RE: stds-802-16: 802.16 and the Single Carrier
Well it's good to see that there's still some levity within 802.16. ;)
If there had been agreement that the single carrier technology could do
the job best there wouldn't have been two OFDM approaches in the
document. I think most people would agree with Joanne that it would
have been better for all had there been a single PHY in the document,
but since there wasn't agreement on which PHY it should be we're stuck
with the document as it is. An interesting side effect of this,
however, is that now the market can decide which should prevail.
Pretty moot point, I think, but I didn't want to miss out on the
entertainment. ;)
Eric Jacobsen
Minister of Algorithms
Intel Corporation
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-16@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-16@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Joanne Brett
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 1:07 PM
To: eilts@ti.com; stds-802-16@ieee.org
Subject: 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