[STDS-802-16] Comments on the two PARs submitted
Dear
Arnie,
Here are my comments
on the 2 PARs proposed by the 802.20 WG.
Comment
1:
In section 5.2, the
proposed PAR states, "5.2 Scope of Proposed Standard: This standard represents
the Protocol Implementation Conformance
Statement(PICS) Proforma, per ISO/IEC
Standard 9646-7 (1995) and ITU-T X.296, for the conformance specification of
base stations and subscriber
stations based upon the air interface specified
in IEEE P802.20."
However the term
'subscriber station' is undefined in the IEEE 802.20 Air Interface Draft 4.0m.
So I would suggest appropriate replacement of the term 'subscriber station' with
the term 'Access Terminal (AT) or User Terminal (UT)'.
Also the term 'base
station' while defined, is also referred to as 'Access Node' quite frequently in
the draft standard. Hence I would suggest modification to substitute the term
'base stations' with 'base stations and Access Nodes (AN)'.
Comment 2:
In section 5.4, the
proposed PAR states, "5.4 Purpose of Proposed Standard: This document describes
the capabilities and options within the air
interface specified
in IEEE P802.20. It is to be completed by the supplier of a product claiming to
implement the protocol. It indicates which capabilities
and options have
been implemented. It allows a user of the product to evaluate its conformance
and to determine whether the product meets the
user's
requirements."
As the draft 802.20
standard supports multiple conformant protocol modes considering the 2 PHYs and
2 MACs for the wide band and 625k MC modes, I would suggest modification of the
phrase "implement the protocol" to "implement one or more of the protocol
modes".
Comment
3:
In section 7.1, the
proposed PAR form requires responding to the statement "7.1 Are there
other standards or projects with a similar scope?
If yes, please
explain:
and answer the following: Sponsor Organization:
Project/Standard
Number:
Project/Standard Date:
Project/Standard
Title:"
First of all this
question need to be answered and it is not done presently in the proposed PAR.
Also as the
draft 802.20 standard draws significantly from the 3GPP and ATIS specifications,
is it not possible to refer to projects for specifications for conformance that
have been developed in those SDOs. I think the IEEE-SA would like to preserve
its reputation of defining independent quality standards and hence, this
information will be very useful for them to make sure adequate copyrights etc
are followed, if specification re-use occurs during development of such a
project.
Comment
4:
Section 7.2 and 7.3
are not answered.
Comment 1:
Is it not better to
for this proposed PAR to be pursuing a recommended practice as opposed to a
standard? The reason I say this is that actual performance characteristics in
implementations widely vary and thus enables a competitive market place. Such
imposition of a standard as opposed to a recommended practice, might provide
disincentives for some vendors to be able to conform to such a standard and
thus not be successful in the market place. So I urge reconsideration of the
target of this project. Also such projects are extremely hard to do as too much
details of implementation are involved. Hence my
suggestion.
Comment
2:
Section 5.6
states "5.6 Stakeholders for the Standard: 802.20 equipment suppliers and
service providers utilizing the 802.20 standard are the principle stakeholders."
I would suggest end users as
also potential stake holders, remember end users should also have a say in what
service they would like to get.
Comment
3:
Also the term 'base station' while defined, is also referred
to as 'Access Node' quite frequently in the draft standard. Hence I would
suggest modification to substitute the term 'base stations' with 'base stations
and Access Nodes (AN)'.
----------------
thanks & best
regards,
jose
_____________________________________________
Jose Puthenkulam
Wireless Standards &
Technology
Mobility Group
Intel Corporation
Desk: (503) 2646121; Cell: (503)
8038609
Email:jose.p.puthenkulam@intel.com