Transcript https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/10/11-10-0860-00-0000-comments-for-802-16p-new-par-july-2010.ppt

July 2010
doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0860r0
Comments for 802.16p New PAR –
July 2010
Date: 2010-07-13
Authors:
Name
Affiliations
Address
Jon Rosdahl
CSR
10871 N 5750 W
+1-801-492-4023
Highland, UT 84003
Submission
Slide 1
Phone
email
[email protected]
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
July 2010
doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0860r0
Abstract
Comments from 802.11 to 802.16 regarding their
proposed New PAR.
Submission
Slide 2
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
July 2010
doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0860r0
802.16 New PAR
• Please refer to the following presentation for specific requirements
on filling in a PAR form.
– http://ieee802.org/802_tutorials/2010-07/newPAR_July2010.ppt
• The 802.11 comments address a concern that other Working
Groups may also consider “Machine to Machine” enhancements in
future standards or amendments.
• 2.1 Title – change the title to be more succinct.
– Suggestion for title: “…- Enhancements for Machine to Machine
Communication in licensed bands”
– Is there a proper definition for “Machine to Machine” that is defined in the
industry? Is there agreement for 802 usage of “Machine to Machine”?
Submission
Slide 3
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
July 2010
doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0860r0
802.16 New PAR
• The Scope should describe the technical description of
the changes. We suggest that you drop the marketing
portion of the description from the Scope. Also the
acronym OFDMA and PHY will need to be spelled out.
• 5.2 Scope: Suggested scope-• “This amendment specifies IEEE Std 802.16 medium
access control (MAC) enhancements and minimal
Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiple Access
(OFDMA) Physical layer (PHY) modifications in
licensed bands for lower power consumption at the
subscriber station, support by the base station of
significantly larger numbers of devices, and efficient
support for short burst transmissions. “
Submission
Slide 4
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
July 2010
doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0860r0
802.16 New PAR
• 5.3 – missing the explanation of the “yes”…please add
a short description of why 802.16m is required.
• 5.4 Purpose – just describe what the amendment will
include. This should be a present tense statement of
what is in the document. The word “efficient” has no
metric of quantification.
Submission
Slide 5
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
July 2010
doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0860r0
802.16 New PAR
• 5.5 Need for Project. The statement “significantly
different” requirements does not seem correct. Nodes
in the network pass data. It seems that the Need
paragraph is describing application (Layer 7)
differences rather than the MAC/PHY level differences
that may be necessary.
Submission
Slide 6
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
July 2010
doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0860r0
802.16 New PAR
5.6 Stakeholders: Describe “who” the stakeholders are.
“government agencies” does not seem correct to
include.
7.1 add a note in 8.1 as to what the similarities or
differences are.
7.2c – Harmonization is not quite the right description for
the relationship between WiMax and 802.16. This is for
Harmonization with other International SDOs
Submission
Slide 7
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
July 2010
doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0860r0
802.16 New PAR
• 8.1 Additional explanatory Notes:
– Remove item 1.1 note…This is not necessary for the PAR. The
number is assigned by the NesCom Administrator in consultation
with the WG chair.
– NesCom does not allow the use of “o” .
– The comment for 5.2 needs to be changed. We suggested that
“machine-to-machine” was removed from the scope, so you do not
need the definition here in 8.1.
– Also the definition seems to be describing application (Layer 7)
differences rather than the MAC/PHY level differences that may
be necessary.
Submission
Slide 8
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
July 2010
doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0860r0
802.16 5C
• Broad Market Potential
– The statement is primarily stating functionality that is provided in
layers 3 to 7. The statement is not specific to what may be
required in layer 1 or 2.
• Distinct Identity
– While the statement is true for the 802.16 standard, it is not a
complete or unique solution for all Machine-to-Machine
communications.
– The word “standard” should be “amendment” in this context, and
specific to 802.16. (both instances).
Submission
Slide 9
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
July 2010
doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0860r0
802.16 5C (cont)
•
b) One unique solution per problem (not two solutions
to a problem):
– Suggest to replace the text with the following: “The 802.16
standard does not currently address Machine-to-Machine
communications.”
•
c) Easy for the document reader to select the relevant
specification.
– The use of “standard” is incorrect. Substitute “amendment” in
two instances.
– Suggested change: “The title of this amendment and the scope are
distinct enough for document readers to discern the application of
this amendment”.
Submission
Slide 10
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
July 2010
doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0860r0
802.16 5C (cont)
•
•
Technical Feasibility
a) Demonstrated system feasibility.
– Machine-to-Machine communication is an application and has
been implemented using other technologies.
– The statement should be reworded to state “Machine-toMachine(M2M) communications has been shown to be feasible in
many technologies and 802.16 is similar in characteristics of some
of these technologies and therefore it is reasonable to assert that it
is feasible for 802.16 to support M2M applications..
•
Confidence in reliability.
– Missing explaination.
Submission
Slide 11
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
July 2010
doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0860r0
802.16 5C (Cont)
• Economic Feasibility
• a) Known cost factors, reliable data.
– Change “…this standard over systems based on …“ to “…this
amendment in systems based on …“
Submission
Slide 12
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
July 2010
doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0860r0
References
• Proposed 802.16p PAR:
– http://ieee802.org/PARs/2010-07/80216ppc-10_0003r6.doc
Submission
Slide 13
Jon Rosdahl, CSR