[802.19] invitation to comment on IEEE802.19-09/60r1

[Nancy Bravin <nbravin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I have commented on Steve Shelhammers contribution, noted by my initials NB. I invite others to comment and indicate
with their initials, so we can get some of the debate on the table before the first F2F meeting if that would be helpful..

 

SCOPE

The current scope reads,

 

“The standard will specify mechanisms for coexistence amongst networks and devices, which use dissimilar radio technologies and may also be operated independently on common TV White Space Frequency Bands”

 

·        My first question is why does the PAR refer to both “networks” and “devices” in the same sentence?  Why is not sufficient to refer to “networks” only?

NB - I am not sure that we should assume that all devices are networks, or that
we are uninterested in devices that are not networks.
Some Standards groups, or those who feed Standards groups not only
do not limit this but include multi media as one criteria. (use case)

The use of the future tense does not work, since this is the Scope of the standard once it is published.  This exact text will be the Scope in the published standard.

NB I do not think this is in the future tense, just a needed  intention of scope.

·        The sentence is a bit awkward and I think it would be clearer it were broken up into two sentences.  There is no requirement that the entire Scope fit within one sentence.  I recommend the following modification,

 

“The standard specifies mechanisms for coexistence amongst wireless networks, which may use dissimilar radio technologies, operating in common TV White Space Frequency Bands.  These wireless networks may be operated independently.”

·        NB  This above statement again limits the scope which I disagree with….
I believe we should be including networks, devices, and possibly multimedia
(though that could be included in devices. )

I notice that more detail about the Scope is provided in the Explanatory Notes.  That makes sense.  However, I think it would be useful to include on more sentence in the Scope listing what will be included in the standard.  I suggest a few sentences something like,

 

“The standard consists of three main components: methods for discovering other networks within range which would benefit from the coexistence mechanisms, a common control channel between different networks and a logical mechanism for enhancing coexistence between networks.”

NB For the same reasons, I disagree with the above limitations, and further
do not understand why we are limiting this to non end to end, hence, non 802 devices.
I think if we look at the work of other groups who want to interface with or we want to interface
with, their scopes are not so limited. And if devices would have to meet some testing in WG’s and that becomes
part of this PAR, that would be a good thing, in my opinion.

 

PURPOSE

·        My comment here is that the Purpose refers to “…coexistence for IEEE 802 networks and devices…”  I believe we can delete “and devices.”

NB do not agree networks and devices, multimedia etc.

·        Also I believe “coexistence of” is more proper than “coexistence for” but that is a minor point.

·        Also, the term “Air Interface” is more commonly used in the cellular industry.  It might be better to change “Air Interface” to “Wireless”

 

 

NEED

·        The first sentence says,

 

Existing IEEE 802 standards groups are working to develop modifications of their standards to comply with the regulatory rules for accessing TV White Space.

 

·        Not all these standards are amendments. For example 802.22 is not an amendment.  Also “standards groups” are “working groups.”

·        I think it would be cleaner to say,

NB I think that we have left out legacy devices that could be modified pre market or

After market…so I am ok with the above sentence, which could include these devices..

“Several IEEE 802 working groups are developing standards to comply with the regulatory rules for accessing TV White Space.”

 

·        I recommend deleting “modified” in the second sentence so it reads,

 

“Mechanisms that allow these standards to coexist are needed.”


NB this would be supportive of what I have said above, but not complete.

 

·        The third sentence uses the term “overlay mechanisms.”  Can you explain this term?

 

 

SIMILAR STANDARDS

 

·        I would say there are two types of standards that need to be listed in this section: MAC/PHY standards for operating in the TV white space and standards to provided coexistence between these standards

·        I would say for the first type we should list: 802.22, new project in 802.11, and CogNeA.

·        I would say for the second type we should list 1900.4.

NB I would say we are leaving out too many similar works within 802 and outside.

EXPLANITORY NOTES

 

·        I think the first sentence is a little awkward.  Also, it talks about the future again. This is not as much an issue as it would be in the Scope which gets included in the standard, but is it still worth fixing. I would recommend it be simplified as follows,

 

The coexistence mechanisms in the standard consist of the following and related areas.

 

·        I am unclear why the “Discovery” portion needs to be standardized.  Please explain why this needs to be standardized and could not just be implementation dependent.

·        Why is the term “connection” used here?  Why is this not called a “control channel” or something like that?

·        Under “Logical Mechanisms” the first sentence says it is for “Promoting Coexistence.”  This seems like it is encouraging the networks to coexistence instead of being a method of coexistence.  Maybe another term like “facilitates coexistence” might be clearer.

·        I think a little more detail on what a “Logical Mechanism” is would be useful.  I for one am a bit unclear on this term.

·        Under “Etiquette” it mentions that it is “polite.” It is not clear to me at all that it should be polite.   That implies that it in some way “backs off” (either time/frequency/power) to other networks.  Then other networks that do not support the standard get access to the spectrum and those that do support the standard get less access.  I think that is a really bad idea.  I see no reason for using the term polite.  I would much prefer a term like “negotiate.”

·        Also, I am unclear on the difference between a “Logical Mechanism” and an “Etiquette.”  A few examples (they do not need to be included in the PAR just explained or given in a presentation) would be very helpful.

 

NB Until the previous issues are resolved, this can not be cleaned up.

I am just stating my opinion, and as usual it is to promote further discussions
that are needed to adjust the scope etc.
Sincerely, Nancy