RE: [802-11Technical] RE: HTSG Usage Model Special Committee
Hello Steve,
What we're trying to accomplish in the HTSG Usage Model committee
is to end up with simulation scenarios based on an analysis of
credible usage models. These simulation scenarios will be used by
all proposals to 802.11n TG to evaluate metrics / criteria (TBD
in the task group) to allow meaningful comparison between them.
In my view, coexistence issues are very important. In a previous
existence I was editor for the BT adaptive frequency hopping spec,
and I've also stood on public platforms extolling the need to be
intelligent about coexistence.
Coexistence analysis is meant to be a two-way street. But if we
restrict ourselves to considering interference to an 802.11n
system by a cordless phone, we first have to describe the technical
aspects of that phone. We introduce a difficulty and a danger.
The difficulty is that of describing a class of "generic interferer"
in a meaningful way. The danger is that the solutions presented
to the TG are specifically adapted to these characteristics in
a way that makes them susceptible to other, similar but different,
real world devices.
I should imagine that the coexistence scenarios defined for 802.15.3a
will be re-used in some TBD way in 802.11n, and will be involved
in the .19 work to make sure this happens.
Best Regards,
Adrian
Adrian P Stephens
Tel: +44 1954 204610 (home)
Tel: +44 771 276 3448 (mobile)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: swhitesell@vtech.ca [mailto:swhitesell@vtech.ca]
> Sent: 09 July 2003 22:14
> To: Stephens, Adrian P
> Cc: owner-stds-802-19@majordomo.ieee.org; Mike Moreton; Bjorn Andre
> Bjerke; stds-802-11@ieee.org; stds-802-19; jrosdahl@ieee.org;
> Matthew B.
> Shoemake; Sean Coffey
> Subject: RE: [802-11Technical] RE: HTSG Usage Model Special Committee
>
>
>
>
>
> Adrian
>
> Perhaps I missed the point of what you are trying to
> accomplish with an HTSG
> usage model. If it is compatibility with legacy systems,
> etc., then my remark
> is off-base. However, if it is really about coexistence and
> the effects of
> interferers on throughput, then I think I am exactly on target.
>
> My point was that any coexistenance scenario for the
> residence that does not
> include a cordless telephone as a potential interferer is not
> going to be of
> much use in simulating the real usage conditions, at least
> for the US and
> Canada. Cordless telephones are extremely widespead, and the
> major sellers
> today are those operating in the 2.4 GHz ISM band. Several
> manufacturers have
> introduced 5.8 GHz ISM models as well, and I expect to see
> the percentages of
> them grow significantly in the next two or three years. We
> are including a
> cordless telephone in one of the residential scenarios for
> the 802.15.3a work,
> and the newly formed Wi-Fi Coexistence Task Group is also
> planning to include
> them. During the 802.15.3a conference call yesterday, Jim
> Lansford indicated he
> had specifically gone out and purchased an older design 900
> MHz cordless to
> avoid interference with the WLAN in his home office.
>
> Best Regards,
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Adrian.P.Stephens@intel.com on 07/09/2003 06:30:26 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To: Steve Whitesell/ENG/VTNCAN/VTECH@VTECH,
> owner-stds-802-19@majordomo.ieee.org
>
> cc: "Mike Moreton" <Mike.Moreton@synad.com>, "Bjorn
> Andre Bjerke" <bbjerke@qualcomm.com>,
> stds-802-11@ieee.org, "stds-802-19"
> <stds-802-19@ieee.org>, jrosdahl@ieee.org, "Matthew
> B. Shoemake" <shoemake@ti.com>, "Sean Coffey"
> <coffey@ti.com>
>
>
>
> Subject: RE: [802-11Technical] RE: HTSG Usage Model Special
> Committee
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hello Steve,
>
> Thankyou for making your point. I still need to understand how
> coexistence scenarios should be specified. I think the HTSG
> Usage Model
> committee is likely to define coexistence scenarios for "legacy"
> 802.11. I think it has the relevant knowledge to do this by itself.
>
> The coexistence with non-802.11 equipment is harder to define.
> Hopefully we can benefit from the 802.15.3a ongoing work.
