RE: stds-80220-requirements: 802.20 Reference Model
Hi Dan,
I think I'd like to see a diagram of some sort in here. I was hoping we
could get some agreement on a simple diagram built around common concepts
so as to provide a precise vocabulary and structure for the rest of the
document.
We could add your requirements text separately in the text, as well. The
first two are sort of implied by a simple layer diagram. The last
continues to intrigue me as a possible positive attribute in this work.
Jim
At 05:14 PM 7/31/2003 -0400, Gal, Dan (Dan) wrote:
>I propose to defer the definition of the reference model to the next stage
>of the 802.20 project - the actual PHY and MAC specification. I feel that
>there is no compelling reason to define the reference model in the System
>Requirement document. One starts working on the solution only when the
>problem definition is complete, and, clearly, we are still in the
>problem-definition stage. Thus, I would suggest that for now, it should be
>sufficient to get consensus on the following fundamental specification
>design principles:
>
>1. The MAC sub-layer and the PHY layer shall be "isolated" from each other
>by way of functional abstraction and well defined interfaces.
>2. The Data Link Layer (DLL) shall hide the underlying PHY characteristics
>from the upper (ISO)layers.
>3. The MAC specification shall support multiple PHY types and provide for
>their interoperability.
>
>I am quite confident that when we get past the technology-proposals
>evaluation and selection phase, the task of defining the reference model
>will be much easier and more "grounded" to the requirements of the chosen
>radio technology(-ies) and supported services and applications.
>
>
>Dan
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Marianna Goldhammer [mailto:marianna.goldhammer@alvarion.com]
>Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 3:25 PM
>To: Joanne Wilson
>Cc: stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
>Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: 802.20 Reference Model
>
>
>
>Johanne, Mark,
>
>I do not understand what's the problem, if:
>
>"The group decided that by having well-defined interfaces,
> one could in the future propose a different
>PHY to work with a previously adopted MAC."
>
>CS is the "well-defined" interface.
>
>Besides, if you do not feel comfortable with this diagram,
> feel free to use any diagram you want.
>
>I will stop now, is time to go home,
>
>Marianna
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Joanne Wilson [mailto:joanne@arraycomm.com]
>Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 10:12 PM
>To: Marianna Goldhammer
>Cc: stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
>Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: 802.20 Reference Model
>
>
>Dear Marianna,
>
>I have to say I disagree with the logic of your argument.
>Including the CS PHY sub-layer explicitly in the diagram means that
>the we are requiring the MAC to be support multiple PHYs. That's
>not what the group decided. The group decided that by having
>well-defined interfaces, one could in the future propose a different
>PHY to work with a previously adopted MAC. The key issue of importance
>was the overall AI performance, which allowed for the proposals to
>optimize the MAC for its PHY. This can be done while maintaining the
>requirement to have a well-defined interface between the two. For
>those reasons, I believe that including the CS PHY sub-layer in the
>diagram is not consistent with the consensus we reached previously.
>
>Thanks much.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Joanne
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Marianna Goldhammer [mailto:marianna.goldhammer@alvarion.com]
>Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 2:44 PM
>To: Joanne Wilson
>Cc: stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
>Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: 802.20 Reference Model
>
>
>Dear Joanne,
>
>The CS PHY is exactly what you are looking for;
>allows the support of different PHY layers; at the contrary,
> not specifying a CS is the same with
> having only one MAC-PHY combination, which does not need
> this interface.
>
>If you look at the CS explannation for interface with the higher
> layers, is written:
>
>"Multiple CS specifications are provided for interfacing with
> various protocols".
>
>Hope this helps,
>
>
>Marianna
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Joanne Wilson [mailto:joanne@arraycomm.com]
>Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 9:30 PM
>To: Marianna Goldhammer
>Cc: stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
>Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: 802.20 Reference Model
>
>
>Marianna,
>
>Thanks for that explanation. I'm copying this to the reflector as it
>relevant to our discussion about the reference architecture model. It's
>unfortunate that you were not able to be on the Requirements CG call on
>Friday, July 18 prior to our meeting. We had a lengthy discussion about
>whether there should be a requirement to support multiple PHYs or not.
