Dear 802.16 M2M Fans,
I’ve uploaded the M2M Study Report 802.16ppc-10/0002r4 that is a result of the discussions from CC#4. Thanks to HanGyu Cho and all the contributors to make this possible.
I’ve also uploaded a M2M PAR and 5C initial working draft revised from the one we had earlier as place holder. It is 802.16ppc-10/0003r1. This also includes the text proposed by Shilpa Talwar based on some offline discussions we asked
her to carry out after CC#4 to generate some initial text. I’ve also filled out the rest of the PAR form and 5C as first cut for review on the call tomorrow. This document is just an input for discussion at this point. Hope is to get a consensus version after
the call tomorrow.
The final version of the PAR & 5C and also the Study report will only be finalized during the May meeting. These are draft documents we are preparing for discussion in the May meeting.
Thanks & BR,
jose
_____________________________________________
From: Puthenkulam, Jose P
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 4:58 PM
To: 'STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG'
Subject: 802.16 Project Planning Committee: M2M CC#4 Update - PAR Scope Discussion Summary + CC#5 bridge details again
Dear 802.16 M2M Fans,
After the CC#4, where we had a PAR scope discussion, we kind of reached the following general view on how to address the M2M PAR Scope.
- Option 1: Explicitly 16m & 16e
- Option 2: Explicitly 16m only
- Option 3: Implicitly allow PAR flexibility to decide later: (Default 16m only, but flexibility for 16e if required) – Preferred
- MAC changes for M2M features
- Option1 : MAC changes
- Option 2: MAC changes limited to those enabling M2M requirements – Preferred
- Option 3: Limited MAC changes
- PHY Changes for M2M features
- Option1 : PHY changes
- Option 2: PHY changes limited to those enabling M2M requirements. (Add to the additional explanatory notes section – preferably no hardware changes) – Preferred
- Option 3: Limited PHY changes
- Option 4: No PHY changes
I would not want to suggest that this provides us precise language, because it does not. But the intent is to have PAR language agreed to in the next call CC#5 with this as a framework to start drafting it.
The next call is on April 28th and the Agenda will be: PAR Form Updated Draft for May Session & Study Report Final Draft.
CC#5 Bridge is again provided below:
Thanks & best regards,
jose