| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi, Mariana, Thanks for your detailed
reply. However, I think you missed the point that I was trying to make. Straw
polling poorly worded questions or questions with intrinsic dependencies on the
responses to previous questions makes things much too complex. One can never
be sure how people interpreted the question - and therefore what the results
of the poll really mean. I think we had a couple of
fairly well worded polls which should provide a pretty good view of the group’s
opinion on matters. And if you want to see how the group feels on a different
matter, I would imagine that Steve will entertain the request (I don’t want to
speak for Steve, but in my experience he’s a very reasonable gentlemen). All
that I ask is that the question be crafted so as to permit an un-ambiguous
answer. Best regards, Alex From: Mariana Goldhamer
[mailto:marianna.goldhammer@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Hi Alex, The TVWS Coex target should be two fold:
Lets address 2. The coexistence inside a frequency channel is realized by the
separation, IN TIME, of the medium access. In our example, the separation is
between the receive activity of the subscriber and the WLAN activity. In this
way the WLAN system will not create interference to the receive activity of the
mentioned subscriber. There are different general approached defined by each
standardization group: - 802.11 is realizing the time separation by using
“listen before send”. - .16h and .22 use slotting in the time domain. Each standardization group has defined its own “medium access
protocol”; our target is to create a new one which is suitable to everyone. At high-levels, systems exchange information and may also control
the medium access (powers, detection levels, active slots, etc.). How can you do that without defining first what the medium access
is? Regards, Mariana From: Reznik, Alex
[mailto:Alex.Reznik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Steve, I have an issue with this
question, specifically the highlighted portion 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 This is what would be called a
leading question – it presumes the existence of the “above….” as a
precondition, whereas I believe, based on what I heard in the discussion, that
the group views the two approaches as complimentary to each other and not one
dependent on the other. Alex From: whitespace@xxxxxxxx
[mailto:whitespace@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Shellhammer, Steve Marianna,
Thanks, I will set up the two straw poll questions and send them out. Steve 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
|