C802.20-06/23

Project / IEEE 802.20 Working Group on Mobile Broadband Wireless Access

Title / Suggestions to Letter Ballot Resolution Results
Date Submitted / 2006-05-05
Source(s) / Jiezhen Lin, Siemens
Teck Hu, Siemens / {jiezhen.lin;teck.hu}@Siemens.com
Re: / IEEE 802.20 session #20, May 15-19, 2006
Abstract / On May 4, 2006, we have sent to the 802.20 email reflector listing our disagreement with the Letter Ballot proposed comment resolutions that was posted to the email reflector on April 28, 2006. In this contribution, we would like to expand on just two of our comments out of the many comments that were submitted in our email to highlight our disagreements with the resolutions as proposed by the Letter Ballot Resolution Committee.
Purpose / For discussion
Notice / This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE 802.20 Working Group. It is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein.
Release / The contributor grants a free, irrevocable license to the IEEE to incorporate material contained in this contribution, and any modifications thereof, in the creation of an IEEE Standards publication; to copyright in the IEEE’s name any IEEE Standards publication even though it may include portions of this contribution; and at the IEEE’s sole discretion to permit others to reproduce in whole or in part the resulting IEEE Standards publication. The contributor also acknowledges and accepts that this contribution may be made public by IEEE 802.20.
Patent Policy / The contributor is familiar with IEEE patent policy, as outlined in Section 6.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual and in Understanding Patent Issues During IEEE Standards Development

On May 4, 2006, we have sent to the 802.20 email reflector listing our disagreement with the Letter Ballot proposed comment resolutions that was posted to the email reflector on April 28, 2006. In this contribution, we would like to expand on just two of our comments out of the many comments that were submitted in our email to highlight our disagreements with the resolutions as proposed by the Letter Ballot Resolution Committee.

  1. Comment No. 10

Comment: In-consistent format for Wideband Mode and 625K-MC Mode description.

Recommended Change: Such as clause 1.4: the overview of Broadband Mode should be separated to another Chapter, because the Chapter1 should logically covers the whole documents. Add unified abbreviations. Describe the two modes using the same format, etc.

Resolution: The resolution was "Accepted as modified: See resolution of comment 63": Make 1.5 625k-MC mode overview in chapter 1 with using "14. System Overview of 625k-MC (625kiloHertz-spaced MultiCarrier) Mode as it is and delete chapter 14. According to this, through chapter 15 to 28 should be decrease one chapter number.”[1]

Reasons for Disagreement with Resolution: The comment 63 only focus on the different format of overview, while the original comment required providing unified abbreviations and describing the two modes using the same format, etc.

Actually, in the Draftv2 [2], the Wideband Mode and the 625K MC Mode is drafted in totally different styles. Here I will point out a few of the different format descriptions:

1) The Wideband Mode is described from higher layer to lower layer, whereas the 625K MC mode is from lower to higher.

2) The Wideband Mode has integrated definition and description for the protocol stack while the 625K MC mode is drafted with a delta style,containing the change part to the HC-SDMA.

Take the chapters of Sublayer as example, the Wideband Mode part includes introduction/ overview of the sublayer, and the sections of Protocols or Transport within this sublayer, while the 625K MC Mode only lists the supplemental changes to HC-SDMA.

3) And these two modes parts provide totally different organization of the content.

As for the sections of Protocols, the Wideband Mode part contains Overview, Primitives, Public data, Protocol initialization and swap procedures, Procedures, Message formats, Interface to other protocols, Configuration attributes, Protocol numeric constants and Session state information. And in the 625K MC Mode part, the new added Sleep Mode Control Protocol (Chapter 26 of [2]) gives a brief introduction to describe.

The different descriptions for these two modes are difficult to accept for the following reasons:

1)All these different descriptionstyles will confuse the reader, and make the whole draft difficult to understand.

2)More of that, the different drafting way shows the two modes solution are not merged at all and each is a dependent solution. And besides that, the whole draft didn’t give any sign of merging for these two modes such as common protocol operation between the two modes, selecting mode, Interworking and coexist between the two modes. etc. TheDistinct Identity criteria (section 17.5.3 of IEEE P&P[3]) required in PAR defined that the standard development should provide “One unique solution per problem (not two solutions to a problem)”.So the drafter should have grave concern on the merging.

By the previous reason, the original comment is reasonable.But the resolution committee failed to resolve this comment adequately. So I suggest BRG to reconsider about this issue carefully and revise the draft entirely.

  1. Comment No. 26

Comment: Does this draft meet the mobility requirement of up to 250Km/h and simultaneously meet the essential spectrum efficiency requirement of >1bps/Hz of PAR? In the performance report, spectral efficiency of greater than 1bps/Hz is achieved only with 4x4 MIMO. Since MIMO and/or Antenna diversity techniques are not mandatory features in the SRD, does this mean that without these non-mandatory features, the spectral efficiency target of 1bps/Hz can not be met?

Recommended Change: Please provide the necessary clarifications.

Resolution: Non-actionable comment/question: The requirements are not meant to be met simultaneously under all worst case conditions. Indeed clause 4.1.1 of the 802.2- SRD statee that "The spectral efficiency at higher speeds than those shown will degrade gracefully. "[1]

Reasons for Disagreement with Resolution: In the comment,only the mobility requirement and spectrum requirement are cited together, as in the PAR[4]. This is not the worst case condition as claimed.

So, as the commenter,I ask for a clarificationto the resolution of this issue i.e. the technical justification of the claim on “worst case”.

References

.

[1]IEEE 802.20 comment resolutions: 2006-04-27LB1_Comment_Repository_S3.xls

[2]IEEE 802.20 Draft 2: IEEESTD_AirinterfaceSpec-D2.pdf

[3]IEEE 802P&P: IEEE PROJECT 802 LAN MAN STANDARDS COMMITTEE (LMSC) POLICIES AND PROCEDURES (Revised effective January 4, 2006).

[4]802.20 - PD-02: Mobile Broadband Wireless Access Systems: Approved PAR (02/12/11)

C802 20-06-XX_Concerns on PAR Extension_v2 Teck (2).docP. 1/3 11/3/2018