|
Hi All,
Yes, we can define "Coexisence, Collaboration and
interoperability" and should. I agree they are not at all the same thing
(although they are often seen running around together :0). I thunk maybe
we've done this before? Here's a shot at
it...with the "in the context of 802 wireless systems" caveat...
Coexistences is the ability of two
systems to be in the same area and still operate. There are many
methods to achieve coexistence. We can define 'active' and 'passive'
methods. Active means we do something - sense the spectrum, detect and avoid,
exchange coordination messages, or some such. Passive methods depend on
characteristics of the systems and/or environment - offset channel plans, noise
like signals, luck (aka low duty cycle), etc. "The other system" might be
a similar system (same standard) or dissimilar systems (can't exchange data).
Some "other systems" can be very hard to detect.
Collaboration is what can sometimes
happen in standards groups, to appear to be smarter as a group than we
might be as individuals (I speak for myself only here) ;-).
Cooperative: Exchanging information to coordinate
spectrum usage;
Interoperable: the ability to exchange data
frames. In a broader context, the ability to exchange information. We can
also include the ability to exchange information at a service interface - the
"up the stack" interoperability.
A basic view, but a place to start.
In TVWS I can imagine a cooperative coexistence
method where information may be exchanged indirectly by use of some
common source, rather than (or as well as) direct over the air
interoperability. Either way, cooperative methods seem
very useful in the TVWS spectrum. It seems optimistic to think
cooperation is enough - there is bound to be some dissimilar systems which will
not coordinate. It seems from the current information that both 802
and non-802 systems will likely need to share the spectrum.
I agree with Steve's point about use cases and
coexistence scenarios; We need coexistence scenarios that describe what
systems have to be considered (likely to be present) and what methods will be
available. I think of use case as more application oriented (but that might help
identify coexistence scenarios?).
Offered FWIW
-Ben
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 6:52
PM
Subject: Re: [802.19] TVWS Coexistence
Plan - Deliverables
HI
Steve,
I echo Mark?s
opinions, and would go further even. There are three terms that some seem to
interchange, and that is not necessarily
the case?Coexistence,
collaboration and interoperability. Are we able to define all three, and
therefore know
exactly what we are going to deal with and how to approach
it ?
I follow Mark in the method?s used for showing Use Cases, and
although some could be done with art work drawings, charts etc.,
The most
effective are the ones that use Scenarios?.
Already commented on the
third earlier?
Thanks for your time,
Nancy
From:
whitespace@xxxxxxxx [mailto:whitespace@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Shellhammer,
Steve
Sent: Monday, April 13,
2009 8:01 PM
To: Mark
Cummings
Cc:
STDS-802-19@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 802TVWS
(WHITESPACE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Subject: RE: TVWS Coexistence Plan -
Deliverables
Mark,
Comments below. I think it will useful to discuss these further on
tomorrow?s call.
Steve
From: Mark
Cummings [mailto:markcummings@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 3:23
PM
To: Shellhammer,
Steve
Cc:
STDS-802-19@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 802TVWS
(WHITESPACE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Subject: Re: TVWS Coexistence Plan -
Deliverables
Steve,
I proposed by email before the call,
discussed on the call and received support for
including:
1.)
Collaboration. If
coexistence is understood to include collaboration, then I am
OK.
SJS> My personal
opinion is that coexistence mechanisms could either include collaboration or
not, depending on the technique. So I am fine with collaborative
coexistence techniques.
2.)
Use Cases. If scenarios is
understood to mean Use Cases, then I am OK.
SJS> I am not sure if they
are the same or not. I think Use Cases are descriptions of how the
networks are used. I think information is useful in a coexistence
scenario. However, Use Cases can be separate when they focus on the
utility of the network, how it is used, what services are provided, etc.
So if the focus is more on how the networks are used and not specifically
focused on how they coexist, then I would consider this a separate
topic.
3.) Non 802. If TV White Space Networks is
understood to include non 802 devices, then I am
OK.
SJS> To me ?TV
white space networks? could include both 802 and non-802 network.
However, Winston suggested that it be just 802
networks.
Hope these clarifications
are helpful,
Managing Partner,
enVia Technology Partners, Inc.
Chair, Use Case
Ad Hoc, IEEE P1900.5
Special Member
Board of Directors SVC Wireless (Silicon Valley China Wireless
Technology Association)
Member Special
Committee, Technical Committee of Software Radio, IEICE, Japan
On Apr 13, 2009, at 1:08 PM, Shellhammer, Steve
wrote:
I currently have the following set of potential deliverables on TVWS
coexistence,
· An IEEE 802.19
document on coexistence scenarios of TV white space
networks
· An IEEE 802.19
document on coexistence metrics for measuring the level of coexistence between
TV white space networks
· An IEEE 802.19
document on coexistence mechanisms for enhancing coexistence between TV white
space networks
· An IEEE 802.19
document on harmonized mechanisms to protect broadcast incumbents in TV white
space
Were any other
possible deliverables proposed on last week?s conference
call?
I will put
together a short straw poll on whether these should be Study Group
deliverables. Before I run the straw poll I just wanted to see if I
should add any other items to the list.
IEEE 802.19 TVWS
Coexistence SG,
I have been thinking about the best way to agree on a set of
deliverables. I recommend the following process.
1. Select a set of
possible deliverables ? This can be done on next week?s conference call via
email reflector
2. Straw poll each
of the possible deliverables to see if there is support for making it an
actual deliverable ? This can be done via email.
I recommend on
next week?s conference call the SG develop the ?List of possible
deliverables.? I will not be on the call so Ivan will run the
call.
Here are my
suggested deliverables,
· An IEEE 802.19
document on coexistence scenarios of TV white space
networks
· An IEEE 802.19
document on coexistence metrics for measuring the level of coexistence between
TV white space networks
· An IEEE 802.19
document on coexistence mechanisms for enhancing coexistence between TV white
space networks
On
next week?s call and via email please decide on any other ?potential
deliverables.? I would expect all the deliverables to be documents of
one form or another, but someone may have another idea of a good deliverable.
Ivan or Mark can then email me any other potential
deliverables.
After we have
such a list I will run an email straw poll to see how much support there is
for each of these. This is just a straw poll so we need to think about
how much support is needed to decide that the SG wants to develop such a
deliverable. I will recommend that we only develop deliverables that
receive 75% support. If there is less support than that I would say that
development of such a document would be optional. I don?t want to commit
to developing something that has marginal support.
On tonight?s call we discussed the draft TVWS coexistence
plan,
We will continue that discussion on next week?s conference
call.
If you have comments on the plan you can also make those comments on the
802.19 email reflector. If you are not already on the email reflector
you can join here,
If you have comments on the plan please be specific regarding what changes you
would like to make to the document. You can recommend adding text,
changing text or removing text. Please specify what changes you would
recommend. That would enable others to comment on your recommended
changes.
|