| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Mark, I think that is a good idea. Going forward if someone wants to have a straw
poll please provide it to me before or during a conference call so we can agree
on the wording and I can run the straw poll after the meeting. Steve From: Mark Cummings
[mailto:markcummings@xxxxxxxxx] Steve, This discussion has led me to the following suggestion.
That we conduct straw polls only after a thorough discussion on at least
one telecon; that the group as a whole agree that the straw poll will be
helpful; and that the group as a group craft / agree on the wording. Mark Mark Cummings, Ph.D. +1 650 854 4406 348 Camino al Lago Atherton, Ca. 94027 Managing Partner, enVia Technology Partners, Inc. Special Member Board of Directors SVC Wireless (Silicon Valley
China Wireless Technology Association) Member Special Committee, Technical Committee of Software Radio,
IEICE, Japan On Aug 13, 2009, at 3:15 PM, Reznik, Alex wrote:
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. I will check it later this week and send out the results. Steve
|