A><BR>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D<BR></DIV></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT =
face=3DTahoma=20
size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>=20
owner-stds-802-16@majordomo.ieee.org=20
[mailto:owner-stds-802-16@majordomo.ieee.org]<B>On Behalf Of =
</B>Eilts,=20
Hank<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, February 02, 2004 8:22 AM<BR><B>To:</B>=20
'stds-802-16@ieee.org'<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: stds-802-16: 802.16 and =
the=20
Single Carrier<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<P><FONT size=3D2>To all,</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=3D2>I do not recall any relevant inputs from RevCom when =
the 3 phy=20
modes were being discussed. It was simply a case of three =
factions, each=20
with their own approach, refusing to compromise on choosing a single =
phy=20
mode. Putting all 3 modes into the standard was recognized as=20
undesireable, but seemed like the only way forward.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=3D2>Hank Eilts</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>Texas =
Instruments,=20
Inc.</FONT> </P><BR>
<P><FONT size=3D2>-----Original Message-----</FONT> <BR><FONT =
size=3D2>From:=20
owner-stds-802-16@majordomo.ieee.org</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>[<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:owner-stds-802-16@majordomo.ieee.org";>mailto:owner-stds-80=
2-16@majordomo.ieee.org</A>]=20
On Behalf Of Johnston, Dj</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>Sent: Saturday, =
January 31,=20
2004 3:00 PM</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>To: Joanne Brett;=20
stds-802-16@ieee.org</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>Subject: RE: =
stds-802-16: 802.16=20
and the Single Carrier</FONT> </P><BR>
<P><FONT size=3D2>Joanne,</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=3D2>Could you point to where in the minutes it shows =
that "RevCom=20
realise</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>that everything could be achieved =
with a=20
Single Carrier FDE approach and</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>the OFDM and =
OFDMA=20
were just added as a fashion statement of the time.".</FONT> <BR><FONT =
size=3D2>I'm not aware that such a resolution has been made.</FONT> =
</P>
<P><FONT size=3D2>Some of us may want to discuss the matter with =
RevCom if that=20
is what</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>they think, although I'm not =
convinced that=20
they do actually think that.</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=3D2>Regards,</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>DJ</FONT> =
</P><BR>
<P><FONT size=3D2>-----Original Message-----</FONT> <BR><FONT =
size=3D2>From:=20
owner-stds-802-16@majordomo.ieee.org</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>[<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:owner-stds-802-16@majordomo.ieee.org";>mailto:owner-stds-80=
2-16@majordomo.ieee.org</A>]=20
On Behalf Of Joanne Brett</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>Sent: Saturday, =
January 31,=20
2004 12:32 PM</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>To: r.b.marks@ieee.org;=20
stds-802-16@ieee.org</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>Subject: stds-802-16: =
802.16 and=20
the Single Carrier</FONT> </P><BR>
<P><FONT size=3D2>Dear all,</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=3D2>My colleagues inform me that it was widely agreed at =
the last=20
meeting</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>that </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>the =
802.16</FONT>=20
<BR><FONT size=3D2>standard is full of quality input from a wide range =
of=20
technical</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>personnel </FONT><BR><FONT=20
size=3D2>contributed</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>over the last 4 or so =
years. They=20
also agreed that having 3 phys tended</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>to=20
</FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>take away</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>the =
optimum quality=20
that could be achieved. RevCom realise that</FONT> <BR><FONT =
size=3D2>everything=20
</FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>could be</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>achieved =
with a=20
Single Carrier FDE approach and the OFDM and OFDMA were</FONT> =
<BR><FONT=20
size=3D2>just added as a fashion statement of the time. OFDM and OFDMA =
are=20
a</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>fantastic </FONT><BR><FONT =
size=3D2>piece</FONT>=20
<BR><FONT size=3D2>of wireless technology, but totally unrequired in =
the=20
standard. I</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>therefore </FONT><BR><FONT =
size=3D2>agree=20
that</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>the standard would be far more readable =
if the=20
OFDM and OFDMA sections</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>were =
</FONT><BR><FONT=20
size=3D2>deleted.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>We all want our products =
to be 802.16=20
compliant but very few people have</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>any=20
</FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>desire</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>to read an =
800 page=20
standard in the first place.</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=3D2>Long live the Single Carrier.</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=3D2>Jo</FONT> </P><BR>
<P><FONT size=3D2>>From: "Roger B. Marks" =
<r.b.marks@ieee.org></FONT>=20
<BR><FONT size=3D2>>To: stds-802-16@ieee.org</FONT> <BR><FONT=20
size=3D2>>Subject: stds-802-16: Conformance03 approval =
schedule</FONT>=20
<BR><FONT size=3D2>>Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 12:17:28 -0700</FONT> =
<BR><FONT=20
size=3D2>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>>As you recall, the=20
P802.16/Conformance03 draft was 100% approved in </FONT><BR><FONT=20
size=3D2>>Sponsor</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>>Ballot, with =
comments. At our=20
WG Closing Plenary of 15 January, we</FONT> <BR><FONT =
size=3D2>approved=20
</FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>>comment resolutions, agreed to initiate =
a recirc,=20
and agreed to</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>"request </FONT><BR><FONT=20
size=3D2>>conditional approval from the 802 EC to forward the final =
balloted</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>draft to </FONT><BR><FONT =
size=3D2>>RevCom."=20
However, the motion did not specify a time frame.</FONT> <BR><FONT=20
size=3D2>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>>Though TGC had been =
considering a=20
submittal in February, I have </FONT><BR><FONT =
size=3D2>>discussed</FONT>=20
<BR><FONT size=3D2>>the schedule with TGC Chair Ken Stanwood and =
Editor Lars=20
Lindh. We have</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=3D2>>decided to postpone the schedule a few weeks. =
The primary=20
reason is so</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>that </FONT><BR><FONT =
size=3D2>>we can=20
seek 802 EC approval at the March plenary instead of in an =
email</FONT>=20
<BR><FONT size=3D2>EC </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>>ballot. The EC =
doesn't really=20
like to make this kind of decision by</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>email. =
</FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>>We already have one major email motion =
in front of=20
them, and I don't</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>want </FONT><BR><FONT =
size=3D2>>to=20
push them harder. We have decided that the delay is not =
concern.</FONT>=20
<BR><FONT size=3D2>RevCom </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>>approval will =
be delayed=20
to late April, instead of late March.</FONT> <BR><FONT =
size=3D2>></FONT>=20
<BR><FONT size=3D2>>Lars is preparing a draft for recirc.</FONT> =
<BR><FONT=20
size=3D2>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>>The revised schedule is =
here:</FONT>=20
<BR><FONT size=3D2>> <A=20
href=3D"http://ieee802.org/16/tgc/C3/schedule.html"=20
target=3D_blank>http://ieee802.org/16/tgc/C3/schedule.html</A></FONT> =
<BR><FONT=20
size=3D2>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>>Let me know if you have =
any=20
concerns.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>></FONT> <BR><FONT=20
size=3D2>>Roger</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT=20
=
size=3D2>________________________________________________________________=
_</FONT>=20
<BR><FONT size=3D2>Express yourself with cool new emoticons</FONT> =
<BR><FONT=20
size=3D2><A href=3D"http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/myemo"=20
target=3D_blank>http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/myemo</A></FONT>=20
</P><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_00C7_01C3E99B.52DAF5B0--