| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Dear colleagues, Please find below the response of 802.19 WG on our draft PAR proposal. Bye Max From: ext Shellhammer, Steve [mailto:sshellha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Max, The 802.19 WG reviewed the OmniRAN PAR and has the following comments and questions. OmniRAN The Scope says “This recommended practice specifies an access network utilizing technologies based on the family of IEEE 802 Standards” It is our understanding that this project will not specify a new access network; however, the above statement says it will specify an access
network. In the second sentence it says it provides a Network Reference Model. This seems different than specifying an access network. Please harmonize these two sentences. Maybe dropping the first sentence and modifying the second sentence to read, “The
recommended practice specifies a Network Reference Model of
an access network based on IEEE 802 Network Standards,
including entities and reference points along with behavioral and functional descriptions of communications among those entities.” The Purpose section of the PAR uses the phrase “unified access network” however that phrase is not use in the scope.
Is it intended that the scope of this project is to specify a “unified access network?” If so, maybe you should say that in the scope. In the Need section “terminals” are mentions, however, terminals are not part of the Network Reference Model. Why
are terminal mentioned in the Need section? This project sounds like the task of the Logical Link Control (LLC) layer, which is independent of the MAC and PHY.
Please indicate how this differs from, or integrates with, the LLC? In Section 7.1 you say there are no similar project, however, in organizations like 3GPP there are network reference
models, why do you not list them? What prevents using those models for IEEE 802? There is no need to describe to NesCom what a Recommended Practice is, so please delete the sentence: “Recommended
Practices do not include mandatory statements, and this specification is not intended to serve as the basis of statements of conformance.” Please delete the sentence in the explanatory notes: “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 indicated any such intention. In the Distinct Identity section of the 5C it says “The standard is substantially different from all other IEEE 802
standards because no current standard specifies the network reference model and functional interactions for an IEEE 802 access network.” However, 802.3, 802.5, 802.11, 802.15, 802.16, 802.20, 802.22 (and maybe others) standards all include a Network Reference
Model. In a number of places in the 5C (e.g. the Technical Feasibility section) the phrase “this specification” is used.
Please replace with “this Recommended Practice.” Regards, Steve |