RE: [802-11Technical] RE: HTSG Usage Model Special Committee
Ed,
A quick comment. Did you miss 802.15.4 in the choice for headset technology?
Thanks.
Yours sincerely,
W.S.P. Yu
----- Original Message -----
Mail From:"Reuss, Ed" <ed.reuss@plantronics.com> on 2003/07/10 08:31 PM GMT
Sent by: "Reuss, Ed" <ed.reuss@plantronics.com>
To: "'garth.hillman@amd.com'" <garth.hillman@amd.com>, Pratik_Mehta@Dell.com,
Adrian.P.Stephens@intel.com, swhitesell@vtech.ca,
owner-stds-802-19@majordomo.ieee.org
cc: Mike.Moreton@synad.com, bbjerke@qualcomm.com, stds-802-11@ieee.org,
stds-802-19@ieee.org, jrosdahl@ieee.org, shoemake@ti.com, coffey@ti.com,
Liam_Quinn@Dell.com(bcc: Patrick Yu/ALI_SJC/ACER)
Subject: RE: [802-11Technical] RE: HTSG Usage Model Special Committee
Beware. The headset need not necessarily be Bluetooth. It could be any of a
variety of different technologies including Bluetooth/802.15.1/802.15.1a,
802.11a/b/g/n, DECT, 900 MHz DSSS, etc.
However, for the purpose of 802.11n usage models, all of these can probably
be sub-classified as:
1. Out-of-band radio technologies,
2. In-band radio technologies,
3. 802.11/a/b/g/n technologies (special case of in-band with legacy
MAC considerations).
One point that can muddy this is if the RF front-end filters on the
out-of-band technologies are "less than optimal". But then, I'm sure that no
one would use a "less than optimal" RF filter since Cost of Goods is not an
issue for any of our respective companies...
Reminds me of my very first 802 plenary session, sitting in a room with
several hundred other members all trying to download the session documents
at the same time over their 802.11 links, when I noticed that my cell phone
had completely locked up, requiring me to yank the battery to get it to come
back.
-- Ed Reuss, Plantronics, Inc.
-----Original Message-----
From: garth.hillman@amd.com [mailto:garth.hillman@amd.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 8:34 AM
To: Pratik_Mehta@Dell.com; Adrian.P.Stephens@intel.com;
swhitesell@vtech.ca; owner-stds-802-19@majordomo.ieee.org
Cc: Mike.Moreton@synad.com; bbjerke@qualcomm.com; stds-802-11@ieee.org;
stds-802-19@ieee.org; jrosdahl@ieee.org; shoemake@ti.com; coffey@ti.com;
Liam_Quinn@Dell.com
Subject: RE: [802-11Technical] RE: HTSG Usage Model Special Committee
I am a little (actually allot!) behind in my email so I may be redundant
but:
1) Video Conferencing using a headset. This falls into the category of BT
(headset) coexistence with WLAN (video conferencing) but is more generally
an example of a class of applications which have simultaneous peer-to-peer
(ad hoc/direct link) and peer-to-AP (infrastructure) communication. The
question is could it be done with only one technology namely 802.11. If the
DL mode being proposed in TGe is simultaneous rather than stand alone then
it may be covered.
2) LARGE multi-family dwelling complexes (as was shown in one of our TGn
presentations) - would this be classified as residential or ??
3) Cordless telephone function (as opposed to coexistence). I assume this is
already considered as simply VoIP.
Garth
-----Original Message-----
From: Pratik_Mehta@Dell.com [mailto:Pratik_Mehta@Dell.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 8:51 AM
To: Adrian.P.Stephens@intel.com; swhitesell@vtech.ca;
owner-stds-802-19@majordomo.ieee.org
Cc: Mike.Moreton@synad.com; bbjerke@qualcomm.com; stds-802-11@ieee.org;
stds-802-19@ieee.org; jrosdahl@ieee.org; shoemake@ti.com; coffey@ti.com;
Liam_Quinn@Dell.com
Subject: RE: [802-11Technical] RE: HTSG Usage Model Special Committee
I agree with your categorization. Also that #3 is more difficult to wrap
our hands around, and that working with 802.19 will be beneficial to define
the appropriate usage scenarios -- while the special HTSG Usage committee is
still in session. To that end, Steve was bringing up the use of cordless
phones, I added some scenarios for Bluetooth, and you've brought up several
others in #3.
Thnx,
-pm.
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephens, Adrian P [mailto:Adrian.P.Stephens@intel.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 2:16 AM
To: Mehta, Pratik; swhitesell@vtech.ca; owner-stds-802-19@majordomo.ieee.org
Cc: Mike.Moreton@synad.com; bbjerke@qualcomm.com; stds-802-11@ieee.org;
stds-802-19@ieee.org; jrosdahl@ieee.org; shoemake@ti.com; coffey@ti.com;
Quinn, Liam
Subject: RE: [802-11Technical] RE: HTSG Usage Model Special Committee
Hello Pratik,
Thanks for this presentation. I think the Bluetooth / 802.11 coexistence
mechanisms described there should be equally applicable to 802.11n (High
Throughput) operating at 2.4 GHz.
I rank compatibility/coexistence into the following scale:
1. Interoperation with legacy devices (i.e. a BSS containing a mixture of
legacy and new devices)
2. Co-channel 802.11 fairness. Overlapping legacy and new devices share
the medium fairly. No new-legacy communication attempted.
3. Tolerates yyy as interferer where yyy is: 802.15.1/Blutooth, 802.15.x,
802.16.x, Cordless phone, microwave oven, Cell phone ...
We do have a requirement in our PAR for a mode of operation that
is compatible with legacy devices. We also have a practical requirement
that we have to tolerate legacy interference because there will be
deployments of 802.11 where we cannot control deployment of legacy
BSS.
3. Is the harder one. I'm hoping we benefit from the work that
.19 is currently doing with .15.3a to define some specific coexistence
scenarios for 802.11n too. So, I'm expecting that .19 will work
with us to create a set of coexistence scenarios for us to address.
Best Regards,
Adrian P Stephens
Tel: +44 1954 204610 (home)
Tel: +44 771 276 3448 (mobile)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pratik_Mehta@Dell.com [mailto:Pratik_Mehta@Dell.com]
> Sent: 09 July 2003 14:58
> To: Stephens, Adrian P; swhitesell@vtech.ca;
> owner-stds-802-19@majordomo.ieee.org
> Cc: Mike.Moreton@synad.com; bbjerke@qualcomm.com;
> stds-802-11@ieee.org;
> stds-802-19@ieee.org; jrosdahl@ieee.org; shoemake@ti.com;
> coffey@ti.com;
> Liam_Quinn@Dell.com
> Subject: RE: [802-11Technical] RE: HTSG Usage Model Special Committee
>
>
> One scenario (or a couple) can be derived from the attached
> presentation
> made at the recent Bluetooth conference. If the attachment
> does not come
> through the reflector, please let me know what to do to get it to go
> through.
>
> The term "coexisting with legacy 802.11", connotates "backwards
> compatibility" rather than "coexistence" -- the former being
> a stronger
> descriptor, while coexistence can be perceived to be a weaker level of
> compatibility. Does this jell with the group's thinking?
>
> Regards,
> -pm.
This message was sent from the 802.19 email reflector.