Re: [STDS-802-16] Proposed Draft PARs for Revision and Division of IEEE Std 802.16
Clarifying...
Thanks,
Phillip Barber
-----Original Message-----
From: Phillip Barber [mailto:pbarber@huawei.com]
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 1:11 PM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] Proposed Draft PARs for Revision and Division of
IEEE Std 802.16
Brian,
I don't think the obligation to submit parallel contributions to both
documents follows.
Just as the current 16m makes reference to many 802.16-2009 sections and
behaviors, for non-differentiated behaviors in the future content need only
be submitted to the 802.16-2009 family document, not both.[[Phillip Barber]]
just as is done today, the 16m document would reference the 802.16-2009
family document for the feature.
You would only submit contributions to each if the function behavior were
going to be differentiated between the two technical bases.
Thanks,
Phillip Barber
Chief Scientist
Wireless Advanced Research and Standards
Huawei Technologies Co., LTD.
-----Original Message-----
From: Kiernan, Brian G [mailto:Brian.Kiernan@INTERDIGITAL.COM]
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 11:32 AM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] Proposed Draft PARs for Revision and Division of
IEEE Std 802.16
Roger et al,
While I generically agree with the intent and process that Roger
proposes and can see where it could greatly simplify the ITU-R update
process, I can also see where it could cause some problems in the
future, especially with regards to services or features that
could/should be implemented on both air interfaces, such as M2M or
Emergency Services. To address this situation, contributors would have
to submit two contributions, one into each group, on the same subject
and the two groups potentially could select different approaches. Over
time, the two air interfaces could diverge substantially, thus obviating
the "backward compatibility" requirement that was such a driver in the
802.16m design. Note that this is not inherently bad (3GPP has been
dealing with it for years) and I can think of some ways to alleviate the
problem, but it should be considered.
Brian
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 1:48 AM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [STDS-802-16] Proposed Draft PARs for Revision and Division of
IEEE Std 802.16
Folks,
As you recall, there was discussion at Session #71 (centered in the
Project Planning Committee) on how best to undertake the revision of
IEEE Std 802.16 and how to address the PAR needs accordingly.
I have drafted a contribution on that topic. See:
<http://ieee802.org/16/docs/#C11_0001> or
<http://dot16.org/ul//upload/WG_db/C80216%2d11_0001.pdf>
You comments on the reflector are welcome. I plan to include discussion
of this issue during the Session #72 Opening Plenary agenda of 14 March,
continuing in the PPC meeting on the afternoon of 15 March.
Roger