| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Paul,
Well we can discuss this on Monday’s conference call, and if necessary we can discuss more in Denver.
Steve
From: Paul Piggin
[mailto:ppiggin@nextwave.com]
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). ************************************************************************************ |