>It was agreed that there was a need for well-defined interfaces between the
>MAC and PHY and, at the same time, that the MAC and PHY can be jointly
>optimized (i.e. aspects of the MAC can be optimized for its associated PHY)
>in order to optimize the overall performance of the air interface. The
>prospect
>of having a single MAC supporting more than one PHY was neither ruled out
>nor made
>a requirement. As such, I believe that the "CS PHY" sub-layer implies a
>decision
>that is beyond what was agreed to by the Requirements CG and should not be
>included
>in the reference architecture. Leaving that out of the diagram does not
>mean that
>the 802.20 cannot provide a single MAC supporting multiple PHYs, only that
>it is
>not required to do so.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Joanne
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Marianna Goldhammer [mailto:marianna.goldhammer@alvarion.com]
>Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 4:11 AM
>To: Joanne Wilson
>Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: 802.20 Reference Model
>
>
>Joanne,
>
>The interface between MAC and PHY is to support multiple PHYs.
>
>Marianna
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Joanne Wilson [mailto:joanne@arraycomm.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 10:51 PM
>To: Jim Tomcik; Marianna Goldhammer
>Cc: Stds-80220-Requirements (E-mail)
>Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: 802.20 Reference Model
>
>
>Jim,
>
>I believe that the two diagrams in our proposal should be taken together,
>and therefore the management interfaces is included in the second diagram.
>The diagrams were intended to be complementary to each other. Maybe we need
>to add some text to the document to explain how the two diagrams should be
>interpreted. I can work on some text and propose it to the group if folks
>agree that this would help make the section clearer. If it is necessary to
>add management interfaces to the first of the two diagrams, I would propose
>to do so without too much detail.
>
>Regarding the diagram that Marianna proposes, I don't believe that the "CS
>PHY" (meaning Convergence Sublayer PHY) that lies between the MAC and PHY
>represents greater clarity about the interface between the MAC and PHY.
>Instead, it
>appears to impose the same sublayer structure as the alternative diagram
>that we
>opposed earlier for that same reason. I, too, don't see what the sublayers
>buy us,
>particularly when the actual functional requirement appears elsewhere in the
>document.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Joanne
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jim Tomcik [mailto:jtomcik@qualcomm.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 8:37 PM
>To: Joanne Wilson; Marianna Goldhammer
>Cc: Stds-80220-Requirements (E-mail)
>Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: 802.20 Reference Model
>
>
>Joanne, and Marianna, (and others, of course...),
>
>Generally I think the draft posted by Joanne and Mark goes in the right
>direction, but Marianna's diagram points out a couple items that we should
>think about adding to it.
>
>(1) Joanne and Mark's (Fig 1) does not include the management interface and
>so is inconsistent with the very high level 802 model shown below it. We
>should add this to be consistent with the 802 approach shown, and to
>indicate that proposals should be planned and described in such a way that
>equipment can be managed via this standard approach.
>
>(2) Marianna's Figure 1 clearly shows an interface between Physical Layer
>and Mac (noted as CS PHY). This should also be included in our reference
>diagram to clearly delineate PHY and MAC. (I miss the subtelty of CS vs
>SAP in these diagrams, however the idea of a clean interface does come
>through.)
>
>Its not clear to me what the sublayers buy us at this point. We do have a
>section on security in the text, and this can (and should) be used to state
>that the technology proposals must have a security feature that includes
>Authentication, Key Management, and Encryption. What do we miss by
>omitting the Common Part Sublayer and the Service Specific Convergence
>Sublayer?
>
>Regards,
>
>Jim Tomcik
>
>
>
>
>
>
>At 05:19 PM 7/29/2003 -0400, Joanne Wilson wrote:
> >Mariana,
> >
> >Unfortunately, you were not able to participate in the Requirements
> >conference call that occurred on Friday, July 19th prior to last week's
> >802.20 meeting. The concensus on the call was in favor of the more
> >general MBWA System Reference Architecture. While the eventual standard
> >may contain various sub-layers, there appears to be no benefit to
> >constraining
> >a priori future proposals to a specific sub-layering. The main objective
> >of the section, in my humble opinion, was to express a requirement for the
> >802.20 AI to be specified in a well-defined layered MAC/PHY architecture
> >consistent with the OSI/ISO model and with other 802 systems. To express
> >the agreement on the conference call, Mark Klerer and I were assigned
> >to redraft this section. We did this on the margins of last week's meeting
> >and it was sent to the 802.20 requirements CG last Thursday. I have
> >attached
> >that proposal again, which I continue to support.
