1 / 31

Comments on 802-19 PAR Submission

These comments address the proposed PAR submission for the development of a new standard for TV white space coexistence mechanisms by the 802.19 group.

dorisjames
Download Presentation

Comments on 802-19 PAR Submission

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. WG11 Comments on 802-19 PAR submission Nov 2009 Authors: Date: 2009-11-17 Jon Rosdahl (CSR)

  2. Abstract These Comments for 802.19 on the proposed PAR under consideration by the 802 EC for Nov 2009 Plenary represent the official set from 802.11 WG. In some cases a straw poll was conducted and the results are indicated where a question on the level of support for the comment was made. The Official motion to submit this set of comments/issues was passed 7 yes, 0 no, 6 abstain. Jon Rosdahl (CSR)

  3. 802.19 new standard for TV white space coexistence mechanisms, PAR and 5 C • Questions – Issues to 802.19 • 2.1 Title: Standard for Information Technology - Telecommunications and Information Exchange Between Systems - Local and Metropolitan Area Networks - Specific Requirements - Part 19: TV White Space Coexistence Mechanisms • Situation #1: Title includes “Coexistence Mechanism”, • Problem: The PAR and 5C does not define what “Coexistence Mechanism” is. • Suggested Fix: In the PAR and 5C define what “Coexistence Mechanism” really is. • Straw Poll: Submit to .19: 14 yes, 2 no, 11 abstain Jon Rosdahl (CSR)

  4. IEEE 802.19 Response (1) • Response • We agree that a definition of “Coexistence Mechanism” is lacking in the PAR. We will add such a definition in the Explanatory Notes section. Additional detail is provided in response to the Technical Feasibility comment. We have changed the term “coexistence mechanisms” to “coexistence methods” • Changes • In 8.1 Explanatory Notes we added a definition of coexistence methods. November 2009 Slide 4 Jon Rosdahl (CSR) Steve Shellhammer, Qualcomm

  5. Questions – Issues to 802.19 (2) • 2.1 Title • Situation #2: The title specifies that this a Standard. • Problem: We do not believe it should be Standard. The level of evidence provided for Feasibility in the 5C does not justify a Standard • The 5C does not identify any existing proven similar “coexistence mechanisms” in any unlicensed bands. • Suggested Fix. Make this PAR for a Recommended Practice to provide 802.19 group an opportunity to demonstrate the feasibility • A Recommended Practice has a trial use aspect that should be addressed. • Typically the technical rigor that is employed in creating documents increases as you go from Guides -> Recommended Practices -> Standards. • Strawpoll: submit to .19 – 9 yes 6 no 13 abstain Jon Rosdahl (CSR)

  6. 802.19 Response (2) • Response • We disagree that this should be Recommended Practice. We believe that a Recommended Practice will do little to promote coexistence in the TV band. An 802 Standard for coexistence will provide the market a toolset for enabling coexistence among their systems. • We agree that additional material could be added to the Technical Feasibility section of the 5C • In the 802.11 TVWS PAR it states in the Explanatory Notes that 802.11 will coexist with other networks and hence it seems that 802.11 believes that coexistence is feasible • Changes • In the Technical Feasibility section of the 5C additional detail has been added November 2009 Slide 6 Jon Rosdahl (CSR) Steve Shellhammer, Qualcomm

  7. Questions – Issues to 802.19 (3) • 3. The PAR and 5C subject matter do not match. • The content of the 5C do not relate to the PAR • 4. 5C - Technical Feasibility • The responses to the 3 points are non responsive. The technical details are not given, or shown by example. • 11-09/1107r0 (https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/09/11-09-1107-00-tvws-some-802-11-comments-on-802-19-par-and-5c.pdf) • 5. 5C – Economic Feasibility • The response does not address what the cost factors are nor if there is economic feasibility that has been demonstrated. • 6. 8.1 – 5.5 need explanation • The Claim is made in the PAR that Quality of Service is improved for all participants. In unlicensed bands, that is not technically feasible. There is not enough bandwidth to provide independent control of QoS. Jon Rosdahl (CSR)

  8. Questions – Issues to 802.19 (3) 3. The PAR and 5C subject matter do not match. The content of the 5C do not relate to the PAR November 2009 Slide 8 Jon Rosdahl (CSR) Jon Rosdahl (CSR)

  9. 802.19 Response (3) • Response • 802.19 disagrees that the 5C does not match the PAR • 802.19 acknowledges that the 5C needs additional text on technical feasibility • Change • Will add additional material on technical feasibility in the 5C November 2009 Slide 9 Jon Rosdahl (CSR) Steve Shellhammer, Qualcomm

  10. Questions – Issues to 802.19 (3) 4. 5C - Technical Feasibility The responses to the 3 points are non responsive. The technical details are not given, or shown by example. 11-09/1107r0 (https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/09/11-09-1107-00-tvws-some-802-11-comments-on-802-19-par-and-5c.pdf) November 2009 Slide 10 Jon Rosdahl (CSR) Jon Rosdahl (CSR)

  11. 802.19 Response (3a) • Response • 802.19 acknowledges that the 5C needs additional text on technical feasibility • Change • Will add additional material on technical feasibility in the 5C November 2009 Slide 11 Jon Rosdahl (CSR) Steve Shellhammer, Qualcomm

  12. Questions – Issues to 802.19 (3) 5. 5C – Economic Feasibility The response does not address what the cost factors are nor if there is economic feasibility that has been demonstrated. November 2009 Slide 12 Jon Rosdahl (CSR) Jon Rosdahl (CSR)

  13. 802.19 Response (3b) • Response • 802.19 acknowledges that additional text needs to be added to the economic feasibility section of the 5C • Change • Added text to economic feasibility section of 5C November 2009 Slide 13 Jon Rosdahl (CSR) Steve Shellhammer, Qualcomm

  14. Questions – Issues to 802.19 (3) 6. 8.1 – 5.5 need explanation The Claim is made in the PAR that Quality of Service is improved for all participants. In unlicensed bands, that is not technically feasible. There is not enough bandwidth to provide independent control of QoS. November 2009 Slide 14 Jon Rosdahl (CSR) Jon Rosdahl (CSR)

  15. 802.19 Response (3c) • Response • We acknowledge that QoS may not be improved for all participants, though QoS for most participants may be improved • We believe that the coexistence mechanisms will improve QoS for the majority of participants • Change • Will change “all” to “most” November 2009 Slide 15 Jon Rosdahl (CSR) Steve Shellhammer, Qualcomm

  16. Questions – Issues to 802.19 (4) • 7. The PAR does not justify the need for a Standard. • Suggesting a Messaging system rather than a physical system. • Power consumption considerations. • Data plane system that does not change the MAC/PHYs, so the relative rates that are needed to match for communication between the disparate systems is not shown. • 8.Confusion on what the proposed PAR will actually change? • It is not clear if 802.19 is going to propose another MAC/PHY or just provide a layer-3 and above specification. • 9. Title is very ambiguous as to what the “Coexistence Mechanism” really are? • Is this requiring a new MAC/PHY or changes to existing 802 WGs. Jon Rosdahl (CSR)

  17. Questions – Issues to 802.19 (4) 7. The PAR does not justify the need for a Standard. Suggesting a Messaging system rather than a physical system. Power consumption considerations. Data plane system that does not change the MAC/PHYs, so the relative rates that are needed to match for communication between the disparate systems is not shown. November 2009 Slide 17 Jon Rosdahl (CSR) Jon Rosdahl (CSR)

  18. 802.19 Response (4) • Response • We disagree that the PAR does not justify the need for the standard, even if it is only a messaging system. A messaging system requires standardization so that all devices can interoperate • The toolset provided by the standard to the market will allow device manufacturers and network operators to select the right tradeoffs (e.g. power consumption) for their systems • Change • No changes to PAR required November 2009 Slide 18 Jon Rosdahl (CSR) Steve Shellhammer, Qualcomm

  19. Questions – Issues to 802.19 (4) 8.Confusion on what the proposed PAR will actually change? It is not clear if 802.19 is going to propose another MAC/PHY or just provide a layer-3 and above specification. November 2009 Slide 19 Jon Rosdahl (CSR) Jon Rosdahl (CSR)

  20. 802.19 Response (4a) • Response • A messaging system above the MAC layer will be provided in the standard • To support sensing only devices, which do not have backhaul connectivity, coexistence methods may be included in the standard • Some specific MAC/PHY capabilities (e.g. DFS) may be required in the individual MAC/PHY standard in order for the devices to adapt so as to reduce interference between systems • The standard is not a new MAC/PHY standard • Change • Change the phase in the title “coexistence mechanisms” to “coexistence methods” • Added language to Explanatory Notes expanding on the scope November 2009 Slide 20 Jon Rosdahl (CSR) Steve Shellhammer, Qualcomm

  21. Questions – Issues to 802.19 (4) 9. Title is very ambiguous as to what the “Coexistence Mechanism” really are? Is this requiring a new MAC/PHY or changes to existing 802 WGs. November 2009 Slide 21 Jon Rosdahl (CSR) Jon Rosdahl (CSR)

