| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Steve, Your statement is correct - we are happy
with the text as it is at present in r4 of the coexistence metrics document,
and would recommend rejecting this solution to the outstanding comments. Thanks, Paul. From: Shellhammer,
Steve [mailto:sshellha@qualcomm.com] Paul,
Is it correct to say then that you would prefer to reject the outstanding
comments regarding the Medium Occupancy Metric and keep the text the way it is? Regards, Steve From: Paul Piggin
[mailto:ppiggin@nextwave.com] These are our comments on the proposed
changes to the Medium Occupancy Coexistence Metric as detailed in the attached
contribution: -
Medium Occupancy is an
important metric for determining fair sharing of the channel and of high
importance in the 3.65-3.7GHz band. -
The idea behind the
introduction of the Medium Occupancy Metric was to abstract the underlying
radio access technology. This proposal is a step backwards and moves away from
this intention. -
Because Medium Occupancy
abstracts radio access technology discussion of TDMA and OFDMA is not valid. -
Medium Occupancy is not
intended to measure efficiency – but coexistence fairness. -
For 802.16h the system
either has the frame or not. When a system has the medium, be it 802.16 or
8021.11, the frame occupancy is 1 - not some fraction based on the number of
devices transmitting within a system. The metric is Medium Occupancy –
medium meaning the whole channel. -
There is no concept of 802.11y using the
subchannels not used by 802.16h, so even if the 802.16 system is using the
minimum, the UL is still occupied from the point of view of an 802.11 system
near enough to the 802.16 subscriber to hear it. The introduction of the
modifications will report an erroneously low and incomplete measure of
occupancy. From these points the suggested changes
are not acceptable. Kind regards, Paul. From: Shellhammer,
Steve [mailto:sshellha@qualcomm.com] Here is a document from Marianna. Steve From: Mariana
Goldhamer [mailto:marianna.goldhammer@alvarion.com] Hi Steve, Please consider the attached contribution
as response to my A.I. Regards, Mariana From: Shellhammer,
Steve [mailto:sshellha@qualcomm.com] The Minutes and the updated comment resolution database have
been uploaded. https://mentor.ieee.org/802.19/file/08/19-08-0002-09-0000-conference-call-minutes.doc 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(42). ************************************************************************************ ************************************************************************************ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(43). ************************************************************************************ |