>
> I expect the coexistence requirements defined by .19 will
> translate into
> specific investigations rather than fit into the framework of
> simulation we'll be using for our other criteria.
>
> Identifying the generic characteristics of classes of devices
> is something that perhaps 802.19 could do. I.e. what is the typical
> tx mask for a cordless phone, what is its typical dwell time, what
> is its typical CIR/PER performance?
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Adrian P Stephens
> Intel Corporation
>
> Tel: +44 771 276 3448 (Mobile)
> Tel: +44 1223 763457 (Office)
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: swhitesell@vtech.ca [mailto:swhitesell@vtech.ca]
> > Sent: 07 July 2003 17:15
> > To: owner-stds-802-19@majordomo.ieee.org
> > Cc: Mike Moreton; Bjorn Andre Bjerke; stds-802-11@ieee.org;
> > stds-802-19; jrosdahl@ieee.org; Matthew B. Shoemake; Sean Coffey
> > Subject: [802-11Technical] RE: HTSG Usage Model Special Committee
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Adrian
> >
> > I wasn't able to participate in the July 1 conference call,
> > but I would like to re-iterate a point I made during the
> > initial formation meeting for the group. I believe your home
> > use scenarios should include a cordless telephone in the
> > environment. Homes that have WLANs are also very likely to
> > have 2.4 or 5.8 GHz cordless phones in them. The vast
> > majority of the ones we (VTech) make use FHSS technology.
> > I'm not sure whether that is true across the
> > telecommunications industry, but I would be willing to try
> > and find out if you like.
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > Stephen R Whitesell
> > Senior Technical Consultant - Standards
> > VTech
> > Chair, TIA TR-41
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > owner-stds-802-19@majordomo.ieee.org on 07/04/2003 06:19:15 AM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To: "Mike Moreton" <Mike.Moreton@synad.com>, "Bjorn
> > Andre Bjerke" <bbjerke@qualcomm.com>,
> > stds-802-11@ieee.org, "stds-802-19"
> > <stds-802-19@ieee.org>
> >
> > cc: jrosdahl@ieee.org, "Matthew B. Shoemake"
> > <shoemake@ti.com>, "Sean Coffey"
> > <coffey@ti.com>(bcc: Steve
> > Whitesell/ENG/VTNCAN/VTECH)
> >
> >
> >
> > Subject: RE: HTSG Usage Model Special Committee
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hello Mike and Bjorn and all,
> >
> > Thanks for these contributions. At the meeting this week,
> > we came out
> > with an initial list
> > of deployment environments - not as detailed as Bjorn's. We
> > also discussed the question as to how many simulation targets
> > we wanted, and agreed that "5" was a suitable number. So,
> > when we create our scenarios, we'll probably include
> > elements from more than one of the deployment environments
> > listed below into the one model.
> >
> > For example, we'll probably have a "home" model that includes
> > a device in the same room as the AP, plus one in a different
> > room. This is both a realistic usage model, and exercises
> > the technology with different channel conditions.
> >
> > I like Mike's classification. I think we'll start off with a large
> > list of applications
> > and then realise that we can lump applications together into
> > groups like this.
> >
> > I think another thing we need to do is to agree on
> > definitions for some terms. I've variously used: "use case",
> > "scenario", "simulation target". Vinko has a "channel model"
> > and Bjorn has added: "deployment environment". If someone
> > wants to come up with some definitions that relate these and
> > throw out the baggage, I'd be very grateful.
> >
> > I spoke with Mary Cramer after the telecon. She will come up
> > with a first draft of a usage model document, I'll have a
> > first hack at it (and see if I can include Bjorn's input),
> > and then put it out to those who volunteered at the meeting
> > (cc everybody) for their input. Hopefully we can complete
> > this by the next meeting to give the meeting an input paper
> > to discuss.
> >
> > The minutes from the previous meeting will be issued in due
> > course (I'll notify separately).
> >
> > It appears that the IEEE 802 mailer daemon rejects headers
> > with >1024 B. My list of Usage model participants
> > transgresses this limit. So, if you want to email to the
> > group, can I suggest that you "blind copy" the list of names
> > from the minutes (which won't go into the header) and put a
> > smaller list in the other address fields. FYI - I've done
> > this with this message which may explain why you get two copies.
