Marianna and
Ken,
Unless there is a strong push to make changes to the Simulation Parameters
document I would like to keep it closed. If however, there are a large
number of people who want to reopen it we can.
In terms of the Coexistence Metric document there does not seem to be a large
majority that wants to remove the ?Medium Occupancy Metric? but there does
seem to be some interest in refining the definition. So I would like to
see of we can come to an agreement on any refinement the group wants and then
close the Coexistence Metric document also. That way we can focus on the
simulation results.
I would suggest that if someone has a specific modification they would like to
make to that metric they propose specific wording before the next conference
call so we have something concrete to discuss.
In terms of adding an additional throughput metric, which was proposed by
Richard on the call, I am fine with that. However, it is not clear to me
that it is a substitute for any other metric.
Regards,
Steve
From: Mariana
Goldhamer [mailto:marianna.goldhammer@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 9:09
AM
To: Kenneth Stanwood;
Shellhammer, Steve; stds-802-19@xxxxxxxx; Adrian.P.Stephens@xxxxxxxxx;
aghasemi@xxxxxx; bji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; bkraemer@xxxxxxxxxxx; dlubar@xxxxxxxx;
david.grandblaise@xxxxxxxxxxxx; dickroy@xxxxxxxxxxxx; dougchan@xxxxxxxxx;
eldad.perahia@xxxxxxxxx; fm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; I_reede@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
john.sydor@xxxxxx; Kathy Sohrabi; Naftali Chayat; Nat.Natarajan@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
Paul Piggin; Sadek, Ahmed; Shahar Hauzner; wuxuyong@xxxxxxxxxx; Ziv
Nuss
Subject: RE: [802.19]
3650 MHz Minutes - way forward
Hi Ken,
I have no problem; however I do not know
which the process is to re-open the ?parameter? document, which has been
approved last meeting.
Regards,
Mariana
From: Kenneth
Stanwood [mailto:KStanwood@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 7:03
PM
To: Mariana Goldhamer;
Shellhammer, Steve; stds-802-19@xxxxxxxx; Adrian.P.Stephens@xxxxxxxxx;
aghasemi@xxxxxx; bji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; bkraemer@xxxxxxxxxxx; dlubar@xxxxxxxx;
david.grandblaise@xxxxxxxxxxxx; dickroy@xxxxxxxxxxxx; dougchan@xxxxxxxxx;
eldad.perahia@xxxxxxxxx; fm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; I_reede@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
john.sydor@xxxxxx; Kathy Sohrabi; Naftali Chayat; Nat.Natarajan@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
Paul Piggin; Sadek, Ahmed; Shahar Hauzner; wuxuyong@xxxxxxxxxx; Ziv
Nuss
Subject: RE: [802.19]
3650 MHz Minutes - way forward
Hi Mariana,
I?d like to see an additional line with
offered load of 0 kbps, as well.
Thanks,
Ken
From: Mariana
Goldhamer [mailto:marianna.goldhammer@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 8:57
AM
To: Kenneth Stanwood;
Shellhammer, Steve; stds-802-19@xxxxxxxx; Adrian.P.Stephens@xxxxxxxxx;
aghasemi@xxxxxx; bji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; bkraemer@xxxxxxxxxxx; dlubar@xxxxxxxx;
david.grandblaise@xxxxxxxxxxxx; dickroy@xxxxxxxxxxxx; dougchan@xxxxxxxxx;
eldad.perahia@xxxxxxxxx; fm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; I_reede@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
john.sydor@xxxxxx; Kathy Sohrabi; Naftali Chayat; Nat.Natarajan@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
Paul Piggin; Sadek, Ahmed; Shahar Hauzner; wuxuyong@xxxxxxxxxx; Ziv
Nuss
Subject: RE: [802.19]
3650 MHz Minutes - way forward
Hi Ken,
1. To explicitly address your concern,
here is the loading defined by the parameter document (fig. 10 in
07/011r14):
|
Inter
arrival time (ms) |
Offered load
(kbps) |
MANDATORY (Scenarios A -
E) |
|
100 |
120 |
Yes |
|
20 |
600 |
Yes |
|
5 |
2400 |
Yes |
|
1.25 |
9600 |
Yes |
The loading here varies from very low to
the max. system capacity when operating alone in the
channel.
