|
Hi
Jose,
Based
on many comments I have seen in #14b ballot, I have several
observations:
1. TGe
is far away from concluding its work and reaching concensus on all main subjects
that have to do with mobility, hence it might not be as close to finishing its
work as the schedule implies.
2.
Some people have a very broad interpretation of what 'backwards compatibility'
means, specifically when it has to do with the OFDMA PHY
3.
Some people do not make any distinction between improvements, and error fixes.
We all know that given infinite time, the standard can be improved without
limit, but I believe that we do have a market out there to catch, and we should
live with the consensus decisions of 802.16d if we want to be there on
time.
Based
on these observations, and based on the fact that there are companies out there
that want to start designing OFDMA systems based on the 802.16-2004
specification, I believe that it is essential to have a separate activity to
handle errata. I am sure that this activity can be concluded much faster than
the 802.16e effort, and result also in faster conclusion of 802.16e work, that
will not be burdened with endless discussions on what's errata, and what's a new
feature, and what breaks interoperability and what doesn't.
I
therefore strongly support the corrigenda PAR activity.
Best
Regards,
Yigal
Leiba
Hi
Roger,
On the corrigenda PAR, I had
couple of questions. I maybe asking questions that have been asked before, but
as we are heading into the meeting, I just wanted us to understand the
implications of the decisions we are making a little
more.
1) What are your thoughts on the
schedule for the Corrigenda work?
2) Will the fixes that are equally
applicable to fixed and mobile operation be duplicated between the P802.16e
and Corrigenda documents?
a) If the answer is no, so
ultimately does the 802.16e PAR target a system with 802.16-2004+Yet to be
defined Errata?
b) If the answer is Yes. Then is
the intent of the Corrigenda document to mainly to enable 802.16-2004
compliant systems to never to have to claim compliance to a 802.16e standard
that also targets mobile operation?
From a practical view point,
history shows that systems claim compliance to a standard, but are typically
implemented to a particular profile of the standard based on the options
vendors chose for interoperability. So when vendors typically claim compliance
to 802.16-2004 or to 802.16-2004 + errata in a corrigenda document or to
802.16-2004 + errata in 802.16e document, the difference is anyways
implementation dependent. The implementation profiles that determine
compliance are typically driven by other organizations that certify
interoperability (like WiMAX™) so the value for such an effort to split the
16e Task Group members and to get them to also dedicate extra time to
co-ordinate fixes between two documents seems to be lots of work for limited
benefit.
3) So is it not better to put
fixes in the 16e document itself? As the scope of the amendment allows fixed
and combined operation, should it be an issue?
Any thoughts on this would be
helpful.
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
|