> >
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Adrian P Stephens
> > Intel Corporation
> >
> > Tel: +44 771 276 3448 (Mobile)
> > Tel: +44 1223 763457 (Office)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mike Moreton [mailto:Mike.Moreton@synad.com]
> > Sent: 04 July 2003 08:12
> > To: Bjorn Andre Bjerke; Stephens, Adrian P; Youngsu Kim;
> > Bobby Jose; Chiu Ngo; Chris Hansen; Colin Lanzl; Craig
> > Hornbuckle; Dov Andelman; Eldad Perahia; Frank Howley; Garth
> > Hillman; Irina Medvedev; Jason Ellis; Javier Delprado;
> > jimlans@mobilian.com; Jim Tomcik; jrosdahl@ieee.org;
> > kevin@proxim.com; Kotecha, Lalit; Law Choi Look (Choi); Majid
> > Malek; Malik Audeh; Mary Cramer; PJohansson@acm.org; Paul
> > Feinberg; Qinghua Li; Rahul Malik; Robert.Huang@am.sony.com;
> > Roberto Aiello; Rolf Devegt; Sanjeev Sharma; Sean Coffey;
> > Steve Halford; Timothy Wong; Tkashi Ishidoshiro; Tomer
> > Bentzion; Tomoko Adachi; Vinko Erceg; Wayne King; Woo-Yong
> > Choi; Xiaolin Lu; Yashuhiko Inoue
> > Cc: jrosdahl@ieee.org; Matthew B. Shoemake; Sean Coffey;
> > stds-802-11@ieee.org; stds-802-19
> > Subject: RE: HTSG Usage Model Special Committee
> >
> >
> >
> > Bjorn,
> >
> >
> >
> > There are some very different requirements amongst the
> > applications in your "Data" section, which got me wondering
> > whether it might be helpful to split all the applications
> > into six groups, depending on the combination of their
> > bandwidth requirements, with how tight their QoS requirements are.
> >
> >
> >
> > For example
> >
> >
> >
> > Category 1 - High bandwidth, tight QoS
> >
> > Interactive gaming
> >
> > Video conferencing
> >
> >
> >
> > Category 2 - High bandwidth, medium QoS
> >
> > Video streaming,
> >
> > File serving
> >
> >
> >
> > Category 3 - High bandwidth, loose QoS
> >
> > File backup
> >
> >
> >
> > Category 4 - Low bandwidth, tight QoS
> >
> > Voice over IP
> >
> >
> >
> > Category 5 - low bandwidth, medium QoS
> >
> > Audio streaming
> >
> >
> >
> > Category 6 - low bandwidth, loose QoS
> >
> > Instant messaging
> >
> >
> >
> > I'd venture to say that category 6 applications don't
> > need to be included in the models.
> >
> >
> >
> > Mike Moreton
> >
> > Synad Technologies Ltd.
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bjorn Andre Bjerke [mailto:bbjerke@qualcomm.com]
> > Sent: 03 July 2003 21:02
> > To: Stephens, Adrian P; Youngsu Kim; Bobby Jose; Chiu
> > Ngo; Chris Hansen; Colin Lanzl; Craig Hornbuckle; Dov
> > Andelman; Eldad Perahia; Frank Howley; Garth Hillman; Irina
> > Medvedev; Jason Ellis; Javier Delprado; jimlans@mobilian.com;
> > Jim Tomcik; jrosdahl@ieee.org; kevin@proxim.com; Kotecha,
> > Lalit; Law Choi Look (Choi); Majid Malek; Malik Audeh; Mary
> > Cramer; Mike Moreton; PJohansson@acm.org; Paul Feinberg;
> > Qinghua Li; Rahul Malik; Robert.Huang@am.sony.com; Roberto
> > Aiello; Rolf Devegt; Sanjeev Sharma; Sean Coffey; Steve
> > Halford; Timothy Wong; Tkashi Ishidoshiro; Tomer Bentzion;
> > Tomoko Adachi; Vinko Erceg; Wayne King; Woo-Yong Choi;
> > Xiaolin Lu; Yashuhiko Inoue
> > Cc: jrosdahl@ieee.org; Matthew B. Shoemake; Sean Coffey;
> > stds-802-11@ieee.org; stds-802-19
> > Subject: HTSG Usage Model Special Committee
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Here are some thoughts on how to start developing a set
> > of usage models for 802.11n.
