Peretz,
We had this discussion at the last meeting
and the general agreement was that we would limit the SDD to the changes needed
to meet the requirements. That is the reason that the Call for
Contributions says what it says,” a top level technical
description of those functional areas of 802.16e which will need to be changed in order to address the requirements laid
out in the 802.16m System Requirements Document.
Brian
From: Roger B. Marks
[mailto:r.b.marks@IEEE.ORG]
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007
2:40 PM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
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)
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.
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
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
From: Feder, Peretz (Peretz) [mailto:pfeder@ALCATEL-LUCENT.COM]
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
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.
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.
From: Feder, Peretz (Peretz)
Sent: Thursday,
November 08, 2007 1:14 AM
To: 'Panyuh Joo'; STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE:
[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
|