[ECSG-802-OMNIRAN] FW: Comments on OmniRAN PAR
Dear colleagues,
I received the following response on our draft PAR proposal. Let's discuss
it within our meetings tomorrow and on Wednesday.
Bye
Max
-----Original Message-----
From: James Gilb [mailto:jpgilb@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ext James P. K. Gilb
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 17:11
To: 802ExecutiveCommittee (STDS-802-SEC@xxxxxxxx); Riegel, Maximilian (NSN -
DE/Munich)
Subject: Comments on OmniRAN PAR
Max
These are comments from me as an Executive Committee member (i.e., not
necessarily the views of any WG or TAG).
5.2 Scope:
1) What is an access network and how does it differ for an regular 802
network? Please define an access network in the scope so that it is
clear why this is different than other 802 networks.
2) What is the scope of "Network Reference model" does this occupy the
normal networking layer of the OSI reference model? If so, please state
this in the scope. If not, where does this set with respect to our
existing architecture? Please clarify this in the scope.
5.4 Purpose:
1) What is a "deployment domain"? Please define this term in the
purpose or use a term that is more generally known or well defined.
5.5 Need for the project
This section is a much better description of the scope and purpose of
this project. However, this information is not in the Scope or Purpose.
Please move this information into the scope and purpose section to
correctly describe the project.
8.1 Additional explanation
#1.2: "It is the intention of the sponsor to initiate the development of
such protocol standards based on the underlying foundation established
in this Recommended Practice." The sponsor has not made a decision with
regards to its intentions. This project should stand on its own.
Delete the sentence. It is not clear to me that this note is needed at all.
5C
10.5.1, a) Broad sets of applicability.
This text is feel good language with no specifics. Please provide some
examples of the applicability of this project.
10.5.4 Technical feasibility
This section makes the claim, in general, that since this is based on
existing 802 standards and technology, therefore it is feasible.
However, the question is if the ideas that are put into the recommended
practice are technically feasible. None of the answers in this section
address that issue.
10.5.5 Economic feasibility
The answer for this question is too terse. The point is to specify a
reference model and interfaces, these have the possibility of creating
additional resource requirements for the equipment, even if the work to
be done is done in software. Please answer the questions in this
section by assessing the potential impact of this recommended practice.
James Gilb