[802SEC] FW: Comments on the two PARs submitted
Resend with correct EC address.
________________________________
From: Puthenkulam, Jose P
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 10:06 AM
To: SEC
Cc: Puthenkulam, Jose P; STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Comments on the two PARs submitted
Dear Arnie,
Here are my comments on the 2 PARs proposed by the 802.20 WG.
Comments on the Draft PAR and Five Criteria for Standard for Conformance
to
IEEE 802.20 Systems - Protocol Implementation Conformance
Statement (PICS) Pro-forma
http://ieee802.org/20/WG_Docs/802.20-08-03.pdf
<http://ieee802.org/20/WG_Docs/802.20-08-03.pdf>
Comment 1:
In section 5.2, the proposed PAR states, "5.2 Scope of Proposed
Standard: This standard represents the Protocol Implementation
Conformance
Statement(PICS) Proforma, per ISO/IEC Standard 9646-7 (1995) and ITU-T
X.296, for the conformance specification of base stations and subscriber
stations based upon the air interface specified in IEEE P802.20."
However the term 'subscriber station' is undefined in the IEEE 802.20
Air Interface Draft 4.0m. So I would suggest appropriate replacement of
the term 'subscriber station' with the term 'Access Terminal (AT) or
User Terminal (UT)'.
Also the term 'base station' while defined, is also referred to as
'Access Node' quite frequently in the draft standard. Hence I would
suggest modification to substitute the term 'base stations' with 'base
stations and Access Nodes (AN)'.
Comment 2:
In section 5.4, the proposed PAR states, "5.4 Purpose of Proposed
Standard: This document describes the capabilities and options within
the air
interface specified in IEEE P802.20. It is to be completed by the
supplier of a product claiming to implement the protocol. It indicates
which capabilities
and options have been implemented. It allows a user of the product to
evaluate its conformance and to determine whether the product meets the
user's
requirements."
As the draft 802.20 standard supports multiple conformant protocol modes
considering the 2 PHYs and 2 MACs for the wide band and 625k MC modes, I
would suggest modification of the phrase "implement the protocol" to
"implement one or more of the protocol modes".
Comment 3:
In section 7.1, the proposed PAR form requires responding to the
statement "7.1 Are there other standards or projects with a similar
scope?
If yes, please explain:
and answer the following: Sponsor Organization:
Project/Standard Number:
Project/Standard Date:
Project/Standard Title:"
First of all this question need to be answered and it is not done
presently in the proposed PAR. Also as the draft 802.20 standard draws
significantly from the 3GPP and ATIS specifications, is it not possible
to refer to projects for specifications for conformance that have been
developed in those SDOs. I think the IEEE-SA would like to preserve its
reputation of defining independent quality standards and hence, this
information will be very useful for them to make sure adequate
copyrights etc are followed, if specification re-use occurs during
development of such a project.
Comment 4:
Section 7.2 and 7.3 are not answered.
Comments on the Draft PAR and 5 Criteria - Standard for Minimum
Performance
Characteristics of 802.20 Terminals and Base Stations
http://ieee802.org/20/WG_Docs/802.20-08-04.pdf
<http://ieee802.org/20/WG_Docs/802.20-08-04.pdf>
Comment 1:
Is it not better to for this proposed PAR to be pursuing a recommended
practice as opposed to a standard? The reason I say this is that actual
performance characteristics in implementations widely vary and thus
enables a competitive market place. Such imposition of a standard as
opposed to a recommended practice, might provide disincentives for some
vendors to be able to conform to such a standard and thus not be
successful in the market place. So I urge reconsideration of the target
of this project. Also such projects are extremely hard to do as too much
details of implementation are involved. Hence my suggestion.
Comment 2:
Section 5.6 states "5.6 Stakeholders for the Standard: 802.20 equipment
suppliers and service providers utilizing the 802.20 standard are the
principle stakeholders."
I would suggest end users as also potential stake holders, remember end
users should also have a say in what service they would like to get.
Comment 3:
Also the term 'base station' while defined, is also referred to as
'Access Node' quite frequently in the draft standard. Hence I would
suggest modification to substitute the term 'base stations' with 'base
stations and Access Nodes (AN)'.
----------------
thanks & best regards,
jose
_____________________________________________
Jose Puthenkulam
Wireless Standards & Technology
Mobility Group
Intel Corporation
Desk: (503) 2646121; Cell: (503) 8038609
Email:jose.p.puthenkulam@intel.com
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.