Is it possible to reuse some existing definitions?
I’m not saying we have too but it would be great if we used nomenclature
consistent with other standards.
These are from 802.15.2
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.
3.1.3 coexistence mechanism:
A
method for reducing the interference of one system, which is performing a
task,
on another different wireless system, that is performing its task.
3.1.4 collaborative coexistence mechanism:
A
coexistence mechanism in which the two systems shall
exchange information.
These are from 802.16h
3.136 Coexistence: A
state of acceptable co-channel and/or adjacent channel operation of two or more
radio
systems (possibly using different
wireless access technologies) within the same geographical area.
3.138 Coexistence Control Channel (CXCC): A
logical channel composed of a periodic sequence of time
slots,
which may be used for synchronization, cumulated interference sensing per
sub-frame and broadcast
of
the coordinated coexistence related information. CXCC is used for
WirelessMAN-CX, and may be used
for
WirelessMAN-UCP.
3.139 Coexistence Frame (CX-Frame): A
pre-defined sequence of 802.16 DL and UL sub-frames which
in
conjunction with associated operational rules is used for facilitating
coexistence between systems.
3.140 Coexistence Messaging Mechanism: The
messaging mechanism defined in WirelessMAN-CX to
exchange
information specifically between wireless systems with the same PHY profiles.
3.141 Coexistence Messaging Interval (CMI): A
unique repetitive sequence of intervals defined in CXCC
and
claimed by a system. It is used for broadcasting system's main radio parameters
to other systems in its
Coexistence
Community using always the same predefined PHY parameters.
3.142 Coexistence Protocol (CXP): An
inter-system protocol for improving coexistence through the
exchange
of information, using communication over the air or back-haul. Messages for
inter-system communication
over
the air and primitives for communication over the backhaul are provided.
3.143 Coexistence Signaling: The
signaling mechanism defined in WirelessMAN-CX to exchange information
between wireless systems with or without
the same PHY profiles.
I’m not sure what definitions 1900
has…
Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
Engineering Fellow
BAE Systems - Electronics, Intelligence, & Support
(EI&S)
Office: +1 973.633.6344
Cell: +1 973.229.9520
email: matthew.sherman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Benjamin A.
Rolfe [mailto:ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009
9:05 PM
To: STDS-802-19@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.19] Mariana's
Straw Poll
OK, I'll take the bait...
I would say, yes, sharing a geo database is a form of
coordination if that data is used to decide what other spectrum users are
likely to be in the spectrum. I'm not saying I think it is a good
coexistence coordination mechanism, but it is a coordination
mechanism.
I would say depending on a database requires a control
channel, to access the database. Unless you figure that every
device has the database burned into its local memory...but then, how would it
be kept up to date? Oh, that would require a control channel....
I am still just not getting this: how can a wireless devices
access the database at all? Seems a self referential loop: it needs to access
the medium to get to the database to figure out if it is OK to access the
medium. I don't get that, but then, I'm new to this WS stuff. So
here's a shot at a generalized definition:
coordinated coexistence: Actively exchanging information
between systems so that spectrum access can be coordinated to assure
coexistence.
There you go, an opening shot...fire away!
================================
Benjamin A. Rolfe
"Even a fish could stay out of trouble if it could
learn to keep its mouth shut" - Anonymous fisherman
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, August
12, 2009 2:27 PM
Subject: Re: [802.19]
Mariana's Straw Poll
I suggest we add "coordinated" to the list of
terms we need to define before we get too far down the road. Is sharing a
geolocation database considered coordination, or is a "control
channel" required?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, August
12, 2009 4:11 PM
Subject: Re: [802.19]
Mariana's Straw Poll
Those two questions beg some additional comments:
The second asks TWO questions: should a coordination
protocol be developed, and if so, centralized or distributed?
The my answer is "yes" and
"distributed".
It seems to me the definition of WS is coordinated
access. But not all devices will be capable of common signaling (i.e.
able to exchange information with each other). This may complicate
coexistence a bit :0). A centralized solution assumes all participants
can exchange information. A distributed approach can take advantage of
shared information, but also can provide independent means. Seems like all the
focus is already on the centralized approach, which doesn't seem to account for
all potential spectrum users, so a good thing for 802 to provide is an
alternative distributed coexistence strategy that fills the 'gap' so to speak.
Just a thought....probably redundant, but offered FWIW.
================================
Benjamin A. Rolfe
Blind Creek Associates
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, August
12, 2009 11:03 AM
Subject: [802.19] Mariana's
Straw Poll
All,
Mariana has suggested another straw poll with two questions.
Please fill out your responses at,
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=DlKy49q0Y5KLLXRuTzbsWQ_3d_3d
Steve