Re: [STDS-802-16] [LE Ad-Hoc] - Document C802.16-04/15
Dear Steve,
I reproduce for you, here down, our last "Call for Contributions",
to give you an idea on our scope. The actual target is kind of
embedded protocol, like the well known "listen before send",
but suitable for FWA.
We also studied some interference scennarios, with the only
scope to show the existence and extent of the co-existence problem.
Please look at:
http://ieee802.org/16/docs/04/C80216-04_14.pdf
and let us know if this document suits your call for contributions.
I would propose to take off-line the issue of a common meeting scheduling.
Kind Regards,
Marianna
quote
According to our discussions during the 802.16 Session 31, we
should now pass to a more difficult phase: propose solutions.
I remind you that 4 areas were identified:
1. Dynamic Channel Selection (DCS), based on interference
threshold
2. Time separation between systems
3. Inter-operator coordination
4. Cognitive Radio
Contributions are solicited, including:
- Principles for solutions, addressing the above areas, and targeting
systems implementing IEEE 802.16 and IEEE 802.11 standards.
For DCS and inter-operator co-ordination, a deeper analysis may
be done, showing the relation between DCS power threshold and
spatial separation between systems, in 2.4/5.8GHz bands.
- Parameters for proposal evaluation, as for example: user density,
frequency reuse factor, channel bandwidth, antenna gain and
radiation envelope, etc.
end quote
-----Original Message-----
From: Shellhammer, Stephen J [mailto:stephen.j.shellhammer@intel.com]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 8:32 PM
To: Roger B. Marks; stds-802-16@ieee.org
Cc: Marianna Goldhammer; mjlynch@NORTELNETWORKS.COM; tom.siep@ieee.org;
david.cypher@nist.gov; swhitesell@vtech.ca
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-16] [LE Ad-Hoc] - Document C802.16-04/15
Dear Roger, Marianna and Mike,
I believe as Roger stated in one of his emails that we should
schedule some time at the July plenary for the members of the 802.16 LE
committee and the 802.19 Coexistence TAG to meet and discuss this topic.
Your document proposes two tasks:
1. A coexistence study methodology.
2. Recommend coordination techniques.
Currently, the 802.19 TAG is developing a Coexistence Assurance
(CA) methodology document, which is exactly what you are proposing in
step 1. The call for submissions was sent out to all 802 wireless
working groups and we have had little response. The call for
submissions is attached. I would highly encourage members of the 802 LE
committee to submit technical material on this topic. Our hope is that
all working groups contribute to this document, so that it represents
the best ideas of all of 802.
Your second item is probably requires some more discussion. In
802.15.2 we developed some coexistence methodologies for Bluetooth and
802.11b. My personal belief is that standards need to be designed to
operate in unlicensed band, and that additional coexistence
methodologies should not need to be added later. But then that does not
always happen.
When would you like to schedule a joint meeting at the Plenary?
I would like to welcome 802.16 to the unlicensed bands. :)
Regards,
Steve
_____________________________
Steve Shellhammer
Intel Corporation
(858) 391-4570
stephen.j.shellhammer@intel.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 7:59 AM
To: stds-802-16@ieee.org
Cc: shellhammer@ieee.org
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] [LE Ad-Hoc] - Document C802.16-04/15
cc: Steve Shellhammer, 802.19
Mike's document seems to propose a Study Group that would,
presumably, lead to a new Working Group. I disagree with this
proposal, and I don't think it would be approved by the 802 EC. It
seems to me that there are two better places for the work:
(a) In a PAR for an amendment to IEEE Std 802.16.2, extending that
Recommended Practice on Coexistence from licensed bands to
license-exempt. The major drawback is that it might be hard to
consider 802.11 material inside an 802.16 project. On the other hand,
if it is making recommendations for changes to 802.16, not 802.11, it
would probably be fine.
(b) In the 802.19 Coexistence TAG. As far as I can tell, the proposal
would fit squarely within the realm of 802.19. A TAG can develop
Recommended Practices (which are one of the types of IEEE Standards).
