Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

[802SEC] Comment on 802.16s PAR


I have the following comments:

PAR comments:

3.3: Would you please explain to me (i.e., respond on the list, no text needs to go into the PAR).
 1) Why joint sponsorship with MTT is a good idea.
2) What the impact of the joint sponsorship would be on the development of the draft.

5.2.b: Present tense, change "will target" to "targets"

5.2.b There is now at least one specific band (700 MHz, but no bandwidth), and VHF and UHF are listed, but no other specific frequencies are indicated. Please specify the frequency range that is in scope. The ITU defines the frequency range for VHF/UHF to be 30 MHz to 3 GHz. Is the entire VHF/UHF range really the target of this amendment?

5.2.b The scope does not provide guidance on the required data rates or ranges, yet these are critical in developing the standard. In addition, it is not possible to assess the technical feasibility of the proposed standard without these numbers. Please provide numerical ranges for data rate and range in the scope of the standard.

CSD comments:

No comments:

General comment: While this is an 802.16 amendment, most of the expertise from 802.16 is no longer participating in the WG. I think that to encourage wider input and to avoid dominance issues that are sometimes present in very small voting populations, this project should be done in the 802.15 WG. My recommendation to the EC, if this PAR is to be forwarded to RevCom for IEEE SASB approval is that this work be assigned to 802.15.

James Gilb

This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.