Regards,
Mariana
From: Kenneth
Stanwood [mailto:KStanwood@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 6:38
PM
To: Mariana Goldhamer;
Shellhammer, Steve; stds-802-19@xxxxxxxx; Adrian.P.Stephens@xxxxxxxxx;
aghasemi@xxxxxx; bji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; bkraemer@xxxxxxxxxxx; dlubar@xxxxxxxx;
david.grandblaise@xxxxxxxxxxxx; dickroy@xxxxxxxxxxxx; dougchan@xxxxxxxxx;
eldad.perahia@xxxxxxxxx; fm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; I_reede@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
john.sydor@xxxxxx; Kathy Sohrabi; Naftali Chayat; Nat.Natarajan@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
Paul Piggin; Sadek, Ahmed; Shahar Hauzner; wuxuyong@xxxxxxxxxx; Ziv
Nuss
Subject: RE: [802.19]
3650 MHz Minutes - way forward
Hi Mariana,
Yes, 802.19 does not design the
protocols, but understanding how system work should be factored into how we
measure coexistence going forward.
As I said below:
At a minimum, if a throughput metric is
used instead, there must be a solid requirement that system A?s impact on the
throughput of system B must be simulated for a variety of cases where system A
has low or no demand.
It?s not clear to me why such an obvious
part of coexistence shouldn?t be measured.
Regards,
Ken
From: Mariana
Goldhamer [mailto:marianna.goldhammer@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 8:12
AM
To: Kenneth Stanwood;
Shellhammer, Steve; stds-802-19@xxxxxxxx; Adrian.P.Stephens@xxxxxxxxx;
aghasemi@xxxxxx; bji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; bkraemer@xxxxxxxxxxx; dlubar@xxxxxxxx;
david.grandblaise@xxxxxxxxxxxx; dickroy@xxxxxxxxxxxx; dougchan@xxxxxxxxx;
eldad.perahia@xxxxxxxxx; fm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; I_reede@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
john.sydor@xxxxxx; Kathy Sohrabi; Naftali Chayat; Nat.Natarajan@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
Paul Piggin; Sadek, Ahmed; Shahar Hauzner; wuxuyong@xxxxxxxxxx; Ziv
Nuss
Subject: RE: [802.19]
3650 MHz Minutes - way forward
Hi Ken,
I think that we do not discuss in this
group how the 16h protocols are designed. The only issue which is relevant for
802.19 is the coexistence assessment.
So you can keep your design based on any
criteria you want. The metrics, as throughput, relative throughput and hidden
nodes will show how your solution behaves. The same about CX-CBP. The
parameter document has enough modes to address the situations of concern to
you.
It is better to use the time and
see the simulation results and to try to understand them and interpret them,
instead of conducting discussions on what the ?medium occupancy? should be.
The aggregate throughput (or relative throughput) of the two systems is an
excellent metrics for seeing how flexible their coexistence is. You can try
different loading levels.
The hidden nodes are an excellent metrics
to show how many of the stations will suffer from ?harmful?
interference.
Regarding the technology itself, it will
be chosen by operators based on economic arguments. The coexistence can be
first addressed by operator coordination and the protocols will further help.
We are all aware that there is no perfect solution. 11y has defined a better
energy detection level, however it is far from being perfect because the
system shall first work and be economically viable. FCC did not defined what
?coexistence? means and actually what we are looking for are just ?mitigation?
techniques.
Regards,
Mariana J
From: Kenneth
Stanwood [mailto:KStanwood@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 5:49
PM
To: Mariana Goldhamer;
Shellhammer, Steve; stds-802-19@xxxxxxxx; Adrian.P.Stephens@xxxxxxxxx;
aghasemi@xxxxxx; bji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; bkraemer@xxxxxxxxxxx; dlubar@xxxxxxxx;
david.grandblaise@xxxxxxxxxxxx; dickroy@xxxxxxxxxxxx; dougchan@xxxxxxxxx;
eldad.perahia@xxxxxxxxx; fm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; I_reede@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
john.sydor@xxxxxx; Kathy Sohrabi; Naftali Chayat; Nat.Natarajan@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
Paul Piggin; Sadek, Ahmed; Shahar Hauzner; wuxuyong@xxxxxxxxxx; Ziv
Nuss
Subject: FW: [802.19]
3650 MHz Minutes - way forward
It?s not clear my reply made it to
everyone the first time.
Ken
From: Kenneth
Stanwood [mailto:KStanwood@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 7:37
AM
To:
STDS-802-19@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.19] 3650 MHz Minutes -
way forward
I am still very concerned about the
insistence to remove the channel occupancy metric without an appropriate
replacement. As was discussed in Denver, it is very valuable to assess
how a system implementing one technology may block the use of all or a part of
the channel by systems implementing other technologies.
In particular, it is important to see how
a technology blocks access by others when the first technology has little or
no actual data to send. As we are already aware, any 802.16/WiMAX based
technology should be suspect due to the designed operation of unmodified WiMAX
systems. Modified WiMAX systems should be required to prove they do not
limit access by other technologies under low demand situations within the
WiMAX system. NextWave proposed the channel occupancy metric in question
because inclusion of that metric in our simulations was key to understanding
and modifying the WirelessMAN-UCP protocol in section 6.4 of 802.16h so that
it would not excessively block access by similar channel bandwidth 802.11
systems when the 802.16 system had low demand. It is not clear to me
that the WirelessMAN-CBP protocol described in section 15 of 802.16h has
addressed this problem. Lack of an appropriate metric could hinder the
identification and resolution of issues in currently proposed systems and
systems likely to be proposed in the future.
