| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
| --- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector ---
Hi Jarkko, Thanks for the comments. My responses inline.
Simone From: Jarkko.Kneckt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:Jarkko.Kneckt@xxxxxxxxx]
Hello Simone, 802.11ax followers, I have read the submission 13-1001r7 HEW simulation scenarios document. I have some suggested changes to the submission: Issue #1: Common parameters for all scenarios and scenario specific parameters Each scenario should define:
1.
The topology / the world of the test case, including:
a.
the locations of the APs and the STAs
b.
the channel model and penetration losses
c.
primary channels of the APs or the rule how APs select their primary channel
2.
The traffic that is transmitted and delay and packet loss that is acceptable for the traffic. I am not sure does each simulation scenario need to specify the PHY and MAC parameters. The MAC and PHY parameters could be common for all simulation scenarios. The common MAC and PHY parameters could work as default parameter values. Thus,
the reader does not need to remember the MAC and PHY settings for each simulation scenario. At the moment there are some differences in transmission powers of the STAs and APs. For instance scenario 1 uses 17 dBm for STAs and 23 dBm for APs, while Scenario 2 uses 21 dBm for STAs and 24 dBm for APs. I propose to define that transmission
power is the maximum transmission power that devices may use and set it to 21 dBm for STAs and 24 dBm (or 30dBm as in scenario 4) for APs.
[SM] For now I would prefer to keep a list of parameters per scenario, but if we end up with parameters having the same value across scenarios, then we can simplify the doc and have those common parameters listed
only once. I like your suggestion to fix the max STA TX power to be same for all the scenarios, which is consistent with reality. The value 21dB seems a bit on the high side for a STA, maybe 18dBm? Other suggestions to harmonize parameters are welcome. Issue #2: 13-1001r7 Sections summary at page 7 summarizes the scenarios. Management and Homogeneity parameters are only defined in this table, i.e. they are not present in any scenario descriptions. Does anyone have text to explain the
use of these parameters in detailed simulation scenarios descriptions? At least these parameters could be added to the scenario specific parameters.
[SM] The table at page 7 was used for initial discussion on which types of scenarios we should consider; the goal was to identify a minimum set of typical scenarios with distinct characteristics.
The ‘Homogeneity’ is already reflected by the topology hence I don’t think we need to specify it further: scenarios 1-3 have BSS of similar size and evenly distributed, while scenario 4 has overlapping BSSs of
different sizes. Managed/unmanaged depends on the way the network is operated, hence it is mainly related to the MAC/Management solutions that will be proposed. It was listed in the table to make sure we covered both scenarios
where we can reasonably assume that ‘centralized’ solutions are used and scenarios where they are not. But if we add a ‘Managed’ parameter in each scenario description, then we should define it precisely, in relation to the specific MAC/Management solutions
that it implies, and at the moment I’m not sure how that could be easily defined and whether we ned to do it. I can write these changes to 13-1001r7. Your comments are welcome! Cheers, Jarkko If you wish to be removed from this reflector, do not send your request to this reflector - it will have no effect. Instead, go to http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11 and then press the LEAVE button. If there is no LEAVE button here, try http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-RO. Further information can be found at: http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html _______________________________________________________________________________ |