Re: [STDS-802-16] FW: Letter to Nescom
Since 802.20 docs say that they're going to specify both MAC and PHY,
why do they care what .16 does?
On Tue, 2004-09-21 at 14:11, Jules-Pierre Lamoureux wrote:
> I was requested to send this e-mail to the 802.16 reflector for wider
> distribution.
>
> J. Pierre Lamoureux
> VP Engineering & CTO
> Tel: 514-684-0200 x326
> email: jplamoureux@wavesat.com
> www.wavesat.com
>
> ============================================================================
> ==========
> To 802.16 member,
>
> It has come to my attention that several members of 802.16 wish to preserve
> full backward compatibility
> between 802.16-2004 and 802.16e. I will be submitting a simple letter to
> Nescom that request that the
> revised PAR of 802.16e be changed to maintain full backward compatibility.
>
> If you agree with this position, please send me an E-mail confirming your
> position, and I will add your name to the letter.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> J. Pierre Lamoureux
> VP Engineering & CTO
> Tel: 514-684-0200 x326
> email: jplamoureux@wavesat.com
> www.wavesat.com
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> Dear NesCom Members,
>
> We are writing as members of the 802.16 in response to the letter from the
> Chair of the 802.20 working group asking to reject the proposed 802.16e PAR
> modifications.
>
> While we do not agree with all the assertions of the 802.20 letter, we do
> agree that the main differentiator between the two groups is that 802.16e
> mobile WMAN standard must maintain backward compatibility to the previous
> fixed WMAN standard defined in 802.16-2004.
>
> The 802.16e standard must clearly establish a mechanism for backward
> compatibility so that subscriber units of 802.16e systems can interoperate
> with 802.16-2004 base stations
> using the same modulation scheme (SCa, OFDM, or OFDMA) and vice versa.
>
> Scalable FFT size should not be an impediment to backward compatibility.
>
> We think that the current wording of the revised PAR does not address
> backward compatibility in sufficient detail and should be modified before
> being approved.
>
> Sincerely,
> Pierre Lamoureux,
> .....
>
> ============================================================================
> ==
--
b