| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
HI Joe, Thank you very much for your suggestions. I have incorporate your suggestion to split coexistence description for ITS operation and non-ITS operation.
As for non-ITS operation in 5.9GHz, we don’t have definition in 11bd yet. I leave it out for now. Some editorial changes are also made. Let me know if you have any comments. I wonder whether you are interested to be added as the coauthor. Thanks, Rui From: Joseph Levy <Joseph.Levy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Caution: EXT Email
Hi Rui and All, Rui thank you for drafting the CA document, I think the draft is acceptable, but it could be improved.
Unfortunately, I will not be able to be on the Tuesday 10-12 call due to conflicts, so I will not be there to discuss my proposed edits (see attached). I don’t think any of them are critical, though I do think they improve the overall report. I hope these suggested edits will promote some useful discussion. Regards, Joseph Levy From: ** STDS-802-11-TGbd -- Enhancements for Next Generation V2X.Task Group ** <STDS-802-11-TGBD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of Rui Cao Hi All, Thank you all for the discussions. I have uploaded an initial version of the CA document https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/20/11-20-1564-00-00bd-tgbd-coexistence-assurance-document.docx Currently, I tried to keep the content to as simple as possible. Mostly includes:
Please help to review the doc. Thanks, Rui From: ** STDS-802-11-TGbd -- Enhancements for Next Generation V2X.Task Group ** <STDS-802-11-TGBD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of Bo Sun Caution: EXT Email
Hello, all, Thanks for all the discussion. It's very helpful for the quality of the CAD under development. And I agree with with Joseph that the priority is that we should provide a complete and simple CAD based on current regulation asap to start the WG LB. Best Regards, Bo
Original Mail Sender: JosephLevy Date: 2020/10/03 01:56 Subject: Re:[STDS-802-11-TGBD] [EXT] [STDS-802-11-TGBD] Coexistence Assurance Document (CSD) requested for D1.0 WG LB Hi Carl, I agree that if the FCC does take away the 45 MHz from the ITS Radio Service and re-allocates it for unlicensed use, we will probably need to address how 802.11bd will/can operate in an unlicensed band. But, for expediency I don’t think we need to address it now in the CA document. Let’s try to keep the document as simple as possible. We should not speculate on future regulatory changes, no matter how likely they maybe. I think we should discuss this possibility in TGbd and on the TGbd reflector, but not address it in the CA document until we need to. Hi Ben, I agree with you that if 802.11be is intending to operate in the unlicensed band at 60 GHz as an unlicensed technology, then we do need to address the coexistence with other 60 GHz unlicensed technologies. However, I’m not sure if 802.11bd
is intending to operate unlicensed in the 60 GHz band. The intent may be for 802.11bd to operate as a licensed ITS technology in the 60GHz band in some regions, if this is the case then a CA document need simply state that coexistence is assured through regulation.
All, My overall goal here is to provide an accurate and complete CA document, while keeping it as simple as possible. As the lack of a CA document is currently blocking the start of the WG Letter Ballot. Regards, Joseph Levy From: ** STDS-802-11-TGbd -- Enhancements for Next Generation V2X.Task Group ** <STDS-802-11-TGBD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>On
Behalf Of Kain, Carl 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 From: ** STDS-802-11-TGbd -- Enhancements for Next Generation V2X.Task Group ** <STDS-802-11-TGBD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>On
Behalf Of Benjamin A. Rolfe 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:
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 |
Attachment:
11-20-1564-01-00bd-tgbd-coexistence-assurance-document.docx
Description: 11-20-1564-01-00bd-tgbd-coexistence-assurance-document.docx