To see what 802.19 is up to lately, see their proposed 802 rules
changes:
http://ieee802.org/secmail/msg05254.html
which will be discussed on July 11.
See also their tutorial:
http://ieee802.org/secmail/msg05250.html
which is Tuesday, 6:30-8 pm (just before our LE ad hoc meeting).
They have scheduled meeting time for most of Tuesday and Wednesday.
Of course, a Study Group has a PAR as an output, not an input.
However, there is a decision that would need to be made in advance,
because a Study Group is either a WG Study Group or an Executive
Committee Study Group. For direction (a), we'd want a WG Study Group.
For (b), we could have an 802.19 Study Group or, I would suggest,
just an 802.19 effort without the formality of a Study Group. Mike's
proposal is a type (c), which would seem to imply an Executive
Committee Study Group. This would look like a competitor to 802.19,
which I don't think the EC will support.
Roger
>Roger,
>They are fine. There is another point that needs to have some text
>pushed down to the next page, and I have made that change in this
>version. So this is r1? Can you upload it? I'm about to run off to a
>meeting at the FCC.
>
>Regards,
>Mike
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Roger B. Marks
[<mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org>mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
>Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 10:58
>To: Lynch, Michael [RICH1:2H50:EXCH]
>Subject: RE: LE ad hoc input
>
>
>Mike,
>
>How do you feel about this strictly-editorial changes?
>
>Roger
>
> >Roger,
>>It has been uploaded to the WG.
>>Regards,
>>Mike
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>From: Lynch, Michael [RICH1:2H50:EXCH]
>>Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 10:39
>>To: 'Roger B. Marks'
>>Subject: LE ad hoc input
>>Importance: High
>>
>>Roger,
>>Enclosed is an advance copy of the input to the LE ad hoc you and I
>>discussed yesterday. I'm about to go to the site and get a document
>>number and upload it.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Mike
>>
>> << File: LE ad hoc proposal.doc >>
>
>
>
>Attachment converted: Little Al:C80216-04_15 1.doc (WDBN/MSWD)
(000EF15A)
At 09:23 -0400 2004-07-02, Kiernan, Brian G. wrote:
>Isn't this already the domain of 802.19? If not, how does it differ?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Marianna Goldhammer [mailto:marianna.goldhammer@ALVARION.COM]
>Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 6:13 AM
>To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: [STDS-802-16] [LE Ad-Hoc] - Document C802.16-04_15
>
>Dear Colleagues,
>
>Michael and David have an interesting proposal up-loaded,
>"Views on the Issues being Investigated by the License-Exempt
> ad hoc and a Proposal for Conducting the Work".
>
>You can download from:
>
> http://ieee802.org/16/docs/04/C80216-04_15.pdf
>
>I invite you to open the discussion using the e-mail
> reflector.
>
>KR,
>
>Marianna
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Michael Lynch [mailto:mjlynch@nortelnetworks.com]
>Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 7:04 PM
>To: Marianna Goldhammer
>Subject: RE: [STDS-802-16] [LE Ad-Hoc] - Call for Contributions
>
>
>Marianna,
>I have uploaded a proposal (C802.16-04_15.doc) on the WG.
>Regards,
>Mike
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Marianna Goldhammer [mailto:marianna.goldhammer@ALVARION.COM]
>Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2004 07:21
>To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] [LE Ad-Hoc] - Call for Contributions
>
>
>Dear Colleagues,
>The dead-line is extended to June 28 (Monday), to not force people
>working
>on week-end!
>Note that this dead-line is "soft": we will be happy to discuss, before
>the
>meeting, contributions coming up in the next 10 days.
>Kind Regards,
>Marianna
>***********************************************************************
*
>****
>********
>This mail was sent via mail.alvarion.com
>
>***********************************************************************
*
>************
>This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
>PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals &
>computer viruses.
>***********************************************************************
*
>************
This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com
****************************************************************************
********
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer
viruses.
****************************************************************************
********
This mail was sent via mail.alvarion.com
************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses.
************************************************************************************