[STDS-802-11] Fwd: [802SEC] Coexistence and wired devices

Thread Links	Date Links
Thread Prev	Thread Next	Thread Index	Date Prev	Date Next	Date Index

cross-posting to allow 802.11 a view into the conversation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Rosdahl                    Senior Standards Architect
hm:801-756-1496             CSR Technologies Inc.
cell:801-376-6435            10871 North 5750 West
office: 801-492-4023         Highland, UT 84003

A Job is only necessary to eat!
A Family is necessary to be happy!!

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Dan Harkins <dharkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Coexistence and wired devices
To: STDS-802-SEC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Hello,

On 10/30/14 5:43 AM, "Stephens, Adrian P" <Adrian.P.Stephens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hello Glen,

I’m not sure I’m redefining coexistence. Just pointing out that

it is not merely an issue for wireless devices.

Fully agree.

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.

The 802c approach to this "shared environment" is to claim 75% of it and then

tell everyone else that they have to "coexist" with that claim. This turns the concept

of co-existence upside down.

802c is stating that there exists, or will exist, conflict on the shared environment

represented by the local address space and that address assignment protocols

must be used to enable administrator control over that space to avoid address

conflict. Which is not a point that is really under debate. But 802c isn't proposing

to define a nice generic 802-level address assignment protocol that various 802.*

WGs could provide their own unique interface to. It is just grabbing 75% of the local

address space that would will only make the problem it claims exists that much

worse on the rest of the 25%! "We got ours, you suckers are on your own".

802c is not a good project and should not be approved.

regards,

Dan.

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.

---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.

---------- 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.