| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hello Rui, Thank you for your presentation. We are generally aligned with the intension to limit the capability of the devices to fit device size and inventory use-case. For this it makes sense to borrow from EPC. However, some issues we noticed with some aspects of EPC direct application to AMP: 1>Access commands of EPC are missing key aspects like privacy protection (the EPC Untraceable feature is not sufficient for many customers) and group cast addressing. 2>EPC is good for readers/phones. Not sure it is suitable to APs that do not always run Android/iOS/Win OS to process a 3rd party EPC SW, or even if they do so – it can take most of their resources. Also, we would like to include distribution network connection in this specification which is expected from Wifi and less from EPC or BLE. 3> We have very limited number of slots for TXOP (you mentioned 1.9ms per slot?). It is not the same as RFID which does not have TXOP limitation. Thus not sure we need the whole collision avoidance as is from EPC. Also, for close range backscattering in 2.4, it is not expected that too many tags are going to collide in any case. 4>Memory and NVM requirements need more discussions. 5>We have concerns that EPC access rely too much on reliable reception, which is less expected for ISM 2.4 with devices open on entire 80MHz. From your presentation it appears
it requires minimum of 3-5 successful receptions and even more per transmit. We prefer if we can define a protocol with minimum of 1 successful reception for transmission triggering. Best Regards Amichai To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBP list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBP&A=1 |