[802.19] FW: [802.19] Definition of Coexistence

["Shellhammer, Steve" <sshellha@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Forwarding to the reflector.

 

Steve

 

---

From: Benjamin A. Rolfe [mailto:ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 5:45 PM
To: Shellhammer, Steve
Subject: Re: [802.19] Definition of Coexistence

 

Steve, all,

I think this is a good basic definition.   "Tolerable" is better than "minimal", as it implies various degrees of coexistence may exist.  I think the basic definition is sufficient for coexistence. When we do specific analysis we get into degrees of "good" coexistence.

The first task in analysis is determining what the coexistence impacts may be, then we can figure out what is tolerable and what is a problem :-).

 

-Ben

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Shellhammer, Steve

To: STDS-802-19@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 10:35 AM

Subject: Re: [802.19] Definition of Coexistence

 

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]
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 9:07 AM
To: Shellhammer, Steve; STDS-802-19@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Definition of Coexistence

 

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]
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 8:39 AM
To: STDS-802-19@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [802.19] Definition of Coexistence

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