Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802SEC] [STDS-802-16] Call for Contributions regarding Potential Bridging Project 802.16k


Very good question.

I'm using an Acrobat markup feature. When you put your mouse over the 
strikeout, you should see the proposed replacement text:

"This project amends IEEE 802.1D in order to support bridging of the 
IEEE 802.16 MAC. One subclause is added to Clause 6 to describe the 
service interface mapping between the Internal Sublayer Service and 
the 802.16 MAC service. Minor changes are made elsewhere in the 
document, including priority mapping in Clause 7 and the PICS 
Proforma in Annex A."

This may require Acrobat Reader 7.


At 10:42 AM -0800 06/03/02, Johnston, Dj wrote:
>A possibly dumb question.. Why delete the scope from the 16k PAR?
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Roger B. Marks []
>Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 7:15 AM
>Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] Call for Contributions regarding Potential
>Bridging Project 802.16k
>Regarding the Call for Contributions (see note below), we have received
>the following:
>IEEE C802.16-06/001: Bridging Support for 802.16 (David Johnston)
>IEEE S802.16-06/001: Bridging Support for 802.16 (slides from DJ):
>DJ has submitted a proposed draft suitable for consideration under the
>PAR. He requests that it be considered and adopted as the draft standard
>for IEEE 802.16k.
>We also have two other contributions:
>IEEE C802.16-06/002: Proposed Editorial Update to 802.16k PAR Proposal
>(Roger Marks)
>This is a copy of the PAR that I submitted to NesCom to get it on their
>agenda for 29 March. I had to make some editorial changes, mainly
>because the PAR form has changed. I propose that we adopt these changes.
>IEEE C802.16-06/003: Proposed Changes to 802.16k PAR Proposal (Roger
>Suggesting some additional minor changes.
>If 802.16, 802, NesCom, and IEEE-SA all agree, then we will have a PAR
>on 29 March. I suggest that we consider a decision to adopt DJ's
>proposal (or a modified version of it) as a draft, and begin a WG Letter
>Ballot; however, that decision must be conditional on getting full PAR
>approval. This way, we can run a WG Letter Ballot in April and have it
>complete in time to review comments at Session #43 in May.
>NetMan Chair Phil Barber has agreed to handle this discussion as part of
>the NetMan agenda at Session #42. DJ will be there and has volunteered
>to serve as Editor of the draft.
>>I have posted a Call for Contributions regarding the potential project
>802.16k on 802.16 bridging:
>>	<>
>>Even though the PAR has not yet been formally approved for submittal, I
>believe that it is likely to go ahead, perhaps with modest changes made
>during the March 802 Plenary. I think we would benefit from a quick
>start on this work. Also, I would like to take advantage of the
>co-located 802.1 meeting.
>>The document is calling for contributions relevant to a draft that
>might be developed under the PAR. Comments on the draft PAR are also
>welcome. We will assign any contributions to the NetMan Task Group for
>>The deadline is 27 February 2006 AOE <>.
>>Dr. Roger B. Marks  <> +1 303 497 7837    
>>National Institute of Standards and Technology/Boulder, CO, USA
>>Chair, IEEE 802.16 Working Group on Broadband Wireless Access
>>        <>
>>>Dear 802 EC Colleagues:
>>>I am writing to notify you of a new PAR that arose out of the Working
>Group's January interim session:
>>>* P802.16k: <>
>>>This is for a proposed amendment to 802.1D on 802.16 Bridging.
>>>The 802.16 Working Group members agreed on 12 January, without
>objection, to forward this PAR. The meeting was without a quorum, so the
>motion will be formally considered at the March 802 Plenary. We are open
>to comments and ask that they be delivered to us, per the P&P, by 5 pm
>on Tuesday of the Plenary Week (7 March).
>>>As background information: Tony Jeffree raised a concern at the 802 EC
>meeting of 18 November regarding the potential for the 802.16 Mobile
>Multihop Relay Study Group activity to lead to bridging problems. We
>identified a 802.16 member (DJ Johnston) to represent 802.16 at the
>802.1 interim last week, to explain the Study Group's thinking, gather
>feedback from 802.1, and be the contact for subsequent discussions
>during the week (while 802.16 and the Study Group were simultaneously
>meeting in New Delhi). This discussion led us to understand the
>importance of adding an additional subclause to 802.1D calling out the
>specific case of 802.16. We proposed to address the problem by
>immediately proposing a PAR. It is closely modeled after 802.17a, which,
>to my understanding, is the most recent project to amend 802.1D.
>>>I'd like to thank DJ for his invaluable assistance. I also want to
>thank Tony and the others in 802.1 (especially Mick Seaman and Norm
>Finn) for helping DJ to better appreciate the issues.

This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.