| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Paul,
Mariana says that here approach does not require a change to the standard but does require an implementation that synchronizes quiet periods within 802.11. We can discuss this further on the next call, but my thoughts are that you include a description of what is required in your document. For example, the AP’s must be synchronized to with some tolerance as specified by Mariana. So as long as everyone understands what is required to implement this approach we should include it in your document. We can discuss this further with the 802.11 engineers like Eldad on the call to make sure they believe it does not require any changes in the standard.
Regards, Steve
From: Paul Piggin
[mailto:ppiggin@nextwave.com]
Hi Steve,
I can make this change - however I have a question related to this following on from last Thursday’s call.
LE TG Contribution 070, the Coordinated CBP, expects 802.11 to respect the 802.16 frame structure.
Mariana mentioned on the call that all the 802.11 features required to support this were in place. Mariana pointed to an earlier contribution from the last 16h/11y joint meeting in Orlando to exemplify this. I haven’t seen any information on this contribution yet on the 802.19 reflector but I presume it is IEEE C802.16h-07/024r1 (http://www.ieee802.org/16/le/contrib/C80216h-07_024r1.pdf). Please correct me if I’m wrong. However, this contribution contains some suggested technical changes to the 802.11 standard to ‘provide good and reliable synchronization’. Were these changes implemented?
Many thanks, Paul.
From: Shellhammer,
Steve [mailto:sshellha@qualcomm.com]
Mariana,
Thanks.
Paul, please update your document with text and reference for both the material from Eldad and Marianna. That way it is all located on one place.
Steve
From: Mariana
Goldhamer [mailto:marianna.goldhammer@alvarion.com]
Hi Eldad,
Thanks for this information.
The Coordinated CBP is described in draft 802.16h – D2c starting at page 122 (accessible with the 802.11 and 802.19 password at http://www.ieee802.org/16/pubs/80216h.html ) and it is also contained in my July contribution http://www.ieee802.org/16/le/contrib/C80216h-07_070.pdf.
Regards,
Mariana From: Perahia, Eldad
[mailto:eldad.perahia@intel.com]
Regarding discussion of the Coordinated Contention Based Protocol:
In 11yD4.0 (http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/11/private/Draft_Standards/11y/Draft%20P802.11y_D4.0.pdf) subclause J.2 states “All stations shall use Multi-Domain capability (dot11MultiDomainCapabilityEnabled true), Spectrum Management capability (dot11SpectrumManagementRequired true), Regulatory Classes (dot11RegulatoryClassesRequired true), Supported Regulatory Classes and Extended Channel Switch Announcement (dot11ExtendedChannelSwitchImplemented true), and shall not use Channel Switch Announcement.
dot11SpectrumManagementRequired true makes mandatory in IEEE 802.11-2007 the functions in subclause 11.8 TPC and 11.9 DFS. 11.9.2 Quieting channels for testing – describes the mechanism in which an AP may schedule quiet intervals. The Quiet element is defined in subclause 7.3.2.23. Within the Quiet element is the Quiet Duration which is a two octet field, expressed in TUs. In 802.11, a TU is defined as time unit and is equal to 1024 usec.
Regards, Eldad
From: Shellhammer,
Steve [mailto:sshellha@qualcomm.com]
All,
We will be having a conference call on Coexistence in the 3650 MHz Frequency Band on Thursday at 11 AM Eastern Time (8 AM Pacific Time). If anyone has any additional items for the agenda please notify me.
Agenda
TO ATTEND THE AUDIO CONFERENCE: 1. Call +1 858-845-5000 2. After the greeting press 1 to attend meeting. 3. Enter Meeting ID 80219 4. Enter Meeting Password 80219 followed by the # sign. 5. Follow the remaining prompts for recording the callers name and joining the meeting. For assistance, dial #0 at any time.
Steve
************************************************************************************ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(190). ************************************************************************************ ************************************************************************************ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(43). ************************************************************************************ ************************************************************************************ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(43). ************************************************************************************ |