Mariana,
You
suggest time sharing and then ask how communicating between devices will help.
Well, if you have no communication between devices how to you schedule time
sharing? How do you determine who to share with and under what conditions? I
don’t know how it can be done without some form of communication. If you can describe
how it can be done without any form of communication I think that would be an
interesting presentation.
Steve
From: Mariana Goldhamer
[mailto:marianna.goldhammer@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 10:17 AM
To: Shellhammer, Steve; Rich Kennedy; stds-802-19@xxxxxxxx;
WHITESPACE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Straw Poll Survey Results
Hi Steve and Rich,
Thanks for clarifications J
I would like to propose that it will be established a methodology
for addressing the PAR scope: the proponents of the different approaches should
explain how their approach resolves the channel sharing between 802.11 on one
side and 802.22/802.16 on the other side, such that an CPE at cell margin will
not be interfered by a WLAN.
For example, medium access such to ensure separation in the time
domain between 802.11 and 802.16/802.22 clearly resolves the problem. This is
different from any existing standard, including P.1900.
To me it is not clear how just communication between systems
resolves this problem. Can anybody clarify?
Regards,
Mariana
From: Shellhammer, Steve
[mailto:sshellha@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 8:02 PM
To: Rich Kennedy; Mariana Goldhamer; stds-802-19@xxxxxxxx;
WHITESPACE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Straw Poll Survey Results
All,
I agree that it is too early to read too much into these straw polls. We
need to understand that these are just that, only straw polls.
They are intended to get a measure on the pulse of the group.
There does seem to be reasonable support for some form of coordination between
TVWS devices, for coexistence. What that means in more detail needs to be
considered further.
Once we have a little more detail we can always craft a few more straw polls on
more specific proposals.
For example, if we assume that communication over the backhaul can be
accomplished then we need to put some framework around what type of
coordination could be performed.
Steve
From: Rich Kennedy [mailto:rkennedy1000@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 9:20 AM
To: Mariana Goldhamer; Shellhammer, Steve; stds-802-19@xxxxxxxx;
WHITESPACE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Straw Poll Survey Results
1.
These polls were taken without any sort of agreement on the definition of
coordination. This lumps together those that believe that a shared
goelocation database constitutes coordination, with those that believe an
independent control channel is required for coordination. I see nothing
decisive in such a poll.
2.
With the PAR scope you suggested it will be difficult within the 5 Criteria to
show how it is "Substantially different from other IEEE 802
standards", as P1900 is specifically looking at this issue, and both
802.11 and 802.22 have to deal with this issue in their own projects if they
have any hope of success with this unlicensed spectrum. And it seems
to me that on the call two weeks ago there were still question regarding
whether this group will write one PAR or many PARs, and whether those PARs will
be directed at a project or projects within 802.19, or for the other groups
specifically working on other TVWS PARs, namely 802.22 and 802.11.
This
equation still has two many unknowns to try and force a solution out of it.
-----
Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, August 16,
2009 4:32 AM
Subject: RE: Straw Poll
Survey Results
Hi Steve,
I see that the responses of both straw polls show the highest
levels of support for the following elements which should be included in the
PAR scope:
1.Coordinated coexistence
mechanism, relaying on some form of inter-network communication
2.Coordinated coexistence
mechanism, relaying on an agreed medium access protocol.
There is a lower level of support for higher-layer protocols and
mechanisms (besides, higher-layers are not in the existing 802 scope) and centralized
and/or distributed management.
As in my understanding the “some form of communication” excludes
the higher layers (it is not clear from the straw-poll text, but results from
the poll context), the main focus of the PAR Scope should be:
“Define coordinated coexistence mechanisms between wireless
networks operating in TVWS, based on PHY and MAC air protocols”.
Additional elements may be added, but the group should take into
account the existing limitations of the 802 standardization. As I said in a
different e-mail, and Matt was happy with the idea, we can change the PAR scope
once the 802 EC will decide what “higher-layer” protocols can be addressed in
802.
Note that the control/management it is already in the existing 802
EC Scope.
Regards,
Mariana
From: whitespace@xxxxxxxx
[mailto:whitespace@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Shellhammer, Steve
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 2:36 AM
To: 802. 19 TAG (stds-802-19@xxxxxxxx); 802TVWS
(WHITESPACE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Subject: Straw Poll Survey Results
All,
I thought I would update everyone on the current results of the various straw
polls. These straw polls are still open for anyone else who wants to
vote.
Straw Poll from Tuesday Conference Call
1.
Should there be a coordinated coexistence mechanism,
that relies on some form of communication between TVWS networks?
Yes
29
No
8
2.
Should the group develop a media agnostic (backhaul or
wireless) higher-layer (above layer 2) coexistence protocol and mechanism?
Yes
21
No
14
Straw Poll Requested By Mariana
1.
Should there be a coordinated coexistence mechanism
that relies on an agreed medium access protocol?
Yes
16
No
8
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
14
No
11
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(43).
************************************************************************************
************************************************************************************
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(43).
************************************************************************************
************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer
viruses(42).
************************************************************************************