Good Morning All:
My first thought on this was that we
should not be concerned with non-802 devices because that is a regulatory
issue. But in reality, the way the rules will finally be written Part
15.700 will not exclude non-802 devices, so we should be watching that as
well. However, IMHO the incumbents and the pseudo-incumbents (non-Part 74
wireless microphones) will be dealt with as a regulatory issue, covered by FCC
(and others) rules, not the standards.
Rich Kennedy
Research In Motion
rikennedy@xxxxxxx
mobile: (972) 207-3554
office: (972) 910-3448
From: Wang Haiguang
[mailto:wanghaiguang@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 2:37
AM
To: STDS-802-19@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.19] TVWS
Coexistence Plan - Deliverables
I agree with Mark. It will be better if we can
consider both 802
and non-802 devices in the study.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, April
14, 2009 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: TVWS
Coexistence Plan - Deliverables
Steve,
In general, I agree with all your comments. On the last point, I
think the group needs to discuss Winston's objection. If we create a CB
Band outcome by not considering non 802 devices, it will not be good for
anyone.
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 5:01 PM, Shellhammer, Steve wrote:
Comments below. I think it will useful to discuss these further on
tomorrow’s call.
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
|