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

Re: [802SEC] Emergency services PAR

Dear Vivek and 802.21 members

I agree that the scope of the PAR appears to be very broad.  Some of the
issues are:
 1) Determining what is required for complaince with all regulatory
requirements for emergency services in all regulatory regions would be a
daunting project in itself.
 2) The project would need to define the mechanisms to support
compliance for every 802 MAC/PHY combination, which would be a
challenging task.

For 1) the best answer may be to explicitly limit the scope to a few
specific regulatory documents.

Since the project does not define a new MAC/PHY, it would seem to be
describing LLC functionality.

My suggestion in the 802.11 meeting for reviewing PARs was that the PAR
should define the services and interfaces that at MAC/PHY needs to
provide in order to support emergency services.  These would be
expressed in terms of MACs/PHYs (e.g., throughput, data rate, latency,
etc.) with control methods (e.g., MAC SAP or MLME SAP).  Then you would
need to define interface requirements at the LLC to Layer 3 interface so
that the higher layers could enable emergency services when required.

However, that description reads like a PAR scope for 802.1, not 802.21.

I think supporting emergency services over our networking protocols is a
good idea.  However, the first step may be to define the architecture,
as Tony suggests.

Regardless of the group that proposes this PAR, I think that the EC
should consider which group is the best home for this work based on the


James Gilb
802 EC Recording Secretary

Tony Jeffree wrote:
> Vivek -
> I have significant problems with this draft PAR, some of which cannot be fixed simply by
> changing the wording of the draft.
> Firstly, the PAR reads like a charter for the working group to boil the ocean. The problem
> that the PAR offers to solve is large, multi-faceted, complex, and will inevitably involve
> expertise across the breadth of 802 technologies, as well as expertise in the political
> and regulatory issues surrounding this area, and the ways in which they interact with the
> technical solutions. A PAR is a charter to write a single standard; given the scope of the
> problem, I don't believe that the solution is going to consist of a single document;
> neither do I believe that the set of documents that would eventually be needed will be
> possible to write within a single working group. So, in short, the scope of the project is
> way too broad, and is consequently unlikely to be achievable in any realistic timeframe. A
> starting point that might have some chance of success would be to develop an architecture
> for emergency services support across 802; a competently written architecture can (and
> should) inform the set of documents that are needed in order to address the technology
> issues, and how they relate to each other. However, that is not what this draft PAR
> proposes.
> Secondly, the subject matter of the PAR has no relationship to the current charter of the
> 802.21 WG. Simply changing the 802.21 charter to make it "fit" is not, in my view, the
> correct solution here; past experience during the development of the existing 802.21
> standard gives me no confidence either in 802.21's will to develop truly cross-802
> standards or its ability to do so. I believe that the answer to 802.1's charter issues is
> simple; if you are done doing work on the subject matter of your original standard, then
> it is time you did the right thing and closed down the WG, rather than starting unrelated
> work. If there are further topic areas that your members desire to work on, and that are
> not a good fit with your current charter, then the right thing to do is to create one or
> more EC study groups to look at those topics and determine, on an 802-wide basis, how they
> should be tackled. That way, we stand a better chance of getting participation in the
> process by interested parties across 802, and less chance of the activity becoming either
> wireline or wireless centric. Once each EC study group has done its job, the EC will get
> to determine where any work that is proposed should best be done, and whether there is a
> need to create a new WG to tackle it.
> So, I will oppose the approval of this PAR on Friday. I will also oppose any change to
> 802.21's charter beyond the subject matter of its existing standard and approved projects.
> I would, however, support the establishment of an EC study group to study what (if
> anything) 802 should do about emergency services, should anyone choose to propose forming
> one.
> Regards,
> Tony
> ----------
> This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.

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