Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802.19] Straw Poll Survey Results

Ben,

 

SCC41 can submit directly to ITU-R (where WP5A has a liaison to external organizations) regarding CRS. That liaison was circulated to both IEEE 802 and SCC41 in the late June or early July time frame.

 

The SCC41 chair and I have been in contact. It would be good if the SCC41 and IEEE 802 inputs to the November WP5A meeting were mutually supportive. Indeed, part of  my role as the IEEE SA liaison to ITU-R is to try and avoid conflicting inputs from IEEE to the ITU-R. The deadline for contributions to WP5A is the opening day of the November plenary. Work needs to be done either in Hawaii or with a definite work plan after the Hawaii meeting.

 

Glad to discuss.

 

Regards,

 

Mike

 

From: Benjamin A. Rolfe [mailto:ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 16:32
To: STDS-802-19@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.19] Straw Poll Survey Results

 

Rich has hit on a key point.

 

I agree that the 'straw poll' mechanism may not have been the ideal tool in this circumstance, though it seemed reasonable at the start. But the discussion it stirred has, I think, been very appropriate and useful.


Rich's point about SCC41 (which is what P1900 is now called SCC41 as best I can tell) brings up a larger issue, which is how the 802.19 efforts will align with the other efforts, such as SCC41. I am not at all clear on how the work in SCC41 relates to what is going on in 802, but from face value it seems like there is overlap.  As every 802 wireless group seems to have eyes on the TVWS, establishing a clear and productive relationship with SCC41 and 802 would be useful. Perhaps a joint meeting (or meetings?) can be arranged between SCC41 and interested persons in 802 to help understand the unique roles ("identities") of 802.19 and SCC41.  That would seem very helpful in defining the scope for 802.19 TVWS coexistence work.

 

Just a thought...

 

-Ben

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Rich Kennedy

Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 9:20 AM

Subject: Re: [802.19] Straw Poll Survey Results

 

Mariana::

 

Two comments:

 

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.

 

Rich

----- 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).
************************************************************************************