Re: [STDS-802-16] Comments/request for clarification/modification on the .16h PAR
Carl,
Please see the response of the 802.16 Working Group in your red
folder, or here:
http://server.wirelessman.org/docs/04/80216-04_74r1.pdf
Roger
At 14:54 -0500 2004-11-16, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
>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
>
>
>
>
>
>