| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Eldad,
That is an interesting idea. During the TAG meeting in Denver we had a long discussion about the “Channel Occupancy” metric, since it could potentially be used to measure sharing fairness. However, we were unable to come to an agreement on that metric in the 3650 MHz discussions. We plan to discuss it further and see if we can nail down that metric. If we can it might be possible to use to measure fairness.
Regards, Steve From: Perahia, Eldad
[mailto:eldad.perahia@xxxxxxxxx]
For an ISM band, perhaps the definition should be in terms of equal sharing of the medium between different systems. The systems and applications should be tolerant of the medium being shared.
Regards, Eldad
From: Shellhammer,
Steve [mailto:sshellha@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Craig,
I would say it is not so much as a “minimal” impact but a “tolerable” impact. The 802.15.2 definition is targeted at that level, since it says that the application can still perform its task. Another way of saying it, is that the QoS performance meets an acceptable level of performance.
Thanks for commenting.
Steve
From: Craig Warren
[mailto:cwarren@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Hi Steve;
Should there be some statement in here like some minimal impact of the task being performed kind of wording?
kindest regards;
Craig
From: Shellhammer,
Steve [mailto:sshellha@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 802.19 TAG,
Recently with the coexistence discussions regarding 802.11 VHT60 I have been asked several times for a definition of coexistence. It was pointed out at the closing EC meeting that one cannot evaluate coexistence without a proper definition. I explained that the current definition that we have in 802 is the one that was standardized in 802.15.2 several years ago. The 802.15.2 recommended practice was approved by both 802.11 and 802.15. Yesterday, Bruce Kraemer, the chair of 802.11, asked me if the 802.19 TAG supported that definition. I have never asked the TAG that question. So I thought I would send out an email on this question.
The definition in the 802.15.2 recommended practice is,
3.1.2 coexistence: The ability of one system to perform a task in a given shared environment where other systems have an ability to perform their tasks and may or may not be using the same set of rules.
I would like to hear feedback on this definition. The TAG could choose to support this definition or come up with its own definition. There is a perception that one cannot evaluate the coexistence of two wireless networks without an agreed upon definition.
If the TAG decides they want to support another definition we could later hold an email ballot on the definition if making it more formal is useful.
Comments are encouraged.
Steve
|