RE: CA document for 15.4b
Marco,
I will update the 802.19 agenda and add this item to the agenda
on Wednesday afternoon.
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: Naeve, Marco [mailto:MarcoNaeve@eaton.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 7:09 AM
To: Shellhammer, Steve; Robert Poor
Cc: Robert Poor; Monique Brown; Ed Callaway; Powell Clint;
stds-802-19@ieee.org
Subject: RE: CA document for 15.4b
Thanks Steve, that's a good idea. Robert is in charge of putting the CA
document together, he can join you together with some members of the PHY
editing sub-committee.
See you in San Francisco,
Marco
Eaton Corporation
tel: 414-449-7270 (Adnet 434-7270)
fax: 414-449-6131
marconaeve@eaton.com
http://ic.eaton.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Shellhammer, Steve [mailto:sshellha@qualcomm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 7:09 PM
To: Naeve, Marco; Robert Poor
Cc: Robert Poor; Monique Brown; Ed Callaway; Powell Clint;
stds-802-19@ieee.org
Subject: RE: CA document for 15.4b
Marco,
I was just reviewing the 802.19 TAG agenda. We have some open
time on Wednesday afternoon if you would like to have a meeting
discussing the CA document. I recommend that a subset of the 15.4b
people join 802.19 since this topic may not be of interest to all of
802.15.4b. How does that sound?
Regards,
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: Naeve, Marco [mailto:MarcoNaeve@eaton.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 12:42 PM
To: Robert Poor; Shellhammer, Stephen J
Cc: Robert Poor; Monique Brown; Ed Callaway; Powell Clint
Subject: RE: CA document for 15.4b
Steve,
TG4b starts the meeting on Monday at PM2, and is meeting all day on
Tuesday, Wednesday AM1, PM1, and PM2, as well as Thursday AM1 and AM2.
Is there any time during these sessions where you can join us for an
hour to discuss the CA document?
Thanks,
Marco
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Poor [mailto:r@media.mit.edu]
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 2:33 PM
To: Shellhammer, Stephen J
Cc: Robert Poor; Naeve, Marco; Monique Brown; Ed Callaway; Powell Clint
Subject: Re: CA document for 15.4b
Steve:
Awesome -- thanks. I'll put together the "simple metric" sometime in
advance of San Francisco, and would welcome the opportunity for the
802.19 group to comment on it, perhaps live and in person in SF. I'm
gathering the parameters from the PHY team right now.
- Rob
Shellhammer, Stephen J wrote:
>Robert,
>
> Yes, my comment on LB28 was regarding a lack of CA document for
>the 15.4b sub-GHz PHY. I think the method you propose is a reasonable
>one. Is 802.19 chair my concern is that you produce a CA document that
>shows the impact of interference on the performance metrics. Based on
>our discussion in 15.4b during the Atlanta meeting a simple probability
>analysis seemed like the easiest and most effective approach for 15.4b.
>
> If the 15.4b would like the 802.19 TAG to review and comment on
>any initial thoughts and approaches to the 15.4b CA documents we would
>be willing to do so. It could be done via an email exchange or if you
>would like to present some preliminary presentation on your approach in
>San Francisco we could discuss it there.
>
>Regards,
>Steve
>_________________
>Steve Shellhammer
>Intel Corporation
>(858) 391-4570
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Robert Poor [mailto:rpoor@ieee.org]
>Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 5:10 AM
>To: Shellhammer, Stephen J
>Cc: Marco Naeve; Monique Brown; Ed Callaway; Powell Clint; Robert_Poor
>Subject: CA document for 15.4b
>
>Steve:
>
>D'oh! I just noticed that in your 'No' vote on LB28, you said:
>
>
>
>>*Comment*
>>
>> * My reason for voting No is that the task group did not produce a
>> coexistence assurance (CA) document, while changes were made to
>> the sub-GHz PHYs. The 802 chair made a ruling that the CA
>> document was required in this case. I spoke to the Task Group
>> officers when this ballot was initiated and we agreed that the
>> CA document could be short given that 15.4b is the only standard
>> in using those bands. It would have been useful to demonstrate
>> coexistence between new 4b PHYs and the original 4b PHYs. So
>> even though I think the CA document could have been short it was
>> not produced and as such I must vote No.
>>
>>
>>
>I'd overlooked the fact that you were asking for a CA document for the
>sub-GHz 802.15.4b PHY. (No wonder I had trouble producing the
>document!). We have the simulation tools in place which we used for
the
>
>2.4GHz coexistence calculations in 15.4-2003 Annex E, and it would be
>straightforward to adapt them for the sub-GHz PHYs.
>
>[If you recall, the coexistence tests stipulated a transmitter /
>receiver pair, operating at a nominal 10dB above 'threshold' (defined
by
>
>the standard). An interferer, operating at a nominal power (defined by
>its respective standard), was simulated at varying distances from the
>receiver. The effects on the PER at the receiver is measured -- the
PER
>
>vs distance is the measure of 'coexistence'.]
>
>So: if we produced graphs similar to those in the existing Annex E,
>would that satisfy your comment?
>
>I've already asked Clint to get the definitions of the BER curves and
>spectral masks for the new PHYs so we can run these curves.
>
>
>
>> * Also, I have a question. Since this introduces new PHYs in the
>> sub-GHz band why is this a Revision and not an Amendment?
>> Usually, when a new PHY is introduced it is done with an
>>
>>
>amendment.
>
>
>Though I wasn't directly involved in the creation of the PAR, my
>impression is that the main thrust of the PAR is about amending the
>MAC. The spirit of the changes to the PHY are really about enhancing
>performance, not creating new features (as in 15.4a). I suppose we
>could have submitted two PARs and created two WGs (one for MAC
>amendments and one for PHY enhancements), but that would have created
>substantial overhead to the process. [Marco, Monique or Ed are welcome
>to chime in to clarify or amend my impressions!]
>
>- Rob
>
>