stds-802-mobility: RE: stds-802-16-mobile: Creating Unique Identities for the two mobility PARs
802.16 is one of the best existing standards, with all state of the art
goodies of the wireless communication.
802.16 can have vehicular speed faster than most existing standards and we
should not hide this fact.
802.16 has an excellent MAC with round trip delays of ~4 ms (for 2 ms frame)
which enables excellent QoS to the end user (carrier class capabilities
etc.) with excellent IP oriented mode.
802.16 is using the most advanced techniques: OFDM/A, SC, Space Time Coding
(STC), Turbo Code (TC), Highly integrated Adaptive Array System (AAS), ARQ
I don't believe that if someone will start from a clean sheet again he will
come to a different answer. So why starting to invent the wheel again, and
resulting with more delays, in order of at least 5 years (IS-95 took 9
years, GSM more than 10 years, 3G about 8 years).
802.16 has an excellent team which can extend the standard easily to the
mobility mode within less than a year (802.16 customers ask for different
types of mobility and every one of the manufactures in the group knows
precisely the comments should be made to the standard for those additions).
Globally 802.16 Mobile will complete the missing part of the triangle where:
* 3G will give answers to a mobile reaching typical cells of 5 Km with
medium data rates (384-2000 Kbps per frequency of 5Mhz) for voice, low data
rate IP and highly compressed video clips with reasonable QOS and vehicular
speed up to 250 Km/h ,
* 802.11 for WLAN, hotspots etc, with clusters of cells of 2 Km (each cell
with ~200m) for high data rate IP with speed as the coverage will enable.
* 802.16 will cover the fixed to mobile high data rates high QOS customers
with real Video unicast/multicast (0.7 Mbps to 8 Mbps) asymmetrical /
symmetrical traffic capabilities etc. For cell sizes reaching 15 Km and
recommended speed reaching to 100 Km/hr and optional higher speed where it
Unfortunately the ECSD group allocate themselves in the 3G arena (this was
clearly expressed when we had combined meetings) and looking for solution
that compete with 3G (UMTS, T1P1, 3GPP1, 3GPP2) on the same frequencies, the
same bands and the same markets. This was one of the main reasons why ECSD
As part of 802.16, I am looking for taking the advantage of our standard in
order to extend it in a very short time to what our customers are looking
for as the missing link between 3G and 802.11.
If the SEC will not approve another group outside 802.16, I personally will
be happy to welcome the ECSD people.
I am asking the SEC to let 802.16 to finish the work for mobility and to
help us approving our PAR .
All the best,
[mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of Avi
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 12:16 AM
To: Marianna Goldhammer; Mark Klerer; 'Kiernan, Brian G.';
Cc: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org;
Subject: Re: stds-802-16-mobile: Creating Unique Identities for the two
I tend to agree with Mark's spirit, in the sense that a distinction can be
made between the two mobility groups based on the fact that 802.16 is
working on adding mobility functionality to the 16a standard, while ECSG is
an blank slate. But I also agree with Marianna that backward compatibility
was never the issue.
Perhaps indicating the 250kmh speed in the 802.15 PAR conveyed the wrong
idea, and might have caused a misinterpretation of the intention. However,
speed has to be included in the PAR, as it is an essential measure of a
mobile system performance. Maybe a minimal speed of 90kmh should be set and
higher speed should be considered as "best effort"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marianna Goldhammer" <email@example.com>
To: "Mark Klerer" <M.Klerer@flarion.com>; "'Kiernan, Brian G.'"
Cc: <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>;
Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 12:17 PM
Subject: RE: stds-802-16-mobile: Creating Unique Identities for the two
> Dear Mark,
> I think that we disagree on the 802.16 scope. We are not looking for
> "backward compatibility" with our existing 802.16a standard.
> We are looking to improve the existing 802.16a standard, to support
> high speed, high data rates mobility.
> We think that we can take advantage of > 80% of 802.16 MAC, by adapting
> it to support mobility.
> And we do not target "pedestrian mobility". We know, due to work done
> within 802.16 SG, that even the existing 802.16a OFDM and OFDMA
> PHY work at very high speeds.
> I think that a key difference issue is the data rate. We look to converge
> fixed and mobile wireless service, based on high data rates provided by
> both BS and CPE equipment. We will be able to target mobile terminals,
> as well as to provide mobile symmetrical feeding for moving "Hot Spots".
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Klerer [mailto:M.Klerer@flarion.com]
> Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 1:44 AM
> To: 'Kiernan, Brian G.'; 'firstname.lastname@example.org'
> Cc: 'email@example.com'; 'firstname.lastname@example.org';
> Subject: stds-802-16-mobile: Creating Unique Identities for the two
> Roger, Brian
> In response to the SEC chair's request that we work toward defining unique
> identities of the two mobility PARs, I would like to suggest the
> The 802.16 Study Group has the charter of allowing the evolution of 802.16
> compliant systems toward supporting mobility. To that end it would appear
> logical that changes to the PHY and MAC be fully backward compatible with
> the existing specification and that no a priori statement be made about
> station speed that can be supported by such a system. I would like to
> suggest that the PAR therefore focus on these aspects and that the project
> scope be described as:
> To amend the 802.16 standard to support combined fixed and mobile
> from within a single system. The extension will address PHY and MAC
> that are fully backward compatible, while supporting mobile subscriber
> operation and roaming between 802.16 base-stations or their sectors. This
> amendment will allow high spectral efficiency (3~4 bits/s/Hz), macrocell
> sizes and NLOS operation.
> The ECSG PAR's objective, on the other hand, is to develop a standard that
> is optimized for broadband wireless data mobility without any a priori
> assumptions about the technologies used to realize that objective. The
> therefore, states the design objective of developing a spectrally
> solution that will support mobility classes up to 250 Km/h. I believe that
> there are no changes required in the wording of that PAR.
> In essence we then have two PARs with, one addressing the need for a
> solution optimized for full vehicular mobility and the other the need for
> extending the capabilities of 802.16 systems to support a level of
> This is a new proposal that I believe should allow the SEC to approve both
> PARs. I am copying the two mobility groups in order to get their reaction
> this proposal and see if they will agree to such PARs. If this is
> we could formally revise the PAR on Monday or Tuesday and approach the SEC
> on Friday with a consensus position.
> Mark Klerer
> Chair - MBWA-ECSG
> 135 Route 202/206 South
> Bedminster, NJ 07921
> . E-mail: email@example.com
> ( Phone: 908-997-2069
> 6 Fax: 908-997-2050
> This mail was sent via mail.alvarion.com
> This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
> PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer