1 / 14

802.11 comments on Pending 802 PARs – July 2011

802.11 comments on Pending 802 PARs – July 2011. Date: 2011-07-19. 802.15.4m PAR. 5.2 Scope:

dtotten
Download Presentation

802.11 comments on Pending 802 PARs – July 2011

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. 802.11 comments on Pending 802 PARs – July 2011 Date: 2011-07-19 SangSung Choi(ETRI)

  2. 802.15.4m PAR • 5.2 Scope: • Which Regulatory Domains are you planning to address? Response: As many as is practical. The command and control issues are global in nature so it is desired to serve as many markets as possible. A reference to that is now included in the scope. • Which coexistence set will you use? Response: Assuming this is referring to Primary v. Secondary that will be determined by what Regulatory domains can be practically addressed • How will you address which database access will be used? Response: Can not be determined at this stage • What is the approach that will be used to securely access the Geolocation database? (Note it will be different from country to country). Response: We expect that will be determined during draft development. • Suggested Scope: This amendment specifies a physical layer for 802.15.4 meeting TV white space regulatory requirements in “X”, “Y” and “Z”. MAC changes required to support this physical layer are also described. This amendment enables operation in the white spaces of the TV Bands while supporting data rates in the 40 kbits per second to 2000 kbits per second range. This amendment targets power efficient device command and control applications. Response: Scope has been modified to reflect something similar. SangSung Choi(ETRI)

  3. 5.3 Other Standard: • Should be yes: “PAWS” or similar database protocol standard. Response: Accept • 5.4 Purpose: • Suggest replace with “This document will not have a purpose clause”. • You should not restate the scope in the purpose statement. Response: Accept • 5.6 Stakeholders: • There are more players for large scale command and control applications • Add the following: Industrial Automation providers, Building Automation providers, Intelligent Traffic System Providers, Large Scale Monitoring for Safety providers. Response: Accept • 8.1 Notes: - • Instructions require item number and explanation. What item is the statement trying to support? • Suggest that this may be included in the scope statement as a final sentence. Response: This sentence has typically been included in 8.1. Group did not see a compelling reason to break with tradition. Item number supported was already in the original PAR. SangSung Choi(ETRI)

  4. 802.15.4m 5C • 1. Broad Market Potential: • This does not seem to be a personal area network application. Response: Much of what 802.15 does, does not fit in that category. 802.15 should consider changing its tagline to reflect reality. • 3. Distinct Identify • a) spelling error – “application” noted • b) this statement seems to be overly vague. Once 802.11af plus 802.11ah are in the base 802.11 standard, it could in fact provide this same solution set. Response: No change has been made. While any broadband solution is capable of providing the data rate, the very nature of achieving the higher data rates adds complexity not needed for command and control applications and increases the link margins needed for assured performance. SangSung Choi(ETRI)

  5. 4. Technical Feasibility • a) The FCC rules are not complete, so compliance cannot be claimed. Response: Clarified the statement to be more accurate • b) what is the value of “The WPAN application presents no unique challenges”? Response: Modified sentence to make it clearer • 5 Economic Feasibility • TV White Space devices may not have the same costs as the traditional 15.1.4 devices due implementation details to meet: • regulatory requirements – • database access method will include additional costs • Spectral mask has been defined more tightly than in the past. • The current FCC spectral mask may result in significant cost increases. • Anntenna size differences Response: Acknowledged. Statement modified to reflect SangSung Choi(ETRI)

  6. 802.19 comments on Pending 802 PARs – July 2011 Date: 2011-07-19 SangSung Choi(ETRI)

  7. 1.  The scope states that the application of this standard is for "command and control."  However, TV white space availability is not ensured and may be intermittent. The scope should therefore reflect that this band should not be used for mission critical command and control applications. Response: No change is recommended. Any unlicensed band presents issues of access and reliability. It is the implementers responsibility to evaluate whether a given approach meets the needs of their application. The scope can not determine this. 2.  The purpose and the need sections use the phrase "large scale deployment." Please clarify if this refers to a large area, a large number of devices, or both. Response: Following a suggestion from 802.11 the Purpose Statement has been removed per current IEEE SA guidance on amendment PARs SangSung Choi(ETRI)

  8. 3.  In Section 7 you may want to list 802.11af as a similar project since it is a local area network that operates in the TV white space. You may also want to consider listing the 802.22 standard as similar. ECMA 392 is a MAC/PHY standard in the TV white space.  IEEE 1900.7 is a new project for a MAC/PHY standard for mobile operation in white space considering such potential applications as utility grid networks and transportation logistics.  You may also want to consider those as similar. Response: We do not see these as similar. The similarity, if any, is they all use TV White Space unlicensed spectrum. The similarity ends there. We have a number of examples in the current 802 standards family of the use of the same band, particularly 2.4 GHz, and we do not call those standard similar, ie 15.4 and 11g. SangSung Choi(ETRI)

