Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802.19] Straw Poll Survey Results



Mariana,

 

You suggest time sharing and then ask how communicating between devices will help.  Well, if you have no communication between devices how to you schedule time sharing?  How do you determine who to share with and under what conditions?  I don’t know how it can be done without some form of communication.  If you can describe how it can be done without any form of communication I think that would be an interesting presentation.

 

Steve

 

From: Mariana Goldhamer [mailto:marianna.goldhammer@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 10:17 AM
To: Shellhammer, Steve; Rich Kennedy; stds-802-19@xxxxxxxx; WHITESPACE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Straw Poll Survey Results

 

Hi Steve and Rich,

 

Thanks for clarifications J

 

I would like to propose that it will be established a methodology for addressing the PAR scope: the proponents of the different approaches should explain how their approach resolves the channel sharing between 802.11 on one side and 802.22/802.16 on the other side, such that an CPE at cell margin will not be interfered by a WLAN.

 

For example, medium access such to ensure separation in the time domain between 802.11 and 802.16/802.22 clearly resolves the problem. This is different from any existing standard, including P.1900.

 

To me it is not clear how just communication between systems resolves this problem. Can anybody clarify?

 

Regards,

 

Mariana

 


From: Shellhammer, Steve [mailto:sshellha@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 8:02 PM
To: Rich Kennedy; Mariana Goldhamer; stds-802-19@xxxxxxxx; WHITESPACE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Straw Poll Survey Results

 

All,

 

                I agree that it is too early to read too much into these straw polls.  We need to understand that these are just that, only straw polls.

 

                They are intended to get a measure on the pulse of the group.

 

                There does seem to be reasonable support for some form of coordination between TVWS devices, for coexistence.  What that means in more detail needs to be considered further.

 

                Once we have a little more detail we can always craft a few more straw polls on more specific proposals.

 

                For example, if we assume that communication over the backhaul can be accomplished then we need to put some framework around what type of coordination could be performed.

 

Steve

 

From: Rich Kennedy [mailto:rkennedy1000@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 9:20 AM
To: Mariana Goldhamer; Shellhammer, Steve; stds-802-19@xxxxxxxx; WHITESPACE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Straw Poll Survey Results

 

Mariana::

 

Two comments:

 

1. These polls were taken without any sort of agreement on the definition of coordination.  This lumps together those that believe that a shared goelocation database constitutes coordination, with those that believe an independent control channel is required for coordination.  I see nothing decisive in such a poll.

2. With the PAR scope you suggested it will be difficult within the 5 Criteria to show how it is "Substantially different from other IEEE 802 standards", as P1900 is specifically looking at this issue, and both 802.11 and 802.22 have to deal with this issue in their own projects if they have any hope of success with this unlicensed spectrum. And it seems to me that on the call two weeks ago there were still question regarding whether this group will write one PAR or many PARs, and whether those PARs will be directed at a project or projects within 802.19, or for the other groups specifically working on other TVWS PARs, namely 802.22 and 802.11.

 

This equation still has two many unknowns to try and force a solution out of it.

 

Rich

----- Original Message -----

Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 4:32 AM

Subject: RE: Straw Poll Survey Results

 

Hi Steve,

 

I see that the responses of both straw polls show the highest levels of support for the following elements which should be included in the PAR scope:

 

1.Coordinated coexistence mechanism, relaying on some form of inter-network communication

2.Coordinated coexistence mechanism, relaying on an agreed medium access protocol.

 

There is a lower level of support for higher-layer protocols and mechanisms (besides, higher-layers are not in the existing 802 scope) and centralized and/or distributed management.

 

As in my understanding the “some form of communication” excludes the higher layers (it is not clear from the straw-poll text, but results from the poll context), the main focus of the PAR Scope should be:

 

“Define coordinated coexistence mechanisms between wireless networks operating in TVWS, based on PHY and MAC air protocols”.

 

Additional elements may be added, but the group should take into account the existing limitations of the 802 standardization. As I said in a different e-mail, and Matt was happy with the idea, we can change the PAR scope once the 802 EC will decide what “higher-layer” protocols can be addressed in 802.

 

Note that the control/management it is already in the existing 802 EC Scope.

 

Regards,

 

Mariana

 


From: whitespace@xxxxxxxx [mailto:whitespace@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Shellhammer, Steve
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 2:36 AM
To: 802. 19 TAG (stds-802-19@xxxxxxxx); 802TVWS (WHITESPACE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Subject: Straw Poll Survey Results

 

All,

 

                I thought I would update everyone on the current results of the various straw polls.  These straw polls are still open for anyone else who wants to vote.

 

Straw Poll from Tuesday Conference Call

1.       Should there be a coordinated coexistence mechanism, that relies on some form of communication between TVWS networks?

Yes                 29

No                  8

 

2.       Should the group develop a media agnostic (backhaul or wireless) higher-layer (above layer 2) coexistence protocol and mechanism?

Yes                 21

No                  14

 

 

Straw Poll Requested By Mariana

1.       Should there be a coordinated coexistence mechanism that relies on an agreed medium access protocol?

Yes                 16

No                  8

 

2.       Should the group develop, in addition to the above coordinated coexistence mechanism, a media agnostic (backhaul or wireless) management protocol (centralized and/or distributed)?

Yes                 14

No                  11

 

Steve

 

 



************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(190).
************************************************************************************



************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(43).
************************************************************************************



************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(43).
************************************************************************************



************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(190).
************************************************************************************



************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(43).
************************************************************************************



************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(42).
************************************************************************************