RE: [802SEC] Re: stds-802-16-mobile: Creating Unique Identities for the two mobility PARs
I just want to point out that derivatives of 802.11 have also been pointed at addressing the 3G market. A small company called EtherLinx comes to mind. (See article in Wireless Review, October 1, 2002 titled "Aerial Assault" by Chris Sewell). I have heard stories of "War Flying" where people take to the air to chart 802.11 AP's quickly over a large area. Obviously if they are picking up SSID's while flying there are possibilities for mobility. My point it, while 802.16 is well equipped to address the problem, I don't think it is the only possibility, even just within 802. I have not heard anyone in 802.11 indicate they want to get into this area. However, it would be good to leave the possibility open. :')
Vice Chair, IEEE 802
Communications Technology Research
AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
Room B255, Building 103
180 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 971
Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877
From: Bob O'Hara [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:02 PM
Subject: [802SEC] Re: stds-802-16-mobile: Creating Unique Identities for
the two mobility PARs
Forwarded for a non-subscriber.
From: "Zion Hadad" <email@example.com>
To: "'Avi Freedman'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
"'Marianna Goldhammer'" <email@example.com>,
"'Mark Klerer'" <M.Klerer@flarion.com>,
"'Kiernan, Brian G.'" <Brian.Kiernan@interdigital.com>,
Cc: <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>,
Subject: RE: stds-802-16-mobile: Creating Unique Identities for the two
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 14:55:15 +0200
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
should not hide this fact.
802.16 has an excellent MAC with round trip delays of ~4 ms (for 2 ms
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
(STC), Turbo Code (TC), Highly integrated Adaptive Array System (AAS),
I don't believe that if someone will start from a clean sheet again he
come to a different answer. So why starting to invent the wheel again,
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
types of mobility and every one of the manufactures in the group knows
precisely the comments should be made to the standard for those
Globally 802.16 Mobile will complete the missing part of the triangle
* 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
rate IP and highly compressed video clips with reasonable QOS and
speed up to 250 Km/h ,
* 802.11 for WLAN, hotspots etc, with clusters of cells of 2 Km (each
with ~200m) for high data rate IP with speed as the coverage will
* 802.16 will cover the fixed to mobile high data rates high QOS
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
Unfortunately the ECSD group allocate themselves in the 3G arena (this
clearly expressed when we had combined meetings) and looking for
that compete with 3G (UMTS, T1P1, 3GPP1, 3GPP2) on the same frequencies,
same bands and the same markets. This was one of the main reasons why
As part of 802.16, I am looking for taking the advantage of our standard
order to extend it in a very short time to what our customers are
for as the missing link between 3G and 802.11.
If the SEC will not approve another group outside 802.16, I personally
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
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
an blank slate. But I also agree with Marianna that backward
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.
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
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
> 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
> fixed and mobile wireless service, based on high data rates provided
> both BS and CPE equipment. We will be able to target mobile terminals,
> as well as to provide mobile symmetrical feeding for moving "Hot
> -----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
> 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
> compliant systems toward supporting mobility. To that end it would
> logical that changes to the PHY and MAC be fully backward compatible
> the existing specification and that no a priori statement be made
> 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
> 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.
> amendment will allow high spectral efficiency (3~4 bits/s/Hz),
> sizes and NLOS operation.
> The ECSG PAR's objective, on the other hand, is to develop a standard
> 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
> 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
> 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
> PARs. I am copying the two mobility groups in order to get their
> 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
> 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 &