1. Comments for 802.16p New PAR – July 2010
doc.: IEEE /0860r0
July 2010
Comments for p New PAR – July 2010
Date:
Authors:
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

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

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

4. July 2010
New PAR
Please refer to the following presentation for specific requirements on filling in a PAR form.
The 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

5. July 2010
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 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

6. July 2010
New PAR
5.3 – missing the explanation of the “yes”…please add a short description of why m 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

7. July 2010
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

8. 802.16 New PAR 5.6 Stakeholders: Describe “who” the stakeholders are.
July 2010
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 This is for Harmonization with other International SDOs
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

9. 802.16 New PAR 8.1 Additional explanatory Notes:
July 2010
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

10. 802.16 5C Broad Market Potential Distinct Identity
July 2010 C
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 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 (both instances).
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

11. July 2010
C (cont)
b) One unique solution per problem (not two solutions to a problem):
Suggest to replace the text with the following: “The 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

12. 802.16 5C (cont) Technical Feasibility
July 2010
C (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 is similar in characteristics of some of these technologies and therefore it is reasonable to assert that it is feasible for to support M2M applications..
Confidence in reliability.
Missing explaination.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

13. 802.16 5C (Cont) Economic Feasibility
July 2010
C (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

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

15. Additional Feedback to 802.16
July 2010
Additional Feedback to
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

16. References Proposed 802.16p PAR:
July 2010
References
Proposed p PAR:
Jon Rosdahl, CSR