Comments for 802.16p New PAR – July 2010 doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0860r0 July 2010 Comments for 802.16p New PAR – July 2010 Date: 2010-07-15 Authors: Jon Rosdahl, CSR Jon Rosdahl, CSR

July 2010 doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0860r0 July 2010 Abstract R0 = Comments from 802.11 to 802.16 regarding their proposed New PAR. R1 = Feedback to 802.16 on their response. Jon Rosdahl, CSR Jon Rosdahl, CSR

Comments on the 802.16p Proposed PAR July 2010 Comments on the 802.16p Proposed PAR Jon Rosdahl, CSR

July 2010 802.16 New PAR Please refer to the following presentation for specific requirements on filling in a PAR form. http://ieee802.org/802_tutorials/2010-07/newPAR_July2010.ppt The 802.11 comments address a concern that other Working Groups may also consider “Machine to Machine” enhancements in future standards or amendments. 2.1 Title – change the title to be more succinct. Suggestion for title: “…- Enhancements for Machine to Machine Communication in licensed bands” Is there a proper definition for “Machine to Machine” that is defined in the industry? Is there agreement for 802 usage of “Machine to Machine”? Jon Rosdahl, CSR

July 2010 802.16 New PAR The Scope should describe the technical description of the changes. We suggest that you drop the marketing portion of the description from the Scope. Also the acronym OFDMA and PHY will need to be spelled out. 5.2 Scope: Suggested scope-- “This amendment specifies IEEE Std 802.16 medium access control (MAC) enhancements and minimal Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiple Access (OFDMA) Physical layer (PHY) modifications in licensed bands for lower power consumption at the subscriber station, support by the base station of significantly larger numbers of devices, and efficient support for short burst transmissions. “ Jon Rosdahl, CSR

July 2010 802.16 New PAR 5.3 – missing the explanation of the “yes”…please add a short description of why 802.16m is required. 5.4 Purpose – just describe what the amendment will include. This should be a present tense statement of what is in the document. The word “efficient” has no metric of quantification. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

July 2010 802.16 New PAR 5.5 Need for Project. The statement “significantly different” requirements does not seem correct. Nodes in the network pass data. It seems that the Need paragraph is describing application (Layer 7) differences rather than the MAC/PHY level differences that may be necessary. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

802.16 New PAR 5.6 Stakeholders: Describe “who” the stakeholders are. July 2010 802.16 New PAR 5.6 Stakeholders: Describe “who” the stakeholders are. “government agencies” does not seem correct to include. 7.1 add a note in 8.1 as to what the similarities or differences are. 7.2c – Harmonization is not quite the right description for the relationship between WiMax and 802.16. This is for Harmonization with other International SDOs Jon Rosdahl, CSR

802.16 New PAR 8.1 Additional explanatory Notes: July 2010 802.16 New PAR 8.1 Additional explanatory Notes: Remove item 1.1 note…This is not necessary for the PAR. The number is assigned by the NesCom Administrator in consultation with the WG chair. NesCom does not allow the use of “o” . The comment for 5.2 needs to be changed. We suggested that “machine-to-machine” was removed from the scope, so you do not need the definition here in 8.1. Also the definition seems to be describing application (Layer 7) differences rather than the MAC/PHY level differences that may be necessary. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

802.16 5C Broad Market Potential Distinct Identity July 2010 802.16 5C Broad Market Potential The statement is primarily stating functionality that is provided in layers 3 to 7. The statement is not specific to what may be required in layer 1 or 2. Distinct Identity While the statement is true for the 802.16 standard, it is not a complete or unique solution for all Machine-to-Machine communications. The word “standard” should be “amendment” in this context, and specific to 802.16. (both instances). Jon Rosdahl, CSR

July 2010 802.16 5C (cont) b) One unique solution per problem (not two solutions to a problem): Suggest to replace the text with the following: “The 802.16 standard does not currently address Machine-to-Machine communications.” c) Easy for the document reader to select the relevant specification. The use of “standard” is incorrect. Substitute “amendment” in two instances. Suggested change: “The title of this amendment and the scope are distinct enough for document readers to discern the application of this amendment”. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

802.16 5C (cont) Technical Feasibility July 2010 802.16 5C (cont) Technical Feasibility a) Demonstrated system feasibility. Machine-to-Machine communication is an application and has been implemented using other technologies. The statement should be reworded to state “Machine-to-Machine(M2M) communications has been shown to be feasible in many technologies and 802.16 is similar in characteristics of some of these technologies and therefore it is reasonable to assert that it is feasible for 802.16 to support M2M applications.. Confidence in reliability. Missing explaination. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

802.16 5C (Cont) Economic Feasibility July 2010 802.16 5C (Cont) Economic Feasibility a) Known cost factors, reliable data. Change “…this standard over systems based on …“ to “…this amendment in systems based on …“ Jon Rosdahl, CSR

Feedback to received comment response July 2010 Feedback to received comment response Documents were e-mailed without URL. PAR and 5c: 80216ppc-10_0003r7.doc Response to Comments: 80216ppc-10_0009.ppt Jon Rosdahl, CSR

Additional Feedback to 802.16 July 2010 Additional Feedback to 802.16 8.1 Additional Explanatory Notes (Item Number and Explanation): Change the cited number from “5.2” to “2.1 & 5.4”. Machine-to-Machine is not in 5.2, but is in 2.1 and 5.4. Add an item Number for “Backward Compatibility” Also, the “continuing” seems misplaced and should be removed. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

References Proposed 802.16p PAR: July 2010 References Proposed 802.16p PAR: http://ieee802.org/PARs/2010-07/80216ppc-10_0003r6.doc Jon Rosdahl, CSR