> >
> >Best regards,
> >
> >Joanne
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org
> >[mailto:owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
> >Marianna Goldhammer
> >Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 2:05 PM
> >To: Stds-80220-Requirements (E-mail)
> >Subject: stds-80220-requirements: 802.20 Reference Model
> >
> >
> >
> >Hi,
> >
> >I propose to adopt the MBWA-Specific Reference Model and its
> > explanation from the attachment, that will replace 5.1.1.
> >
> >Reasons for that are:
> >
> >- 802.1 bridging, in Fig. 2, is actually beyond the standard;
> > including it in the standard scope will make the radio behave
> > as a Ethernet bridge and will have implications in frame
> > headers (look at 802.11 MAC, carrying if I remember well,
> > up to four Ethernet addresses in the frame header);
> >
> >- 802.1 Management, in Fig. 2 is actually insufficient for access
> > systems, being suitable only for LAN and WLAN systems;
> >
> >- Security functions are not shown;
> >
> >- Management functions and their interaction with
> > MAC/PHY/Security is not shown;
> >
> >- PHY interaction with the radio deployment is not shown.
> >
> >Marianna
> >
> > <<Reference Model.doc>>
> >
> > Marianna Goldhammer
> > Director - Strategic Technologies
> >
> > Alvarion, Ltd.
> >10 years of wireless expertise
> >
> > 21 HaBarzel Street
> > P.O.Box 13139, Tel Aviv 61131, Israel
> > Tel: (972)- 3 -6456241/6262
> > Fax: (972) -3 -6456204
> >
> > Email: marianna.goldhammer@alvarion.com
> >
> > www.alvarion.com
> >
> > The information contained in this electronic mail message is
>privileged
> >and confidential, and is intended only for use of the addressee. If you
>are
> >not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure,
> >reproduction, distribution or other use of this communication is strictly
> >prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
>notify
> >the sender by reply transmission and delete the message without copying or
> >disclosing it.
> >
> >
> >This mail was sent via mail.alvarion.com
> >
> >***************************************************************************
>*
> >********
> >This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
> >PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer
> >viruses.
> >***************************************************************************
>*
> >********
>
>............................................................................
>......
>
> James D. Tomcik
> QUALCOMM, Incorporated
> (858) 658-3231 (Voice)
> (619) 890-9537 (Cellular)
> From: San Diego, CA
> PGP: 5D0F 93A6 E99D 39D8 B024 0A9B 6361 ACE9 202C C780
>............................................................................
>......
>
>
>
>This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com
>
>****************************************************************************
>********
>This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
>PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer
>viruses.
>****************************************************************************
>********
>This mail was sent via mail.alvarion.com
>
>****************************************************************************
>********
>This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
>PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer
>viruses.
>****************************************************************************
>********
>
>
>
>This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com
>
>****************************************************************************
>********
>This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
>PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer
>viruses.
>****************************************************************************
>********
>This mail was sent via mail.alvarion.com
>
>****************************************************************************
>********
>This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
>PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer
>viruses.
>****************************************************************************
>********
>
>
>
>This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com
>
>****************************************************************************
>********
>This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
>PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer
>viruses.
>****************************************************************************
>********
>This mail was sent via mail.alvarion.com
>
>************************************************************************************
>This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
>PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer
>viruses.
>************************************************************************************
..................................................................................
James D. Tomcik
QUALCOMM, Incorporated
(858) 658-3231 (Voice)
(619) 890-9537 (Cellular)
From: San Diego, CA
PGP: 5D0F 93A6 E99D 39D8 B024 0A9B 6361 ACE9 202C C780
..................................................................................