[STDS-802-16] FW: [802SEC] Comments/request for clarification/modification on the .16h PAR
>From: Shellhammer, Stephen J
>Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 6:28 PM
>To: 'Carl R. Stevenson'; STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: RE: [802SEC] Comments/request for
>clarification/modification on the .16h PAR
>
>Carl,
>
> I guess I am a little confused about your concern.
> 802.16h is going to develop coexistence mechanisms to enhance
>coexistence with other wireless systems, be it primary or secondary
>users of the band. That seems like a good thing to me (course I am
>the 802.19 chair). I guess the title could be more accurate if they
>want to make sure they don't interfere with primary users of the
>band. I sure hope they don't plan to interfere with the primary
>users; that is typically frowned upon.
>
> This new PAR is not for the development of a new MAC and
>PHY so I can't see how it conflicts with 802.22. Clearly, 802.22 is
>also intended to coexist with primary users in the band but it does
>not seem like we should prevent 802.16 from being a good citizen
>also.
>
>Regards,
>Steve
>
>
>>Roger (and EC members),
>>
>>While 802.22 believes that coexistence is a good thing (in fact, as
>>you know, the scope of our PAR requires coexistence with the
>>primary TV broadcast service and other licensed users in spectrum
>>allocated to the TV broadcast service), 802.22 does have some
>>comments and a request for clarification/modification of the .16h
>>PAR.
>>
>>While the title mentions only unlicensed coexistence, and it was my
>>understanding that the scope was to be limited to unlicensed vs.
>>unlicensed coexistence, the PAR (attached) indicates in its scope:
>>
>>13. Scope of Proposed Project:
>>This amendment specifies improved mechanisms, as policies and
>>medium access control enhancements, to enable
>>coexistence among license-exempt systems based on IEEE Standard
>>802.16 and to facilitate the coexistence of such
>>systems with primary users.
>>It is unclear to us what primary users in what band(s) are being
>>referred to in the scope.
>>
>>We are concerned that there is an ambiguity in the scope that would
>>potentially create a situation where 802.16 might assert that the
>>scope of this PAR enables it to develop systems designed to operate
>>on an unlicensed basis in the TV bands, which is clearly the scope
>>of the 802.22 PAR and would, in our view, create a situation that
>>would run afoul of "distinct identity" and the principle of not
>>duplicating work.
>>
>>One .16 member indicated to me that the reference to "primary
>>users" was intended to refer to radars and other primary users in
>>the 5 GHz unlicensed bands ... if this is the intent, clarification
>>in the scope to that effect would mitigate our concerns.
>>
>>Additionally, section 16
>>(16. Are there other documents or projects with a similar scope?)
>>is answered "No" and we believe that a mention of the scope of the
>>802.22 PAR and a statement that the 802.16h PAR would not conflict
>>with our scope would be appropriate.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Carl R. Stevenson
>>Interim Chair, IEEE802.22 WG
>>Chair, IEEE 802.18 RR-TAG