Hi Yigal,
Some responses to your comments:
>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.
Agree with you on the schedule risks involved, but still
hope that we should do the best we can, to keep to the schedule.
>2. Some people have a very broad interpretation of what
'backwards compatibility' means, specifically when it has to do with the OFDMA
PHY
Not sure what you imply here?
>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.
The standard 802.16d was closed with consensus in June
because of the reason you mention. But the fact of the matter is there errors
and we have to deal with them in the most optimal manner possible. We have an
active 802.16e amendment being worked on that depends on the 802.16-2004 as the
base to build on. Also all amendments have the default scope of being able to
make substantive corrections. Its just that people are debating for two
documents to be made available, both that have the scope of making substantive
corrections, one a corrigenda and the other the active 802.16e amendment to the
same base standard.
>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.
When you say it can be concluded much faster, are you presuming that
the corrigenda document will be closed before interop testing between vendors
is complete or are you basing this on the premise that 802.16e will take longer
to complete? Also more importantly even if the corrigenda PAR is open, we may
not be able to avoid debate on those items that can easily be considered as a
requirement for combined fixed and mobile operation.
BR,
jose
From:
owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org] On
Behalf Of Yigal
Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 1:32
PM
To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16]
[Corrigenda PAR] Is it really needed?
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.
-----Original Message-----
From:
owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org]On
Behalf Of Puthenkulam, Jose P
Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 1:24
AM
To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [STDS-802-16] [Corrigenda
PAR] Is it really needed?
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