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

stds-802-mobility: Executive Committee deliberations on IEEE Mobility Projects

(Correction of typo in first sentence - imitated -> initiated)

 

MBWA ECSG E-mail subscribers,

 

Paul Nikolich has initiated an e-mail discussion on the SEC mailing list regarding the two mobility projects that are to be considered at the upcoming 802 Plenary (see the e-mail below). So far Matt Sherman has responded (see attachment). I will be forwarding additional material to you as other SEC members engage in the discussion. If you have any comments please feel free to send them to me, as MBWA ECSG chair I am a non-voting member of the SEC.

 

Paul's Original E-Mail:

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:paul.nikolich@worldnet.att.net]
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 6:35 PM
To: IEEE802
Subject: [802SEC] Mobile Broadband Wireless Access--distinction between the ECSG and 802.16 SG project authorization requests

Dear SEC members,

 

Both the Executive Committee Study Group on Mobile Broadband Wireless Access and the 802.16 Mobile Wireless Access Study Group have submitted Project Authorization Requests for projects that, as far as I can tell from the PARs, address the same market and application space.  This concerns me.

 

The only substantive difference in the PARs that I can see is that the 802.16 SG proposes to amend the 802.16 MAC/PHY to enable mobile operation, while the ECSG does not presume using the 802.16 standard as a starting point.  This confuses me-when we approved the 802.16 SG in July, it was to focus on enhancements to the 802.16a PHY/MAC for 'limited mobility' in the 2-11GHz band, whilst the ECSG was targeting 'high mobility' in the sub 3.5GHz band.  This established some, albeit small, distinction between the ECSG (0-3.5GHz, up to 250km/h) and 802.16 SGs (2-11GHz, limited mobility) activities.  Now, the gap has narrowed-narrowed to the point that I think the SEC must consider whether or not it makes sense to have two projects with such similar scope. 

 

I would like to hear what other members of the SEC think about the overlap between these two PARs-any opinions out there?

 

Regards,

 

--Paul Nikoich

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Mark Klerer

Chair - MBWA ECSG

 

. E-mail: m.klerer@flarion.com

(    Phone: 908-997-2069         

6    Fax:     908-997-2050

 

 


Hi Paul & Everyone,
 
I actually have a lot of strong opinions here, but prefer to be brief for now.  Perhaps I'll get boo'd, but I've always been very pro "let the market decide".  In a perfect world, I think only the ECSG PAR should go forward, since in my mind it has the broader scope (allows solutions other than 802.16), and then the 802.16 folks should propose a solution within the ECSG group based on 802.16.  The ECSG PAR might require a few small updates to absorb any minor outages from the 802.16 PAR but I doubt that's an issue.   However, I recognize that if people don't find an outlet in 802, they will probably take it somewhere else.  Even if we force them to merge, they would either try to split later, or (as seems to be the rule these days) come up with a let's do both standard.  So procedurally, I think we should make sure the PARs are distinct it their goals (usually it's not that hard to find some trivial distinction).  We should probably encourage them to have close ties and consider merging if at all possible along the way.  But I feel we should let both go forward if at all possible.
 
Mat

Matthew Sherman
Vice Chair, IEEE 802
Technology Consultant
Communications Technology Research
AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
Room B255, Building 103
180 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 971
Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877
EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:paul.nikolich@worldnet.att.net]
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 6:35 PM
To: IEEE802
Subject: [802SEC] Mobile Broadband Wireless Access--distinction between the ECSG and 802.16 SG project authorization requests

Dear SEC members,

 

Both the Executive Committee Study Group on Mobile Broadband Wireless Access and the 802.16 Mobile Wireless Access Study Group have submitted Project Authorization Requests for projects that, as far as I can tell from the PARs, address the same market and application space.  This concerns me.

 

The only substantive difference in the PARs that I can see is that the 802.16 SG proposes to amend the 802.16 MAC/PHY to enable mobile operation, while the ECSG does not presume using the 802.16 standard as a starting point.  This confuses me-when we approved the 802.16 SG in July, it was to focus on enhancements to the 802.16a PHY/MAC for 'limited mobility' in the 2-11GHz band, whilst the ECSG was targeting 'high mobility' in the sub 3.5GHz band.  This established some, albeit small, distinction between the ECSG (0-3.5GHz, up to 250km/h) and 802.16 SGs (2-11GHz, limited mobility) activities.  Now, the gap has narrowed-narrowed to the point that I think the SEC must consider whether or not it makes sense to have two projects with such similar scope. 

 

I would like to hear what other members of the SEC think about the overlap between these two PARs-any opinions out there?

 

Regards,

 

--Paul Nikoich