| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Matt, I think you have
hit on the difference between and 802 rule and an 802 unwritten rule. It would be
useful if the EC confirmed your position since we have all heard for many years
that 802 does Layer 1 and 2, nothing more. I think for some
of this coexistence work we may need to go higher so I hope the EC does not
object. Steve From: whitespace@xxxxxxxx
[mailto:whitespace@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) Hi Marianna, I have no objection you your straw poll, but would like to know
that origin of your statement that the higher layers are out of scope. The IEEE 802 scope statement from the P&P reads: The scope of the LMSC is to develop and
maintain networking standards and recommended practices for local, metropolitan, and
other area networks, using an open and accredited process, and
to advocate them on a global basis. While I don’t think we should try and do the job of the IETF, I see
a lack of ‘end to end’ standards for the protocols we develop. For
instance, WiMAX in essence standardizes the 802.16 architecture and protocol
aspects above the MAC layer because (in my opinion) no standards organization
takes on the task. The identity of many systems (such as WiMAX and WiFi)
is directly tied to the MAC/PHY they are based on. In my opinion there is
nothing that keeps this group from creating systems level end to end standards
that include work above the MAC. However, I encourage that we leverage
work being done by other SDO as much as possible and not reinvent the
wheel. Anyway, if you know of other restrictions that I don’t, I’d be
happy to hear them. Best regards, Mat Matthew
Sherman, Ph.D. From: Mariana Goldhamer
[mailto:marianna.goldhammer@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Hi Steve, There are big differences between my Question 2 and the existing
poll Question 2, reproduced below: “Should the group develop a media agnostic (backhaul or wireless)
higher-layer (above layer 2) coexistence protocol and mechanism?” First, my proposal is in the 802 scope (the management is allowed
in 802, while the higher layers not); secondly, it is no need for specifying
“coexistence mechanisms”, as the management may include mechanisms and they are
also covered in my Question 1. It is possible in 802 to define the primitives
(information elements) of a management protocol. The full transport
(higher-layer) protocol may be selected and recommended by the group from the
existing IETF protocols. I hope that the 802 EC will not oppose that the
standard will also include this recommendation. It is missing, in my Question 1, a definition for “agreed”. In my
view, should be agreement between the interested 802 WGs. Agreement means that
each of the relevant WGs approve the medium access protocol (and the management
part) and this is a condition for the standard approval. This approval is also
some sort of indication that the protocol will be really implemented by the
industry. Developing a standard not recognized by the interested parties does
not make sense. Regards, Mariana From: Shellhammer, Steve
[mailto:sshellha@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Why do you want to ask Question
#2? That is basically one of the two questions in the current straw poll. Steve From: Mariana Goldhamer
[mailto:marianna.goldhammer@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Hi Steve, Thanks for your offer J Probably the best will work for me the following: 1. Should there be a
coordinated coexistence mechanism that relies on an agreed medium access
protocol? Yes No 2. Should the group
develop, in addition to the above coordinated coexistence mechanism, a media
agnostic (backhaul or wireless) management protocol (centralized and/or
distributed)? Yes No Regards, Mariana From: Shellhammer, Steve
[mailto:sshellha@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Marianna,
I cannot change the straw poll once I start it since that will disturb the
results. Also, we agreed on that wording during the conference call.
I could however run another straw poll. Based on your email would the
following straw poll work for you? Should
there be a coordinated coexistence mechanism that relies on an agreed medium
access protocol? ·
Yes ·
No Steve From: Mariana Goldhamer
[mailto:marianna.goldhammer@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Steve, My preference is not included in the straw poll. A coordinated
mechanism not necessarily needs inter-system communication. Would you please include in the straw-poll a 3d variant? Should there be a coordinated coexistence mechanism that relies on
an agreed medium access protocol? In addition, the operation of such protocol may benefit from
inter-system communication or management, such that should be possible to
select this option together with the other options. In case when the management or the communications are not feasible
from different reasons, such a mechanism can still work and provide
improvements. Regards, Mariana From: whitespace@xxxxxxxx
[mailto:whitespace@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Shellhammer, Steve Here is the straw poll that we developed during today’s
802.19 TVWS coexistence conference call. There are two questions. http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=J72GB3TSQWDjygAAOWJHvw_3d_3d I will check it later this week and send out the results. Steve
|