| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
This mail was sent via mail.alvarion.com-----Original Message-----
From: Chickinsky, Alan [mailto:alan.chickinsky@ngc.com]
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 8:02 PM
To: Marianna Goldhammer
Cc: Stds-80220-Requirements (E-mail)
Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: Reference Model in rev. 5Marianna-Based on your comments, I have re-examined in document "802.20 Requirements Document - Rev 5", the figures on the top of page 30, on page 33 "Figure 1 - Reference partitioning" and on page 29 "Figure 1- IEEE 802 RM for end stations (LAN&MAN/RM)"The figure on page 33 defines the service access point between the MAC and LLC as "MAC_SAP". The same interface on page 29 is defined as "MSAP". Similarly we have "PHY_SAP" and "PHSAP". But the figure on page 29 has no equivalent for "PMD_SAP".So I ask the following questions,1- Why are we changing the interface names from those specified in the base IEEE 802 document (Figure on page 29)?2- Why do we need a "PLCP" and "PMD sub layer"? The only place these terms exist is in the figure on page 33.In the figure on page 33, the left side legend says "Data Link Layer" and no Logical Link Control is specified, are you saying that the MAC contains the LLC?Figure 33 defines the Management layers into two sections. In terms of the document structure, I agree that each layer has it's own management section. But why did you stop with only a "PHY Management". Why not have a 'PMD Management" and "PLCP Management" sections?As for the diagram on page 29, I believe that we need a diagram showing the relationship between the ISO layers and the MAC/PHY layer. This will help the reader understand what we mean, when we say a requirement defined at "Network" layer will not be satisfied by the 802.20 system. Rather a derived requirement, base on the Network layer requirement, will be satisfied by the 802.20 system.As for the diagram on the top of page 30, we need a diagram showing how we fit into the other 802 documents. I believe the diagram should show which parts of 802 we use and which we cannot (or will not) use. In terms of the Requirement Document only, I suggest we use the diagram on page 30 as a starting point and shade the those documents we feel are not applicable to our system.a. chickinsky-----Original Message-----
From: Marianna Goldhammer [mailto:marianna.goldhammer@alvarion.com]
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 10:48 AM
To: Klerer Mark; Joanne Wilson (E-mail); Chickinsky, Alan; Stds-80220-Requirements (E-mail)
Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: Reference Model in rev. 5 (was: Hi gher Layer Services)Mark, Joanne,At this point I hope that you realized that the existing Reference Diagram in rev. 5 of the Requirement Document , page 33, par. 5.1.1 is NOT suitable for Access. I agree with its status: OPEN.Be aware, that the diagram on page 36, is suitable for multiple PHYs. It defines the PLCP layer and also defines PHY SAP.The diagram proposed by me shows essential functional interface points, and replaces ALL the 3 existing diagrams. As I already mentioned, was already used in 802.Please let me know how do you wish to continue,MariannaThis mail was sent via mail.alvarion.com-----Original Message-----
From: Klerer Mark [mailto:M.Klerer@flarion.com]
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 5:09 PM
To: Marianna Goldhammer; Chickinsky, Alan; Stds-80220-Requirements (E-mail)
Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: Higher Layer Services, Reference Mod elAlan, et al
I agree with the quote Mariana brought from the 5 Criteria template. When we developed the 5 Criteria we discussed such concerns and in the compatibility section we have the following statement:
Compatibility will be addressed during development of the
standard and any variance that may be required will be clearly identified and justified. ( 802.20 - PD-03 )
We fully anticipated that some items that make sense in a pure LAN environment may not be appropriate in an access network.
Regards,
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Marianna Goldhammer [mailto:marianna.goldhammer@alvarion.com]
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 9:43 AM
To: Chickinsky, Alan; Stds-80220-Requirements (E-mail)
Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: Higher Layer Services, Reference Mod el
Alan, ALL,
This discussion comes back to the "Reference Model". I hope
that everybody realized, from the excellent Michael input (below),
that mandating 802.1q is not appropriate:
"I therefore propose to not include a specific mandate to support
802.1Q just as it would be inappropriate to mandate the use of
MPLS, PPP, or PPP/MPLS which could be used to satisfy the same
functional requirements."
The Michael argumentation:
" allowing operators to use existing network infrastructure in
support of 802.20 deployments (including the operation of a
wholesale access network)."
is a good reason to allow for Layer 2 interfaces that are NOT
Ethernet (may be IPoMPLS, IPoATM, IPoVDSL) and to NOT
mandate 802.1d support inside the MAC!.
