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
Hi Alex,
The TVWS Coex target should be two fold:
- Sharing of the spectrum with those systems for which is needed sensing;
- Sharing of a channel between different 802 systems. The most relevant scenario is an 802.16 or 802.22 subscriber, at the margin of its cell, interfered by a WLAN system, located in that specific subscriber proximity. The sharing of a channel takes place when there are not enough free channels. If there are enough free channels, any system can use dynamic frequency selection and the need for a PAR is not stringent.
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
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
Marianna,
Thanks, I will set up the two straw poll questions and send them out.
Steve
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
Why do you want to ask Question #2? That is basically one of the two questions in the current straw poll.
Steve
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
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
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
Here is the straw poll that we developed during today’s 802.19 TVWS coexistence conference call.
There are two questions.
I will check it later this week and send out the results.
Steve
************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(190).
************************************************************************************
************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(42).
************************************************************************************
************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(42).
************************************************************************************
************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(190).
************************************************************************************
************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(42).
************************************************************************************
************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(43).
************************************************************************************
************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(190).
************************************************************************************
************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(42).
************************************************************************************
************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(42).
************************************************************************************
************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(190).
************************************************************************************
************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(42).
************************************************************************************
************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(42).
************************************************************************************