-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Tomcik
[mailto:jtomcik@qualcomm.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 8:07 PM
To: Joanne Wilson; Marianna
Goldhammer; dgal@lucent.com
Cc: Marianna Goldhammer;
Stds-80220-Requirements (E-mail)
Subject: RE:
stds-80220-requirements: 802.20 Reference Model
Joanne, Marianna, Dan, et al.,
At 03:51 PM 7/30/2003 -0400, Joanne Wilson wrote:
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.
I would suggest that we add a simple management interface to the first
diagram. I agree that a great deal of detail at this point isn't
necessary. As you mention, a little bit of text to indicate that management
aspects are included in a generic way would be useful too.
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.
Perhaps we should include the interface, and as in 802.11, simply call this the
"PHY-SAP" (see figure 11 of 802.11-1999 (Reaff 2003)).
I see elsewhere (message forwarded to the list by Joanne) that Marianna
comments that the term CS-PHY this is to support multiple PHY Layers.
Using the term PHY_SAP gets at the need for clean definition, but doesn't
require (or preclude) multiple PHYs.
The topic of multiple PHYs is an item that we started to discuss during last
week's meeting, but was deferred by Khurram (as I remember) to e-mail. We
should discuss this separately. Certainly if we as a group want to
include support for multiple PHY, it is simpler to do this from the beginning,
as noted elsewhere. For a technology proposal should this extra
flexibility be considered a positive over those without multiple PHY?
There are lots of licensed bands below 3.5 Ghz, and the flexibility to choose a
PHY technology could be attractive in certain situations.
Best regards,
Jim
............................................................................
......
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
............................................................................
......
..................................................................................
(619)
890-9537 (Cellular)
PGP:
5D0F 93A6 E99D 39D8 B024 0A9B 6361 ACE9 202C C780
..................................................................................