Peretz,
For some purposes, it might be best to limit the SDD content to addressing changes to be specified in the amendment; this might make it easier to transition from the SDD to the draft amendment. On the other hand, it might be best to address the entire amended content; this could better align with the SDD description in the Work Plan: • Architecture and design of the 802.16m air interface amendment • Captures the core technical concepts behind the features included in the amendment • Will enable analysis and/or simulations for characterizing the coarse level performance benefits of the air interface in association with the Evaluation Methodology
I don't think we know exactly what the SDD is yet. Hopefully, based on the contributions, it will start to take shape. Roger
On Nov 8, 2007, at 11:45 AM, Feder, Peretz (Peretz) wrote:
Thanks Avi for attempting to answer but I am still lost on how to proceed. Do I rewrite the NCMS section 1.4.4 in the SDD all over again because we want to add the details? or do I just provide the minimum delta to section 1.4.4? Rewriting and repeating sections of Rev2 made little sense to me. Peretz Feder
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 1:13 PM Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] 802.16m SDD and PAR (was Re: [STDS-802-16] Fwd: [STDS-802-16] 802 PARs for November EC agenda) Peretz, I do not represent Roger in this, but in my opinion, the SDD should contain the main functionalities of the NCMS without getting into the details of primitives detailed procedures etc. Migrating the SDD into an amendment will require adding those details. But as for the functionalities, yes - they should contain all the functionalities of the existing standard, if they are necessary of course. Avi
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 7:20 PM To: Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] 802.16m SDD and PAR (was Re: [STDS-802-16] Fwd: [STDS-802-16] 802 PARs for November EC agenda) So Roger the next trivial next question: How will we realistically migrate a full blown SDD into a full Draft amendment? Will it not be better to develop the SDD on top of the existing latest structure/framework? Practical example: I want to reuse the NCMS architecture elements in 802.16m. Do I need now to re-write the entire NCMS section again in the SDD? Or just amend section 1.4.4 to reflect the 802.16m delta in NSMS? Appreciate your answer as it impact the format of my contributions, Peretz Feder
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 2:33 AM To: Feder, Peretz (Peretz) Subject: 802.16m SDD and PAR (was Re: [STDS-802-16] Fwd: [STDS-802-16] 802 PARs for November EC agenda) Some of the comments in this thread are pretty confusing to me, so I don't want to pick them apart. Let me try to simplify: *Under the 802.16m project, we are authorized to write an amendment to IEEE Std 802.16. We are not writing a new standard. Every project in 802 ending with a lower-case letter is developing an amendment to a standard. *DJ is right that the amendment will be to IEEE Std 802.16, which is the generic name for the latest revision with all the outstanding amendments applied. The (automated) IEEE PAR form requires the insertion of the year of the latest revision, so it seems to says we are amending 802.16-2004. But, in reality, we are amending IEEE Std 802.16 generically. The basis will probably turn out to be the revision (which we all hope turns into IEEE Std 802.16-2008) plus any amendments approved before 802.16m. *I can't really agree with your assumption that "all the new 802.16m contributions uploaded tonight must be submitted as amendment to 802.16Rev2." That's because TGm is not currently seeking input on the development of a draft standard at all! It is running a Call for Contributions on a System Description Document (SDD). The Call for Contributions recognizes that 802.16m will be a specification of changes (it says that the SDD "is intended to provide a top level technical description of those functional areas of IEEE Std 802.16 that need to be changed in order to address the requirements laid out in the 802.16m System Requirements Document.") And, when we develop the SDD, we need to consider to what degree we want its structure to reflect the structure of a future amendment. But I think that your suggestion to "amend the existing document" is premature. We really ARE trying to create a document from scratch. That document is the SDD! On Nov 7, 2007, at 11:32 PM, Feder, Peretz (Peretz) wrote: Agree DJ. The bottom line for tonight is: Amend the existing document, let’s not create a new one from scratch as the PAR is not allowing so.
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 1:29 AM Subject: RE: [STDS-802-16] Fwd: [STDS-802-16] 802 PARs for November EC agenda Shouldn’t it either amend IEEE 802.16-2008, on the basis that that is what will be in place when the 16m is done or simply IEEE 802.16 which is the generic name for the last revision with all the outstanding amendments applied? Nothing will amend Rev2, because the name Rev2 will become 802.16-2008 on approval, assuming it’s complete in 2008.
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 10:17 PM Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] Fwd: [STDS-802-16] 802 PARs for November EC agenda
From: Feder, Peretz (Peretz) Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 1:14 AM Subject: RE: [STDS-802-16] Fwd: [STDS-802-16] 802 PARs for November EC agenda
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 1:05 AM Subject: [STDS-802-16] Fwd: [STDS-802-16] 802 PARs for November EC agenda The assumption is not likely right. Each standard project is identified as related tasks whether it is revision or amendment or corrigenda or errata or new standard. That is the same reason whay 16j upload contributions into 16j, but not into 16e/rev2/etc.. But when 802.16j is published, it too will amend 802.16Rev2 like 802.16g just did.
You can see the one to one match for each projects from year 2001, whether it is completed, obsoleted or active, etc... They all became part of Rev2, so will 802.16j and according to my understanding of the 802.16m PAR, so should it. The 802.16m PAR says amendment all over it. Amendment can’t be a new standard. Hope this could help your understanding. Need more convincing. PAR language is king. Talking about PARs Roger. Just checked the 802.16m PAR again and it defines 802.16m as an amendment to 802.16-2004. So I assume all the new 802.16m contributions uploaded tonight must be submitted as amendment to 802.16Rev2. 802.16m is not a new standard but an amendment to Rev2 is what I gather from the approved PAR. Please confirm my understanding. I am asking because I already see contributions that contradict my
|