  9. 4.  Section 3b of the 5C states that the uniqueness is due to the focus on low data rate applications.  An 802.22 allocation to an individual subchannel is approximately 350 kb/s. The PAR states the data rate spans 40 to 2000 kb/s which overlaps the rates in 802.22. Response: Comparing a subchannel to a whole channel is comparing an apple to an orange. 802.22 covers a channel bandwidth ranging from 4.54Mbps to 22.69Mbps with up to 64 subchannels. The 15.4m amendment is proposing channel bandwidths of 40kbps to 2Mbps, substantially lower permitting a much less demanding implementation 5.  Section 4a of the 5C states that there are many operational TV white space devices, which is incorrect.  There have been some pilot projects however there are no FCC approved TV white space products. Response: Agreed. Statement has been clarified to reflect. SangSung Choi(ETRI)

  10. 6.  In Section 4b of the 5C please change "technology" to "802.15.4 technology.“ Response: The use of the word technology was meant to refer to TVWS technology. Statement has been changed to clarify 7.  In the Compatibility section of the 5C please include text as to how 802.15.4m will enhance compatibility with the upcoming 802.19.1 standard Response: Not sure what is being requested or how to respond. 802.19 has been asked to provide suggested text for the Study Group to consider SangSung Choi(ETRI)

  11. 802.22 comments on Pending 802 PARs – July 2011 Date: 2011-07-19 SangSung Choi(ETRI)

  12. 802.15.4m PAR • 5.2 Scope: • The scope should indicate the extent of the range expected for these devices (e.g., from 802.11ah PAR Scope: “ … support for transmission range up to 1 km.”. • The TV White Space regulatory requirements are not limited to the PHY layer aspects. The new PHY layer and the necessary MAC layer changes needed to support this PHY layer might not be sufficient to meet these requirements. For example, the scope should include indications as to how the project will address the way these devices are to access the incumbent database. Response: No change is recommended. On the range comment, part of the advantage of TVWS is range and we are not seeking to establish a limit as long as the overall needs of command and control application can be met. How connectivity to the incumbent databases is handled is being addressed by other groups such as PAWS in IETF. By definition “meeting regulatory requirements” indicates these issues will be addressed • 5.4 Purpose: • The sentence should indicate the network topology envisaged to realize the stated “large scale … applications”. Response: Following a suggestion from 802.11 the Purpose Statement has been removed per current IEEE SA guidance on amendment PARs SangSung Choi(ETRI)

  13. 802.15.4m 5C • 1. Broad Market Potential: • c) balanced costs • It is premature to refer to “known implementations of other TV White Space devices” since there are no devices that have been certified by regulators and no operational deployment in existence. Response: Agreed. Statement has been modified to reflect this. • Incumbent database access and geolocation requirements to operate in the TV White Space should be taken into account in the cost of the devices. Response: A reference has been added to the Balanced Cost Statement taking this into account. • 2. Compatibility • Please, refer to comment related to 4a) on next slide. • 3. Distinct Identify • a) The existing 802.22-2011 can accommodate the same application space in terms of data rate although this standard has not been designed for short range WPAN applications. However the stated applications specific to command and control and low cost and very low power devices are distinct. Response: Yes, we agree. The stated applications specific to command and control and low cost and very low power devices are distinct SangSung Choi(ETRI)

  14. 4. Technical Feasibility a) Please refer to the comment under section 1c) on the previous slide. Also, the fact that 802.15 devices use a 64-bit MAC address will increase the complexity for accessing the incumbent database over the Internet which typically uses 48-bit MAC addresses. There is no known 802.1 routing mechanism to translate between 64-bit and 48-bit address realms. Response: Disagree. 802.15.4 command and control systems routinely connect to the Internet today without difficulty b) Should refer to: “The 802.15 technology” Response: The use of the word technology was meant to refer to TVWS technology. Statement has been changed to clarify c) Note that the reliability will be affected by the use of the spectrum by the incumbents. This may result in different system reliability than previously experienced by 802.15.4 in other bands. Response: Ok, and noted. 5. Economic feasibility b) TV White Space devices will have to accommodate database access and geolocation requirements which will likely imply cost not experienced by the existing 802.15 devices. Response: Noted. Statement has been updated to reflect. July 2011 Slide 14 SangSung Choi(ETRI)

More Related