RE: stds-80220-requirements: Max Tolerable Delay Spread, 4.2.3
That was well stated Joanne. We need to be careful in writing requirements
to focus on those parameters that are vital for MBWA to be successful. Jim
Mollenauer expressed it well in his presentation when he said that the best
requirements can be stated simply. By paring down our requirements to only
those parameters necessary for a successful standard and product set we
accomplish two purposes.
1) We minimize the size of the requirements document, and with that,
the time it takes to write it.
2) We eliminate those "requirements" which are really attempts to
include one solution set and exclude another. This second set causes
divisevness in the Working Group, prolongs the process of creating an agreed
to requirements document, and is generally counterproductive to progressing
the standard. Once we agree on the requirements, the various potential
solutions should each have an opportunity to be heard and evaluated so the
Working Group can select from amongst all choices that meet the needs of the
marketplace.
Neka, I understand that you may have been thinking in terms of real
requirements when you posted your note, and therefore, they could be
candidate parameters to include in the requirements document. However, I
thought that Joanne's point addressed a real issue that deserved more focus.
Specifically, her focus on requirements is a great starting place for
evaluating each of our proposed requirements to see if they really belong in
the Requirements document.
Best regards.
Robert D. Love
rdlove@ieee.org
>From: "Joanne Wilson" <joanne@arraycomm.com>
>To: "Neka Hicks" <nhicks@Clearwire.com>, "Stds-80220-Requirements
>(E-mail)" <stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org>
>Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: Max Tolerable Delay Spread, 4.2.3
>Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 18:24:02 -0400
>
>
>Neka,
>
>You have provided a rationale for your proposal,
>
> "The maximum tolerable delay spread should be specified so that
>it
>can be
> determined whether various vendor proposals can meet this
>criteria."
>
>which I don't believe to be a valid reason for establishing such a
>requirement.
>Can you provide any other reasoning for this proposal? I would expect the
>rationale to explain why such a requirement would be essential for the
>802.20 MBWA
>to achieve it performance objectives.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Joanne Wilson
>ArrayComm, Inc.
>joanne@arraycomm.com
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org
>[mailto:owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
>Neka Hicks
>Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 3:19 PM
>To: Stds-80220-Requirements (E-mail)
>Subject: stds-80220-requirements: Max Tolerable Delay Spread, 4.2.3
>
>
>All,
>
>Here's a contribution regarding max tolerable delay spread:
>
> <<clearwire contribution 072803 - max tolerable delay spread.doc>>
>
>Neka C. Hicks
>Director of Network Engineering
>Clearwire Technologies
>
>469-737-7555 (office)
>817-706-2548 (cell)
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail