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

RE: stds-802-16-mac: TG3 Criteria and/or Functions for Choosing from Different MAC Proposals



Chet, Subir and All,

Let's remind that we had a lot of discussions in TG3  about the MAC features
we need. 
We made a decision at the end of Meeting 10 that we accept TG1 MAC
as a baseline. We have certain activities of TG3 MAC Group that resulted in
numerous submissions, discussions,
communication to TG1 MAC group etc. The point was exactly to adjust the MAC
to IP type of applications.
Several of our ideas were adopted in Air Interface document: MAC-PHY
separation, flexible frame size, packing of MAC payloads,
some hooks for ARQ etc. I agree with Subir that these (and planned) updates
are sufficient to carry efficiently IP traffic through wireless.

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: Subir [mailto:svarma@apertonet.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 8:47 PM
> To: cshirali@vyyo.com; 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 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
>