Re: [STDS-802-16] Session #33 contributions organization and overview document
Jose,
To a large degree, I agree with your statement. I also support
Brian's efforts to keep 802.16e within its scope.
Let's overview the situation. 802.16e is an amendment, not a
standalone standard. When it's finished, IEEE 802.16 will be defined
by two books: (802.16-2004 + 802.16e). The union of these two
documents will specify the air interface, which will support
fixed-and-mobile applications.
The 802.16e project is not the place to reopen the content of
802.16-2004. The purpose of the exercise is to specify the features
necessary to support the MSS.
However, let's ask this: when we have finished the new standard
(802.16-2004 + 802.16e), what will its specification for fixed
systems look like? Will it be identical to that of 802.16-2004? The
answer is: probably not. On one hand, the PAR has clearly restrictive
language regarding interoperability, and an implementation of a
system based on 802.16-2004 will be compliant with (802.16-2004 +
802.16e). On the other hand, there is also some flexibility. For
example, optional elements might be added that don't impair
interoperability. However, the 802.16e project is not about adding
optional elements for the purpose of improving fixed operation.
Changes that affect the specification of fixed systems are permitted
only when they are added to better support the needs of mobile SSs.
That's how I see it at this time.
Roger
At 20:10 -0700 2004-07-01, Puthenkulam, Jose P wrote:
>Hi Roger,
>
>Some clarification on Brian's comments might be helpful. When we say
>non-mobile changes are out of scope. The PAR clearly states that 16e is
>for combined fixed and mobile operation. So fixed mode changes
>especially within the context of combined fixed and mobile use might
>also be within scope. Is this a correct interpretation?
>
>Thanks & best regards,
>jose
>
>
>______________________________
>Jose Puthenkulam
>Network Architect (802.16 Stds)
>Mobile Networking Lab,
>Communication Technology Lab
>Intel Corporation
>Tel : (503) 264 6121
>Cell: (503) 7016922
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>[mailto:owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Roger B. Marks
>Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 1:32 PM
>To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] Session #33 contributions organization and
>overview document
>
>I support Brian's comments, but I'd like to clarify that
>"maintenance" comments are limited to the type that would belong in a
>Corrigenda document: only "corrections" to IEEE Standard 802.16-2004.
>See:
> http://ieee802.org/16/arc/802-16list2/msg01649.html
>
>Roger
>
>
>At 14:59 -0400 04/07/01, Kiernan, Brian G. wrote:
>>I would like to thank Phil, Changhoi and Prakash for taking on this
>>task on their own initiative. It was not an easy thing to do.
>>
>>I want to reiterate Phil's point that people should look closely at
>>these contributions and, as much as possible, work together over the
>>next week to harmonize and simplify. It would be great if we
>>received a lot of reply comments that withdrew original
>>contributions in favor of a single harmonized contribution.
>>
>>Also, as Phil notes, over half the contributions are on the PHY. In
>>my own somewhat cursory examination of these contributions, a number
>>of them strike me as either enhancements or fixes to the RevD
>>document having little or no relation to mobility. Task Group e is
>>not chartered to add non-mobile enhancements to the RevD document,
>>and these types of changes will be summarily ruled out-of-scope.
>>
>>Regarding fixes to the RevD document, in a 23 June e-mail, Roger
>>indicated his intent to open a Corrigendum PAR to cover this type of
>>material and provided a means for people to provide those types of
>>comments by uploading them: "Please submit your report, in
>>Commentary format, to:
>><http://maint.wirelessman.org>http://maint.wirelessman.org.";
>>
>>If you have a comment or contribution of that type, please withdraw
> >it from TGe, and resubmit it to the above directory.
>>
>>Given everyone's cooperation, and a little luck, we may actually
>>make it all the way through.
>>
>>Brian
>>
>>
>>From: Phillip Barber [mailto:pbarber@BROADBANDMOBILETECH.COM]
>>Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 9:38 PM
>>To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
>>Subject: [STDS-802-16] Session #33 contributions organization and
>>overview document
>>
>>Thanks to the assistance of some able and willing recruits (Thanks
>>Changhoi and Prakash), we have completed the Session #33
>>contributions organization and overview document. I have uploaded
>>the document to the Temp upload directory
>>(<http://temp.wirelessman.org>http://temp.wirelessman.org).
>>
>>This is an informal effort to provide some context to view and
>>evaluate the various contributions. Hopefully, authors and members
>>alike will see other contributions, of a similar topical nature, and
>>take the initiative to harmonize. At the very least, members will
>>be able to see alternate proposals, which might otherwise be
>>difficult to detect given the volume of contributions. Topical
>>groupings are purely arbitrary; topical assignment by the editor,
>>based on limited evaluation. I am certain that other groupings
>>might well suffice. I am equally certain that some contributions
>>may be mis-filed, or apply to more than one grouping (though for
>>this document, each contribution occurs only once).
>>Overview/summary information is just cursory--please do not be too
>>critical.
>>
>>I would especially like to draw your attention to the large volume
>>of OFDMA PHY contributions. I would hope that the OFDMA PHY
>>community could harmonize and reduce the volume of competing
>>contributions in the space (and there are many, many competing
>>contributions on the same subject matter within OFDMA, even between
>>authors from the same company). Fast_Feedback, Preambles, and MIMO
>>are all areas that some harmonization should be expected.
>>
>>Please provide comments and criticisms to improve the document.
>>
>>I hope that this document proves useful to some portion of the
>membership.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Phil
>>
>>Note: Ignore color use in the document. Colors used only to
>>distinguish editor identity.