RE: stds-802-16-mac: TG3 Criteria and/or Functions for Choosing from Different MAC Proposals
Chet,
Can you elaborate on why you consider the 802.16 MAC (with the
enhancements that are being
suggested by the TG3 MAC Group), not IP-centric? In fact I would argue that
with the
addition of concatenation/fragmentation and ARQ, the 802.16 MAC will be much
better suited
to carry IP traffic over wireless, as compared to the DOCSIS MAC.
In the last meeting we identified a 2 step process for proceeding with the
TG3 MAC work:
1) Including flexibility in the 802.16 MAC header, through the addition of a
TYPE field
2) Adding additional features in the MAC protocol, which make use of this
flexibility.
The TG3 MAC group should be focused on adding the additional features that
the TYPE field makes possible
Regards,
Subir
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-16-mac@ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-16-mac@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Chet Shirali
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 12:31 AM
To: stds-802-16-mac@ieee.org
Cc: dkostas@adaptivebroadband.com; brian.kiernan@interdigital.com;
Menashe Shahar (E-mail)
Subject: RE: stds-802-16-mac: TG3 Criteria and/or Functions for Choosing
from Different MAC Proposals
Let us all face the reality. It has been pointed out by me during my
presentation at session # 11 that TG3 is a different application. The
requirement is of an IP centric MAC. The sub 11 GHz system will require from
implementation and time to market perspective a MAC, which is proven. The
call for presentation should include modifications, which can fit in one
document as the MAC for different application as the Air interface is also
all together different. Let us go for the MAC, which the service providers
want.
Chet
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-16-mac@ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-16-mac@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Kiernan, Brian G.
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2001 2:54 PM
To: stds-802-16-mac@ieee.org
Subject: RE: stds-802-16-mac: TG3 Criteria and/or Functions for Choosing
from Different MAC Pro posals
I want to remind everyone that we are NOT "choosing a MAC". We already have
one. What we do need to do is come up with:
1) the list of features/capabilities we need in TG3 that are not supported
in the current MAC document. In this regard, I think we are well on our
way.
2) the means or criteria by which we can assess possible alternate methods
to providing those features/capabilities.
Remember, we have issued a call for MAC enhancements to be presented at the
next meeting. What are we going to do with them when we get them?
Actually, I kind of like the "Tarrot Card" idea.
Brian
-----Original Message-----
From: Kostas, Demos [mailto:dkostas@adaptivebroadband.com]
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 10:41 AM
To: stds-802-16-mac@ieee.org
Subject: stds-802-16-mac: TG3 Criteria and/or Functions for Choosing
from Different MAC Pro posals
It has been proposed by R.Marks that we carry discussions over this address.
So let me repeat for the benefits of the new email addressees.
On Monday 1/28/01 the TG3 appointed an AdHac Group to Develop a Set of
Criteria for Choosing the TG3 MAC from the TG3 MAC Proposal. The group met
Monday evening and as result the following TG3 MAC Selecting Criteria list
were identified, with the understanding that the group will work to refine
these Criteria. I thus call on those who contributed and anyone else who
wishes to assist, to comment on how to improve the list that follows. I
am thus emailing the list of TG3 MAC Selection Criteria for Comments with
the objective of presenting the refined Criteria to TG3 for their
consideration. This will be in lieu of having the TG3 chair toss an unbiased
coin or use Tarrot cards for making the Subject TG3 decision.
As the chair of the ADHac Group, I want to thank those that contributed to
the list of Criteria that follows.
TG3 Proposed MAC Selection Criteria
1. System Requirements
2. Access Delay and Variance
3. Payload and Bandwidth Efficiency
4. Implementation Simplicity and Complexity
5. Scalability
6. Service Support Flexibility/Flexibility to support a wide
range of Services
7. Robustness for Recovery from total loss/ How does a proposed
MAC respond to such situations
8. System Security
9. Maturity of technology
10. Sign-on Procedures; Resolving Ranging
11. Adequacy of Management Functions
12. Convergence with existing Protocols (e.g., WAN/LAN
Protocols)
13. Ability to work with a number of Physical Layers
14. Efficient handling of traffic(e.g., IP and VoIP)
15. Robustness: How well does the MAC respond to Multipath and
interference
16. MAC support of TG3 PHY(s) ranging procedures
17. MAC time required to respond to changing user traffic
changes
18. MAC Support UL and DL ARQ
19. Segmentation and Concatenation
20. Flexible Frame Length/ Capability to change Frame length on
a per frame basis
21. Flexibility to support future capabilities(e.g., electronic
steerable antennas)
22. Flexible MAC Header Formats
23. PHY dependent time measurement units
24. Total expected throughput
(NOTE: The initial items of the above list are from the TG1 MAC)
List of AdHac Participants/Volunteers
Demos Kostas
Subbu Ponnuswamy
Subir Varma
Wenhan Zhang
Heinz Lycklama
Bob Nelson
Ken Peirce
Jacob Jorgensen
Vladimir Yanover
John Liebetreu
M.Ashtijou
C Shirali
P.Guillemette
I. Kitroser
Z. Haddad
J. Zuniga
It has now also been proposed that we don't look for Criteria for
choosing the TG3 MAC but Identify the Functions of the TG3 MAC we desire.
As I do not want to get into the Semantics of it but rather to
identify those differentiable aspects of the TG3 MAC that will permit us to
choose from the different TG3 MAC configurations the one that has the
desired functions/features..., I am seeking your views on where we go from
the above list of Criteria/Functions/features to derive/choose the TG3 MAC.
Do we consolidate, rank, quantify, ... .Your thoughts please. .
Do we scrap it all and seek a benevolent guru for advice?
Dr. Demosthenes J. Kostas
Director, Industry Standards
Adaptive Broadband Corporation
3314 Dartmouth Ave
Dallas, TX 75205 USA
tel: 214 520 8411
fax: 214 520 9802