[802SEC] Comments on 802.16s PAR
My comments ion the 802.16s PAR are as follows:
3.3 Joint Sponsorship: I am opposed to joint sponsorship for an 802
standard unless there is a compelling reason why the other sponsor is
required. I don't think that MTT/SCC has the relevant experience to
support this project.
5.1 What gives us confidence that there will be 15 people involved in
5.2.b How can it be both "minor" and "consequential". Change "and if
necessary, minor consequential amendments to other clauses" to be "and
changes to other clauses required to implement the larger channel
sizes." Move the first sentence to after the second sentence and
re-write in present tense.
5.2.b What are the specific frequency bands that are targeted. In the
need for the project, VHF and UHF are listed, but no specific
frequencies are indicated. Please specify the frequency range that is
in scope. The ITU defines the frequency range for VHF/UHF to be 30
MHz to 3 GHz.
5.2.b The scope does not provide guidance on the required data rates
or ranges, yet these are critical in developing the standard. Please
provide numerical ranges for data rate and range in the scope of the
5.4: Change "transport:" to be "transport;", i.e., use a semi-colon as
with the other items in the list.
5.4: What is meant by "private" in "private licensed wireless access
7.3 and 7.4: These items do not appear in the submitted PAR and should
be removed from this document as we are not approving the content of
7.5 does not appear in the submitted PAR and hence it should be
deleted from this document.
- By defining new radio parameters and potentially frequency bands,
it seems likely that new managed object definitions will be
required. Please change the response to refelect that new managed
objects will be required.
- The frequency band hinted at includes TVWS, which while licensed
spectrum, also allows unlicensed use as well. If TVWS spectrum is
allowed in the scope, then a CA needs to be produced as there are
existing IEEE 802 standards operating in the TVWS band.
- Is the base standard in compliance with 802.1AC and 802.1Q? If so
then say so. If not, then the answer is no, but it would be an
amendment to an existing standard for which it has been previously
determined that compliance is not possible.
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.