Here is the clarification requested by you, Alan, taken from
the "5 Criteria" template:
"The AI protocols SHALL be in conformance with the IEEE 802.1
Architecture, Management and Interworking documents as follows:
802 Overview and Architecture, 802.1D, 802.1Q and parts of 802.1f.
If any variances in conformance emerge, they SHALL be thoroughly
disclosed and reviewed with 802."
As you see, 802 is open for discussions, the rules are flexible.
Hope this will help people to pass the barrier between WLAN and BWA.
Best Regards,
Marianna
P.S. I accept you sugestion to make in September the presentation
relative to the suitable "Functional Diagram".
-----Original Message-----
From: Chickinsky, Alan [mailto:alan.chickinsky@ngc.com]
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 3:04 PM
To: Stds-80220-Requirements (E-mail)
Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: Higher Layer Services, x.x.x
Folk-
This e-mail traffic raises an series of issues at a higher level. When I
made my ISO presentation, I noted there were other IEEE 802.xx standards
that effect us. Now is the time for us to say which standards we will use,
will not use or defer the decision for use till a later time and why.
Please remember to include the "why" or in two years we will again debate
the issue.
A question to the 802.20 chair is, "How much in stone is it written that we
MUST use the existing 802.XX standards?"
a. chickinsky
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Youssefmir [mailto:mike@arraycomm.com]
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 4:53 PM
To: Neka Hicks
Cc: Stds-80220-Requirements (E-mail); Michael Youssefmir
Subject: Re: stds-80220-requirements: Higher Layer Services, x.x.x
Hi Neka,
I definitely share your sentiments with regard for the need
for an operator to be (optionally) able to run a wholesale network.
Nevertheless, there have been a number of contributions that have
proposed keeping 802.20 "network agnostic". In particular, for example,
http://www.ieee802.org/20/Contribs/C802.20-03-31r1.pdf
argues this point and its advantages in allowing operators to use
existing network infrastructure in support of 802.20 deployments
(including the operation of a wholesale access network).
I therefore propose to not include a specific mandate to support
802.1Q just as it would be inappropriate to mandate the use of
MPLS, PPP, or PPP/MPLS which could be used to satisfy the same
functional requirements.
Regarding code push to the UT, this is a management function
independent of the air interface, and dependent on the
on the operations processes of the ISP or network operator.
Alan Chickinsky made an excellent proposal at the meeting last week.
He said that, for those requirements that are not at the PHY/MAC level,
we need to understand what features the PHY/MAC
must support. It would be helpful if you would recast
your requirement in those terms. In this context, I believe it is
safe to say that the PHY/MAC could accomplish what you suggest through an
appropriate QOS service level for the code data itself.
Finally requirements on the number of code images a UT should support
and how it switches between the two are clearly out of the scope
of the PHY/MAC and should not appear in the requirements document.
For completeness here is your original contribution:
Proposed New text
Additional items:
802.1Q tagging must be supported by the system (such that network egress
traffic can be switched by a L2 device to the appropriate L2 termination
device for managing backbone traffic or distinguishing traffic for wholesale
partners in a wholesale environment).
CPE software upgrade .push. . an operator should have the ability to .push.
a software upgrade to CPE that are currently connected to the network. The
packets that make up the software image should be given a very high priority
and should be coded heavily such that they have a very high chance of
arriving error free at the CPE. The CPE should be capable of holding 2
software loads (the existing one and a new one) such that an operator can
ensure that the .new. software load has arrived safely at the CPE before
deciding to switch from the .old. software load to the .new. software load.
Rationale
It is very important for operators to be able to manage traffic on the
backbone for different customer types (business vs. residential) or to enter
into wholesale arrangements whereby the wholesale partner provides the CPE
to the end user, but the network is owned and maintained by the operator.
In this scenario, the operator needs to have the ability to separate traffic
from CPE belonging to each wholesale partner and direct that traffic to each
wholesale partner independently.
It is very important (particularly during the early deployment stage) that
operators have the ability to .push. out new software loads to CPE quickly
and efficiently to ensure network element software upgrades can efficiently
coincide with user CPE software upgrades
Mike
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 02:20:47PM -0500, Neka Hicks wrote:
> All,
>
> I'm not sure which section will contain a list of these (possibly one of
the
> Appendices), but here is a contribution for that section:
>
> <<clearwire contribution 072803 - higher layer services.doc>>
>
> Neka C. Hicks
> Director of Network Engineering
> Clearwire Technologies
>
> 469-737-7555 (office)
> 817-706-2548 (cell)
>
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 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.
************************************************************************************