[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

wpan/ RE: WLAN/ Re: WPAN/ Call for contributions & RE: WLAN/ New Structure of the Coexistence Group

Steve / All,

I'd like to say this is my $.02 concerning this issue, but at standard rates
for engineering time, I'm sure the cost of this e-mail to my company is more
than $.02 (though the incidental cost to distribute it is probably less).

First, I just want to add my voice to those people favoring options 2 and 3
for a structure for the coexistence.  Personally, I favor option 3 as I feel
coexistence is a very important topic, and it will get more respect as an
actual Working Group.  The key issue I see (as does everyone else) is that
we simply have too much work to do to be able to attend all the meetings in
all the groups.  Some suggestions I've heard hear at AT&T include:

	1) Limit the Coexistence working group to two half day meetings
(Monday & Friday?)

		On Mondays the group could coordinate what inputs in might
be having to other Working groups
		On Fridays it would process the inputs from other Working
groups into directions for the Coexistence group
		Coexistence Ad hoc groups could meet during the week
informally to get the actual work done.
		Consider having attendance of the Coexistence group count
towards attendance in other groups
		Or, try to have coexistence meetings at times that would not
conflict with the other WG
			(Like Monday evening and Friday afternoon / morning)
	2) Ask the wireless groups not to have formal votes and meetings
during the Coexistence sessions

	3) Have key votes / issues preannounced and allow proxy voting in
other WG when the Coexistence WG is in session

	4) Add more days to the meetings, or a separate Coexistence meeting

I'm not sure which of these ideas (if any) are workable, but the issue of
parallel sessions has to be addressed.

Also, a comment concerning the definition of coexistence.  I guess that I
favor that a form of interoperability be built into all standards at 5 GHz.
Full compatibility is not required to be interoperable, but all systems
should have the ability to detect each others presence, and perhaps
communicate some simple information.  So I guess the question I'm trying to
raise is where are the boarders between coexistence and interoperability?
Do there have to be any?



Matthew Sherman 
PTSM - Communications Technology Research 
AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory 
Room 3K18, Building 104 
180 Park Avenue 
P.O. Box 971 
Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971 
Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925 
Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877 
EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com 

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Shellhammer [mailto:shell@symbol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 10:00 AM
Subject: WLAN/ Re: WPAN/ Call for contributions


        You use three terms to define what you are doing:

1.  Coexistence
2.  Interworking
3.  Unified Standard

        That makes it a little difficult to pin down your objectives.
My guess is you are working towards a unified standard.  In IEEE 802.15.2
terminology "coexistence" is the successful operation of dissimilar
(e.g. Bluetooth and 802.11b) operating in the same band.  It sounds like
goal is to modify 802.11a and HiperLan2 into one standard.  In our
that is not coexistence.

        Can you please tell me if that is your plan.  There is a lot of
among the IEEE, and outside the IEEE, due to the broad use of these terms.
Since I
am in charge of the 802.15 Task Group on Coexistence I like to get involved
the term coexistence is used.


Dr. Stephen J. Shellhammer
Chairman IEEE 802.15.2
Senior Director
Cordless Core Competency
Symbol Technologies, Inc.
One Symbol Plaza,  MS B-2
Holtsville, NY 11742-1300
Phone: (631) 738-4302
FAX: (631) 738-4618
Email: shell@symbol.com

>>> kuehnel@CCRL.NJ.NEC.COM 11/29/00 01:28AM >>>

Dear all,
This is mail is sent to request contributions for technical solutions for
coexistence/interworking/unified standard between 802.11a and HiperLan 2
/HiSWANa to be presented at the meeting in Monterey.

Contributions will facilitate the convergence process since they will help
us to understand the possibilities and implications.  Proposals will
undergo some evaluation process based on the agreed requirements and one
may(!) be finally selected to make it into the respective standard
committees. On the way, we'll try to merge similar proposals.

Thanks, Thomas
* Dr. Thomas Kuehnel                                                *
* Research Staff Member                                             *
* NEC-CCRL                          Tel:   +1 (609) 951 2981        *
* 4 Independence Way                Fax:   +1 (609) 951 2499        *
* Princeton, NJ 08540               email: kuehnel@ccrl.nj.nec.com  *
This message came from the IEEE P802.15 Mailing List
Info at http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/15/
This message came from the IEEE P802.15 General Mailing List at "stds-802-wpan@ieee.org".
Info at http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/15/