| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Jon, IEEE
802.19 has adjourned for the week so we cannot make formal responses to the
three rebuttal comments. However,
I can personally attempt to answer the rebuttal comments. These are only
my personal responses and do not necessarily represent the responses of the
802.19 group. Rebuttal Comment #1 ·
It is the position of myself and of the 802.19 (I can say this
since we discussed this during the meeting) that adoption of the 802.19.1 TVWS
Coexistence standard should not be mandated by the EC. I have told the
802.19 members that the standard needs to be valuable and attractive to adopt and
that MAC/PHY standards should benefit from adopting the standard ·
It is true that if a MAC/PHY standard does adopt the 802.19.1
standard there will likely be some MAC/PHY capabilities that wound need to be
supported. For example, in order to change channel of operation to avoid
mutual interference the MAC/PHY standard would need to support dynamic
frequency selection (DFS) as is supported in 802.11h. ·
I hope that clarifies the issue Rebuttal Comment #2 ·
The 1900.4a PAR (IEEE Standard for Architectural Building Blocks
Enabling Network-Device Distributed Decision Making for Optimized Radio
Resource Usage in Heterogeneous Wireless Access Networks - Amendment:
Architecture and Interfaces for Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks in White Space
Frequency Bands) does not use the term “coexistence” in its PAR. ·
There was a presentation by the chair of 1900.4 in 802.19 on
SCC41 and the P1900 series of projects (https://mentor.ieee.org/802.19/dcn/09/19-09-0064-00-tvws-introduction-of-ieee-scc41-and-ieee-1900-series-standardizations-and-coexistence-scenarios-for-tvws.pdf)
·
My understanding of 1900.4 and the 1900.4a amendment is that it
is focused on cellular network and is very high-level for managing networks ·
The 1900.4a as an amendment to 1900.4 to extend the Architecture
and Interfaces to the White Space band ·
I hope that clarifies the issue Rebuttal Comment #3 ·
Since 802.19 has adjourned for the week I cannot just change the
wording of the scope myself. I think that would be out of order for me to
personally change the scope ·
My personal opinion is that the scope should not include a
statement about which MAC/PHY standard should adopt the coexistence standard,
so I think such an edit is not the best idea ·
I hope that clarifies the issue Regards, Steve From: Jon Rosdahl
[mailto:jrosdahl@xxxxxxxx] Gentlemen,
I failed to cc you on the e-mail I sent to the 802.11 reflector last night
about the discussion we will have on our feedback to your responses. below
is the links to the relevant documents. If
I have a pointer to a document from your group that has changed please let me
know. Thanks, Jon -----
Original Message ----- From: Jon Rosdahl Sent: Thursday, November
19, 2009 7:43 PM Subject: Rebuttal and
feedback to 802.19 and 802.22 on their Response to our PAR comments -- also
802.21 Hello,
The 802.11 PAR adhoc met today and prepared some rebuttals to the responses
from 802.22 and 802.19. We will discuss these submissions during the
Closing Plenary. I have included pointers to the material that may be of
interest in preparing discussion. 802.21 has accepted our comments. 802.11
Comments, feedback and rebuttals Current
802.19 PAR and 5C Current
802.22 PAR and 5C Current
802.22.3 PAR and 5C The
full response from 802.19 The
full response from 802.22 802.22 PAR Doc: 22-09-236 The updated PAR and 5C can be found at: Regards, Jon ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |