ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST
1
SourceSource Group or AffiliationComment FileCommentResponse (Study Group)ActionCommenter's View of Response
2
Roger MarksConsensii LLC; Mobile Pulse, Inc.802.16-12-0453multipleagreed. Incorporated in revised draft PAR
3
David GellCygnus BroadbandAdd NGMN status under Mobile-Centric Activities in 5Cagreed. Incorporated in revised draft PAR
4
Paul Nikolich802 EC Chair802.16-12-0476Joint Sponsor observation: I notice MTT/SCC is not included in this PAR as a Joint Sponsor, which caused me to pose the question in 1b abovenoted.
5
Paul Nikolich802 EC Chair802.16-12-04765.2 Scope: This standard specifies procedures for characterizing the performance of deployed mobile broadband networks from a user perspective. It specifies metrics and test procedures as well as communication protocols and data formats allowing a network-based server to coordinate and manage test operation and data collection.

Firstly, let me say I support this proposed project; however I’m concerned the long term implications to 802 have not been sufficiently socialized across the 802 community yet. Let me explain.

The scope uses the term “deployed mobile broadband networks”. I think this is a good general term, that implies networks well beyond 802.16 networks are within the scope of this project (e.g., 802.11, 802.15, 802.22, etc.). Since this work should result in a useful standard which has applicability across multiple 802 technologies (even the wireline technologies), did the WG consider the possibility of this work outgrowing the 802.16WG and eventually result in the establishment of a separate WG continue to refine, extend and develop this work across all 802 (and non-802) network technologies? Beyond circulating the proposed PAR prior to the July plenary session, what has the WG done to socialize the proposed project?		We appreciate the support for the project proposal. We agree that the proposed measurements are not limited to those involving the IEEE Std 802.16 air interface. We expect the result to be broadly applicable. Circulation of the PAR and Five Criteria have been the primary means to inform the other Working Groups of the activity. However, we have also attempted to socialize in 802. The best example we can cite is that the 802.16 Chair requested, and was granted, an opportunity to speak to the 802.11 Closing Plenary in May. There, he specifically noted a contribution to the Study Group relevant to measurements including the 802.11 air interface; members showed interest and requested further information about the contribution. The 802.16 Working Group would like to proceed to develop this project, as proposed. It is open to the possibility that the work could eventually evolve into something that would be better located outside of 802.16, but it believes that it is best positioned to initiate and develop the standard. Roger,

Thank you for the WG and the SG for the responses to my comments, they are acceptable and I fully support the proposed project.

EC Members, please take note--since the proposed project breaks new ground for 802 in that it;
a) will specify operations at OSI layers not traditionally addressed by 802 standards, and
b) has cross-working group applicability,

I encourage participation from the wider 802 community with interest in the development of a standard that specifies procedures for characterizing the performance of deployed mobile broadband networks from a user perspective.

Regards,

--Paul
6
Jon Rosdahl802.11802.16-12-04784.2 or 4.3 may have an incorrect date – general rule of thumb is that it takes about 6 months for the fastest start of Sponsor Ballot to submittal to RevCom...agreed. Change 4.3 to the next available option in the PAR form: 02/2014
7
Jon Rosdahl802.11802.16-12-0478Spell out first use of acronyms in 8.1 – IETF, ITU-T, lmap…agreed. "lmap" is already spelled out in use.In 8.1, change IETF to IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) and change ITU-T to ITU-T (International Telecommunications Union Standardization Sector)
8
Jon Rosdahl802.11802.16-12-0478In 5C -3 please add the “(a)” and “(b)” to indicate the response to the specific questions (similar to what was done in 16q).agreed.In 2 Compatibility, add "(a)" before first sentence and "(b) before fourth sentence
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100