I understand the reluctance to accept the
metric. At NextWave we had heated internal debate over whether or not to
include the metric in our simulations, but when the results came in and the
value was overwhelmingly apparent argument ceased.
At a minimum, if a throughput metric is
used instead, there must be a solid requirement that system A?s impact on the
throughput of system B must be simulated for a variety of cases where system A
has low or no demand.
Thanks,
Ken
From: Mariana
Goldhamer [mailto:marianna.goldhammer@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 5:59
AM
To: Shellhammer, Steve;
stds-802-19@xxxxxxxx; Adrian.P.Stephens@xxxxxxxxx; aghasemi@xxxxxx;
bji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; bkraemer@xxxxxxxxxxx; dlubar@xxxxxxxx;
david.grandblaise@xxxxxxxxxxxx; dickroy@xxxxxxxxxxxx; dougchan@xxxxxxxxx;
eldad.perahia@xxxxxxxxx; fm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; I_reede@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
john.sydor@xxxxxx; Kathy Sohrabi; Kenneth Stanwood; Naftali Chayat;
Nat.Natarajan@xxxxxxxxxxxx; Paul Piggin; Sadek, Ahmed; Shahar Hauzner;
wuxuyong@xxxxxxxxxx; Ziv Nuss
Subject: RE: 3650 MHz Minutes - way
forward
Hi All,
Regarding the yesterday teleconf and the
way forward:
1. In my view metrics which do not have a
clear interpretation as coexistence criteria shall be omitted, and this is the
case of the Medium occupancy where two opposite target criteria were proposed
by Paul and Eldad (Paul ? 50% of time in case of two collocated systems ? was
no agreement on this, because is ignoring the antenna separation, powers,
modulation, coding, etc.; Eldad 100% or similar occupancy). In addition it is
not defined yet what the occupancy is, and we spent 45min. just with a
discussion on the different possibilities. This in addition to the time spent
in the meeting.
2. I (and probably many others)
appreciate the straightforward metrics and criteria proposed by Richard,
looking at the relative throughput degradation of the two systems as result of
interference. Similar degradation means acceptable coexistence.
3. The hidden nodes are also important,
being the exact image of the ?harmful interference?. The reception of the
signal is directly affected by the hidden nodes. The hidden node statistics is
?hidden? in the averaged throughput results, and this is why we need this
metrics in addition to the throughput.
4. I think that for the next teconf. we
need to invest the time in advancing the CA document itself. We need to
discuss the simulation results and agree on the CA text.
5. We spent already more than one year on
this issue (Apr. 07 is the date of the first parameter document), in meetings
and bi-weekly teleconf. I hope that we will be able to finalize this process
asap. We have committed for a much shorter process and the planned resources
have gone. Probably the 802.19 guys have also other issues to
address.
Regards,
Mariana
From:
Shellhammer, Steve [mailto:sshellha@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 1:43
AM
To: 802. 19 TAG
(stds-802-19@xxxxxxxx); Adrian Stephens (Adrian.P.Stephens@xxxxxxxxx); Amir
Ghasemi (aghasemi@xxxxxx); Baowei Ji (bji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx); Bruce Kraemer
(bkraemer@xxxxxxxxxxx); Dan Lubar (dlubar@xxxxxxxx); David Grandblaise
(david.grandblaise@xxxxxxxxxxxx); Dick Roy (dickroy@xxxxxxxxxxxx); Douglas
Chan (dougchan@xxxxxxxxx); Eldad Perahia (eldad.perahia@xxxxxxxxx); Fanny
Mlinarsky (fm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx); Ivan Reede (I_reede@xxxxxxxxxxxx); John Sydor
(john.sydor@xxxxxx); Kathy Sohrabi (ksohrabi@xxxxxxxxxxxx); Kenneth Stanwood
(KStanwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxx); Mariana Goldhamer; Naftali Chayat; Nat Natarajan
(Nat.Natarajan@xxxxxxxxxxxx); Paul Piggin (ppiggin@xxxxxxxxxxxx); Sadek,
Ahmed; Shahar Hauzner; Shellhammer, Steve; Wuxu Yong (wuxuyong@xxxxxxxxxx);
Ziv Nuss
Subject: 3650 MHz
Minutes
Minutes posted on the
server,
https://mentor.ieee.org/802.19/file/08/19-08-0002-11-0000-conference-call-minutes.doc
Steve