[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: stds-802-16-tg1: Re: stds-802-16-mac: Paragraph 8.1



Roger,

My concern was based on the assumption that 8.1 becomes one of TG1 PHY
topics, such as "Downstream Physical Layer". It might imply the wrong
perception of PHY SAP definition as a part of TG1 PHY description.
As I see now, when the text is ready, 8.1 is parallel to the top TG1 PHY
heading. So the Glen's solution is good and I completely agree with it.

Vladimir 

=========================================
Dr. Vladimir Yanover

System Manager
BreezeCOM Ltd.
Atidim Technology Park, Bldg. 1
P.O. Box 13139, Tel-Aviv 61131, Israel
Tel.:      +972-36457834
Fax:       +972-36456290
E-Mail:   vladimiry@breezecom.co.il



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 9:50 PM
> To: stds-802-16-mac@ieee.org
> Cc: stds-802-16-tg1@ieee.org
> Subject: stds-802-16-tg1: Re: stds-802-16-mac: Paragraph 8.1
> 
> 
> Vladimir,
> 
> Regarding your note (below) of December 19: Although I agree with 
> your intent, I think the layout in the current TG1 draft (IEEE 
> 802.16.1/D1-2000) works better. Notice that the PHY clause looks like 
> this:
> 
>   8. PHY Layer
>    8.1 Physical layer (PHY) service specification
>    8.2 Physical Layer for 10 - 66 GHZ
> 
> This keeps the PHY SAP separate from all the specific PHYs, which is, 
> I believe, your main point.
> 
> Also notice that the outline basically follows the reference diagram 
> (Figure 2 - "802.16.1 protocol layering, showing service access 
> points") from top to bottom, which is a good logical order. If you 
> kept this order but moved the PHY SAP up to the end of the previous 
> section, it would end up in the Security Sublayer section, since this 
> is where the MAC interfaces with the SAP. That would be a confusing 
> place for it.
> 
> I think that Glen came up with a good solution and recommend that we 
> stick with it.
> 
> Roger
> 
> 
> >Hello, All
> >
> >I realized (with some delay) that at the Meeting #10.5 we 
> placed "8.1. PHY
> >SAP" paragraph under the "8. PHY" heading.
> >This seems to be in contradiction with the sense of this 
> topic and our
> >intention to make this a topic of MAC thus common for all PHYs.
> >By the way, the similar clause in 802.11 ("12. Physical 
> layer (PHY) service
> >specification") is Heading 1 under MAC.
> >
> >A PHY clause should contain specification of the abstract service
> >primitives, parameter vectors etc. for this specific PHY
> >
> >What do you think?
> >
> >Vladimir
> >
> >=========================================
> >Dr. Vladimir Yanover
> >
> >System Manager
> >BreezeCOM Ltd.
> >Atidim Technology Park, Bldg. 1
> >P.O. Box 13139, Tel-Aviv 61131, Israel
> >Tel.:      +972-36457834
> >Fax:       +972-36456290
> >E-Mail:   vladimiry@breezecom.co.il
>