Joe, Ben, Rui, Bo,
I would like to raise the issue that if the FCC takes away 45 MHz from the ITS Radio Service and re-allocates it for unlicensed use, there may be interest by State and Local Departments of Transportation in operating IEEE 802.11bd as an
unlicensed service (especially in that 45 MHz section) for ITS applications that are not safety of life and property related (there are quite a few). This discussion also came up in IEEE 802.18 when the response to the FCC NPRM was written. IEEE 802.11bd is
just an amendment to IEEE 802.11, and unless expressly prohibited by the Commission from operating outside of the ITS Radio Service (Part 90), it should be allowed.
Also, IEEE 802.11bd is intended to be used internationally. I do not know what the radio regulations are in other countries, but they may also have a desire to deploy 11bd in unlicensed spectrum.
Carl Kain, PE
Principal Electrical Engineer
Noblis |
for the best of reasons
2002 Edmund Halley Drive| Reston, VA 22191 | noblis.org
tel: 703.610.1788 | cell: 571.730.8292 |
ckain@xxxxxxxxxx
From: ** STDS-802-11-TGbd -- Enhancements for Next Generation V2X.Task Group ** <STDS-802-11-TGBD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of Benjamin A. Rolfe
Sent: Friday, October 2, 2020 12:25 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBD] [EXT] [STDS-802-11-TGBD] Coexistence Assurance Document (CSD) requested for D1.0 WG LB
To Joe's points:
(1) I would agree this is optional, however still worth thinking about. If the group determines that coexistence is indeed "assured" through regulation, a simple statement to that effect with reference to
the specific regulations would be both sufficient and useful. You may find there are other relevant considerations beyond regulations which are worthy of analysis and useful information to users of the standard.
(2) The rules under which the 802.11bd device will operate is not relevant to the need for coexistence analysis in 60 GHz. There are 802 wireless standards (at least 2) that operate in the band under unlicensed
rules, and coexistence is important. The 802 requirement is to address coexistence with all relevant active IEEE 802 LMSC wireless standards specifying devices for unlicensed operation and so 11bd must address coexistence with 802.11 and 802.15.3 standards
which specify 60 GHz PHYs.
I also recommend the group consider coexistence impacts by other systems impacting 802.11bd operation, as an understanding of the coexistence challenges (and mitigations) is very valuable for implementers
and adopters of the technology. While not explicitly stated, the intent of the rules is to make the CAD a useful process with a useful result. At least, being useful is not prohibited by the rules :-).
IMO coexistence analysis is critically important for understanding how to apply a wireless standard. Knowing is much better than assuming.
Just another $0.02 US ($0.017€).
Ben
On 10/2/2020 8:30 AM, Joseph Levy wrote:
Hi Rui, Bo and All,
Thank you Rui for taking this on.
Just to make sure the scope/requirements of the CA document is met, below please find the Procedure for coexistence assessment from the “IEEE
802 LAN/MAN STANDARDS COMMITTEE (LMSC) OPERATIONS MANUAL":
“13. Procedure for coexistence assessment
If indicated in the five criteria, the wireless Working Group shall produce a coexistence assessment (CA) document in the process
of preparing for Working Group letter ballot. The CA document shall accompany the draft on all wireless Working Group letter ballots. The CA document shall address coexistence with all relevant active IEEE 802 LMSC wireless standards specifying devices for
unlicensed operation. The Working Group should consider other specifications in their identified target band(s) in the CA document. The IEEE 802.19 Working Group shall have one vote in Working Group letter ballots that include CA documents. The IEEE 802.19
Working Group evaluates the CA document, and submits comments on the CA document to the WG letter ballot."
Note the CA document is only required to address coexistence with “… active IEEE 802 LMSC wireless standards …” for “… unlicensed operation.”
Though the CA document “… should consider other specifications ...”, it is not required.
I observe that:
-
802.11bd is intended for use in the ITS band or bands.
-
The 5.9 GHz ITS band is not an unlicensed band and hence, is defined and regulated by government regulators.
-
Only these regulators will specify what technologies and transmission types are allowed in the band.
-
Regarding the proposed 60 GHz band operation I have a question: Is the plan to operate as an ITS device under ITS regulatory rules or as an unlicensed device?
Therefore my views are:
-
For the 5.9 GHz ITS band: The CA document need only state that 802.11bd is intended for operation in the licensed/regulated ITS band and coexistence is ensured by regulation.
-
For the 60 GHz band:
-
If operation will be under ITS regulations, then the same statement should be made as will be made for the 5.9 GHz band.
-
If operation will be under unlicensed regulations, then the CA document should be based on the CA documents of 802.11ad (IEEE
802.11-10/1025r5), 802.11af (IEEE
802.11-11/177r0), and 802.11ay (IEEE 802.11-17/1288r3).
Hope this is helpful, if you would like me to review the draft please let me know. Hopefully, this will not be too much work.
Regards,
Joseph Levy
Hello, Rui,
Thanks for your volunteering!
Best Regards
Bo
Original Mail
Subject: Re:[STDS-802-11-TGBD] [EXT] [STDS-802-11-TGBD] Coexistence Assurance Document (CSD) requested for D1.0 WG LB
Hi Bo,
I can help to draft the CAD document for group to review.
Thanks,
Rui
Caution:
EXT Email
Hello, all,
Our CSD document (11-18/0862r3) indicates that a Coexistence Assurance document will be produced. And as requested by the 802 LMSC operations rules, we need to provide a Coexistence
Assurance Document accompanying D1.0 for WG LB. The WG Chair indicated that the LB will be triggered once we have an approved CSD.
I added two TGbd TCs on Oct 13 and 16 (following 10-day announcement rule) for the CAD development and approval. If we can have consensus on a CAD by email discussion, then we can
run a motion to approve the CAD in TC on Oct 16th. We still have chance to go through the CAD in TC on Oct 13th for editorial modification.
I'd like to call for volunteer to develop the CAD and send to reflector for discussion asap.
Best Regards
Bo
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBD list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBD&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBD list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBD&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBD list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBD&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBD list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBD&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBD list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBD&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBD list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBD&A=1