> >
> > The definition of a usage model and its purpose as
> > accepted by the participants in the June 17 teleconference
> > are as follows:
> >
> > 1. Usage Model - a detailed model of expected realistic
> > deployments and applications of 802.11n devices and networks.
> > 2. Purpose - the purpose of the usage models is to
> > provide a basis for the development of functional
> > requirements and comparison criteria for proposals to the HTSG.
> >
> > As the definition implies, a usage model is made up of
> > two parts, namely
> > * a deployment environment, and
> > * a set of applications typically associated with the
> > particular deployment environment.
> >
> > As a first step in the process of defining a simple but
> > adequately realistic set of usage models, I thought it would
> > be useful to separately list all deployment environments and
> > applications that have been mentioned during our discussions
> > so far (plus some that perhaps haven't been mentioned).
> >
> > The next steps would be:
> > * Map applications to deployment environments (channel
> > and interference models for each environment to be developed
> > by the channel modeling special committee)
> > * Develop detailed specifications for each application,
> > e.g., traffic type, data rate, packet size, arrival model,
> > load, delay requirements, etc.
> > * Derive requirements for the technology from the
> > combination of deployment environments and application requirements
> >
> > Of course, we will have to narrow the long list of
> > possible environments and applications down to a manageable
> > number of combinations, but rather than deciding on that
> > number up front, let us first see how many distinctly
> > different environments and applications we are faced with. In
> > making the following two lists, I took the liberty of
> > borrowing from earlier presentations given to the HTSG by
> > Adrian Stephens and Javier del Prado.
> >
> >
> > Deployment environments
> >
> > 1. Residential:
> > * Intra-room communications
> > * Room-to-room communications
> > * Indoor-to-outdoor (e.g., for using a lap-top/TV on the patio,
> > etc.)
> >
> > 2. Enterprise:
> > * Enclosed offices
> > * Sea of cubicles
> > * Meeting room
> > * Large factory floor
> > * Hospital
> > * Warehouse
> > * Classroom/lecture hall
> > * Campus (i.e., indoor-to-outdoor as well as outdoor
> > access point for outdoor users)
> >
> > 3. Hot spot:
> > * Airport
> > * Library
> > * Convention center
> > * Hotel
> > * Shopping mall
> > * Train station/bus terminal
> > * Drive-in windows
> > * Sports stadium/concert hall
> > * City square (e.g., Verizon's plans for adding hot
> > spots to Manhattan phone booths)
> > * Public park
> >
> > 4. "Wireless cable":
> > * Residential neighborhood (e.g., TV/phone/Internet
> > connection via pole-top access points)
> >
> > 5. Mobility:
> > * Hot spots on trains, buses, air planes
> > * Curb-to-car communications
> > * Car-to-car communications
> >
> >
> >
> > Applications
> >
> > 1. Video:
> > * SDTV
> > * HDTV
> > * Video conferencing
> > * Internet video streaming
> >
> > 2. Voice/audio:
> > * Wireless VoIP
> > * Audio/music (Hi-fi stereo and multichannel - 5.1, 7.1 etc)
> > * MP3/AAC audio
> >
> > 3. Data:
> > * Web browsing/content downloading
> > * E-mail
> > * E-commerce transactions
> > * Instant messaging/chat
> > * File backup
> > * File server
> > * Interactive gaming
> > * Telemetry
> >
> > Please add, correct and/or modify the above list and
> > circulate to the whole committee. Looking forward to the discussion!
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Bjorn
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Bjorn A. Bjerke +1.781.276.0912 (direct)
> > Qualcomm, Inc. +1.781.276.0901 (fax)
> > 9 Damonmill Sq., # 2A bbjerke@qualcomm.com
> > Concord, MA 01742, USA www.qualcomm.com
> > <http://www.qualcomm.com/>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Technical Reflector List
> Info at http://www.ieee802.org/11
>
This message was sent from the 802.19 email reflector.