| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Hello Glen,
I’m not sure I’m redefining coexistence. Just pointing out that
it is not merely an issue for wireless devices.
The definition of the term by 802.19 (don’t know if this is still active) is:
Coexistence: The ability of one system to perform a task in a given shared environment where other systems have an ability to perform their tasks and may or may not be using the same set of rules.
There’s no mention of radio, only a “shared environment”. I’d claim that a limited
resource that is competed for comprises a shared environment and is therefore within
the purview of this definition.
Best Regards,
Adrian P STEPHENS
Tel: +44 (1793) 404825 (office)
Tel: +44 (7920) 084 900 (mobile, UK)
Tel: +1 (408) 2397485 (mobile, USA)
----------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
Registered No. 1134945 (England)
Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
VAT No: 860 2173 47
From: Glenn Parsons [mailto:glenn.parsons@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 7:36 AM
To: Stephens, Adrian P
Cc: STDS-802-SEC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Coexistence and wired devices
Adrian
The 802c response is completely reasonable for the current CSD
You are instead proposing to redefine coexistence.
Cheers,
Glenn
--
Sent from my LTE mobile
On Oct 30, 2014, at 6:50 AM, "Stephens, Adrian P" <Adrian.P.Stephens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear all,
The 802c CSD has in it:
“1.1.2 Coexistence
A WG proposing a wireless project shall demonstrate coexistence through the preparation of a
Coexistence Assurance (CA) document unless it is not applicable.
a) Will the WG create a CA document as part of the WG balloting process as described in
Clause 13? (yes/no)
b) If not, explain why the CA document is not applicable.\\
A CA document is not applicable because this is not a wireless project”
I believe the argument we are having is essentially a coexistence one. Certainly two devices
on the same segment that choose the same address will coexist badly, and that is not a
wireless behaviour.
It seems reasponable to me to see an explanation in the CSD of how the protocol interacts with
or conflicts with proposed (admittedly hard to do) and actual other MAC address assignments.
For example, we might cite products (perhaps 20% of you are carrying one such) that do this,
and John Kenny dells me that 802.11p/wave devices all do this, so eventually your car will be
doing it too.
Coexistence has always been seen as a wireless concern, because it is a shared medium.
However, at some level of the stack, you get something that behaves like a shared medium, and
needs the same protection.
Best Regards,
Adrian P STEPHENS
Tel: +44 (1793) 404825 (office)
Tel: +44 (7920) 084 900 (mobile, UK)Tel: +1 (408) 2397485 (mobile, USA)
----------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
Registered No. 1134945 (England)
Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
VAT No: 860 2173 47
---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
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 _______________________________________________________________________________