  22. 802.19 Response (4b) • Response • We acknowledge that the term is not precise enough and additional material is needed • Change • In the title the term “coexistence mechanisms” has been replaced by “coexistence methods” • Additional detail on the coexistence methods is provided in the explanatory notes section November 2009 Slide 22 Jon Rosdahl (CSR) Steve Shellhammer, Qualcomm

  23. Questions – Issues to 802.19 (5) • 10. From the 5C the following statement needs to be clarified as to what changes to the 802 WGs are going to be targeted. • This standard will not require changes to any existing 802 MAC SAP definitions, ensuring that all LLC and MAC interfaces are compatible to and in conformance with the IEEE 802.1 architecture, management and internetworking standards. • 11 – It is implied that a Standard will be imposed on all the 802 WG after ratification, and what changes may be required is unknown. • Provide more detail on what the expectation is that justifies this being a Standard rather than a Recommended Practice. Jon Rosdahl (CSR)

  24. Questions – Issues to 802.19 (5) 10. From the 5C the following statement needs to be clarified as to what changes to the 802 WGs are going to be targeted. This standard will not require changes to any existing 802 MAC SAP definitions, ensuring that all LLC and MAC interfaces are compatible to and in conformance with the IEEE 802.1 architecture, management and internetworking standards. November 2009 Slide 24 Jon Rosdahl (CSR) Jon Rosdahl (CSR)

  25. 802.19 Response (5) • Response • This section of the 5C is on compatibility with higher layers • We plan to be compatible with higher layers • The standard will provide a toolset that will leverage MAC/PHY capabilities at defined in the respective MAC/PHY standards • Change • No change required November 2009 Slide 25 Jon Rosdahl (CSR) Steve Shellhammer, Qualcomm

  26. Questions – Issues to 802.19 (5) 11 – It is implied that a Standard will be imposed on all the 802 WG after ratification, and what changes may be required is unknown. Provide more detail on what the expectation is that justifies this being a Standard rather than a Recommended Practice. November 2009 Slide 26 Jon Rosdahl (CSR) Jon Rosdahl (CSR)

  27. 802.19 Response (5a) • Response • There is nothing in the PAR/5C that implies this standard would be mandated on any of the 802 working groups • 802 produces standards, standards are not mandated on any group or individual • Change • No change required November 2009 Slide 27 Jon Rosdahl (CSR) Steve Shellhammer, Qualcomm

  28. Rebuttal 1 • From your response, we are confused, in one place you say it is not mandated, but in another you claim that it would be required. Please Clarify how this would be implemented at the standards setting process. Slide 26 (19-09/96r0) • There is nothing in the PAR/5C that implies this standard would be mandated on any of the 802 working groups • 802 produces standards, standards are not mandated on any group or individual Slide 20 (19-09/96r0) • Some specific MAC/PHY capabilities (e.g. DFS) may be required in the individual MAC/PHY standard in order for the devices to adapt so as to reduce interference between systems Jon Rosdahl (CSR)

  29. Rebuttal - 2 • 1900.4a is an existing project in SCC41 on Coexistence methods . Why is 802.19 necessary then? • As noted in PAR section 7.1, 1900.4a is of similar scope. • 1900.4a provides coexistence facilities that can be used by wireless devices in the TVWS. • What is the benefit that will be achieved from the 802.19 effort above what is provided in 1900.4a? • If the IEEE 802 Wireless groups were compliant with 1900.4a would that be sufficient? • The presentations listed in the Technical Feasibility are not either demonstrated system feasibility nor proven technology nor confidence of reliability. • Are there any other documents that do address this topic. Jon Rosdahl (CSR)

  30. Rebuttal - 3 • 802.11 WG Suggestion for improvement to the Purpose statement in order to address the concern of forced compliance: • The current 802.19 PAR states: • 5.4 Purpose: The purpose of the standard is to enable the family of IEEE 802 Wireless Standards to effectively use TV White Space by providing standard coexistence methods among dissimilar or independently operated TVBD networks and dissimilar TVBDs. This standard addresses coexistence for IEEE 802 networks and devices and will also be useful for non IEEE 802 networks and TVBDs • Recommend that the scope change to: • 5.4 Purpose: The purpose of the standard is to provide standard coexistence methods among dissimilar or independently operated TVBD networks and dissimilar TVBDs to effectively use TV White Space, some or all of which may be adopted by any of the family of IEEE 802 Wireless Standards. Jon Rosdahl (CSR)

  31. References • https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/09/11-09-1197-00-0000-review-802-pars-underconsideration-for-nov-plenary.ppt Jon Rosdahl (CSR)

More Related