Re: [STDS-802-16] FW: Letter to Nescom
Hi All,
I was struggling whether to joint this conversation, finally my
analysis shows that the risk to stay passive is high and I must take
position as follows:
Until now the members of the 802.16 Working Group have found ways to
harmonize our differences and live together like one family. I think we
have made significant progress to-date, which we don't want to give up.
I understand that the OFDM 256 camp might view S-OFDMA as something that
might obsolete their product line, but at the same time, we must
remember that this evolution also opens up opportunity for all members
around a much bigger market. Stopping it will cut our future. In every
company there is fight between the current generation and the next
generation and when to switch.
We have a real fight in front of us. Namely implementing the standard
and creating a viable market. Please remember that our biggest enemies
are other Standard and other players who are quite happy to take the
mobile IP market out from under us.
We have to stick together and push the different PHYs in the standard.
Blocking the PAR (which all of us voted its acceptance) because of a
disagreement between people in the Working Group in 802.16 will create
chaos and encourage additional retaliatory action. The worst case for
us is that unhappy members might interfere with other activities in
process like blocking the corrigenda/Netman (16.f or 16.g) and of coarse
the 16e standard itself. I think that if we allow this to happen, then
we all lose.
With respect to 802.20, some people will argue that we created a
mini-802.20 within 802.16e. But I think this is an incorrect view for
the following reasons:
1. We are not starting from clean sheet of paper like 802.20.
2. We are using FFT's which have been used in 802.16 for the past 4
years (802.20 can do CDMA, OFDMA-CDMA...the sky is the limit).
3. As for the PHY:
We are using 2K OFDMA because of backward compatibility requirement,
while for the new FFT sizes:
a. We are reusing all the waveforms (Bins, Tile, Permutations and
Frame Structure from the 16d 2k OFDMA for the new FFT sizes),
b. We are using all the FEC from the 2K OFDMA.
c. We are using all the optional AAS from the 2K OFDMA.
d. We are using all the MIMO/STC from the 2k OFDMA.
e. We are using all the Ranging in time, FAPC/BAPC, the same as 2K
OFDMA (this is according to the revised PAR which asks for extension
scaled down from the 2k OFDMA)
4. As for the MAC we have one MAC for all the modes. This is the
definition of backward compatibility. Heck, sometimes forward
compatibility is also enabled.
5. We are doing full backward compatibility from 16d to 16e as far as
the 2k, 256, SC solutions are concerned.
6. In reality we are going to be fully backward compatible with the
other new FFT sizes, since the other FFT sizes are fully scaled down and
are keeping the same structure. It is easy to build all of them on the
same chip and this in itself is a testament to backward compatibility.
Accordingly, and for the sake of peace in 802.16, I encourage you to
withdraw the letter.
And for my friend Jules-Pierre Lamoureux, I believe that my E-mail is
good for you and I hope that you will see that in the near future with
the success of your Company.
And last thing. I totally disagree with Natalie's sentence about the
activity in 16e ("This part is a zoo - too many large players, too many
interests"): The large players that joined us are sending their best
researchers from 3G activities with the all newest goodies in the
wireless communication arena, I enjoy every minute speaking cooperating
and learning from them and I believe that the fact that they are with us
make the opportunity for success in the future Mobile Wireless IP based
on 802.16 to reality at least for the next 10 years, So if Naftali want
to call it a zoo I can tell that this is currently the Best, Largest,
Interesting and Promising zoo in the world.
I am not supporting letter to Nescom
All the best,
Zion
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Panyuh Joo
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 9:56 AM
To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] FW: Letter to Nescom
OK. Fine! Than I would like to ADD do NOT support his appeal.
Panyuh Joo
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Naftali Chayat
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 4:38 PM
To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] FW: Letter to Nescom
Panyoo, I think that your response is inappropriate - Pierre is raising
an issue which is obviously of interest to the group.
Having said that I would like to add that I do NOT support Pierre's
appeal for many reasons, some of which coincide with those stated by
Brian Kiernan.
Naftali Chayat
-----Original Message-----
From: Panyuh Joo [mailto:panyuh@SAMSUNG.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 9:23 AM
To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] FW: Letter to Nescom
I think it is up to your point of interest to open this kind if
discussion in the email reflector.
But the main purpose of reflector is to discuss something already on
play in the IEEE 802.16 WG. I don't feel good that someone to distribute
something out of this WG's scope.
Please, let you find a bit more appropriate place to discuss your own
stuff.
Panyuh Joo
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Jules-Pierre
Lamoureux
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 6:11 AM
To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [STDS-802-16] FW: Letter to Nescom
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,
.....
========================================================================
====
==
This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com
************************************************************************
****
********
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals &
computer viruses.
************************************************************************
****
********
This mail was sent via mail.alvarion.com
************************************************************************
************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals &
computer viruses.
************************************************************************
************