Re: [802SEC] [STDS-802-16] Call for Contributions regarding Potential Bridging Project 802.16k
- To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
- Subject: Re: [802SEC] [STDS-802-16] Call for Contributions regarding Potential Bridging Project 802.16k
- From: "Roger B. Marks" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 14:31:19 -0700
- In-Reply-To: <85514027246E4643A1B0780EC0F6F45804EC9900@orsmsx410>
- References: <85514027246E4643A1B0780EC0F6F45804EC9900@orsmsx410>
- Reply-To: "Roger B. Marks" <email@example.com>
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?
>From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>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
>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
>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 <http://tinyurl.com/cc43o>.
>>Dr. Roger B. Marks <mailto:email@example.com> +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: <http://ieee802.org/16/docs/06/80216-06_003.pdf>
>>>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.