G’day Roger
In line in red
Andrew
From:
Roger Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, 10 August 2015 9:34 AM
To: Andrew Myles (amyles); STDS-802-19@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.19] More changes
I have a few additional comments that can be discussed on the call:
Slide 7 says: "3GPP TR 36.889 concludes that a Category 4 LBT
scheme is the best way to ensure fair coexistence
(with
Wi-Fi), at least for downlink (DL) access." This statement is not quite accurate. The closest I see in 36.889 is "It is recommended that a Category 4 LBT mechanism is the baseline at least for LAA DL transmission bursts containing PDSCH." An approximate version,
suitable for the presentation, could be: "3GPP TR 36.889 recommends a Category 4 LBT mechanism for downlink (DL) data".
How about?
3GPP TR 36.889 recommends a Category 4 LBT mechanism, with many similarities to 802.11, for downlink (DL) data based on work undertaken by 3GPP during the first half of 2015
Slide 16 refers to "forcing LAA to use similar timing parameters to 802.11". "Forcing" is a poor choice of wording here, since it hints at aggression. Better would be "specifying LAA with timing parameters similar to those of 802.11..."
Done
Slide 37: We could add a bullet suggesting a cooperative collaboration: "In the future, it may be possible to reciprocally specify in LAA and 802.11 standards a mechanism for each to interact with collision avoidance mechanisms specified in the other standard."
I agree, but am struggling to find space or exactly the right place for this idea. Would you object to leaving it out for the moment? I could mention this concept as part of the summary on slide 41
Roger
August 9, 2015 at 5:01 PM
G’day Steve
Responses in-line in red
Andrew
From: Shellhammer, Steve [mailto:sshellha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, 8 August 2015 3:56 AM
To: Andrew Myles (amyles);
STDS-802-19@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: More changes
Andrew,
Thanks for the update. I have a few comments. Talk to you on Monday.
Steve
--------------------------------------
General
·
Please merge all three presentations by Monday so we can vote on a single presentation on the call
I will have it published in the next few hours
Slide 12
·
I think the following statement is inaccurate: “IEEE 802 were told in 2014 during a presentation from 3GPP that influencing LAA required participation in 3GPP, and alignment with LTE operators”
o
I recommend it be replaced with the more accurate statement: “IEEE 802 were told in 2014 during a presentation from 3GPP that to influence the 3GPP process they can send their comments as IEEE via the official
communication channels (LSs) but it is probably best if they participate / make their points directly in the 3GPP debate convincing as many companies as possible about their thesis, including operators that have an important say in the process, and many of
them have a Wi-Fi business to protect”
o
By the way the presentation was in January 2015 if you would also like to fix the date.
·
It would also be good to clarify that the presentation also covered the work on LTE/Wi-Fi interworking
I disagree with your summary of what was said in January in response to a question I personally asked. That said, your summary actually includes the point I think we are making, which is that 3GPP processes
are set up so that external stakeholders do not have a sufficiently effective way to influence LAA. I have summarized your summary (there is not space for the full text) to
IEEE 802 were told by 3GPP RAN in January 2015 that the best way to influence 3GPP, particularly operator members, is to participate directly in 3GPP
I hope that resolves the issue
·
I recommend dropping the word “arbitrary” from the phrase “Many IEEE 802 participants believe that 3GPP has arbitrarily dismissed at many of the comments received via LS’s from IEEE 802.” I do not see any basis
for saying this
Done
Slide 17
·
Change “Def” to “Define” At least one person on the last call said they did not know what “Def” means
Done
Slide 19
·
Lots of 802.11 acronyms which have not been written out. This makes it harder for the audience. Please write them out the first time they are used.
I am not sure the written out acronyms actually help but, I have added them anyway
From: Andrew Myles (amyles) [mailto:amyles@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2015 12:25 AM
To: STDS-802-19@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [802.19] More changes
G’day all
I have received multiple objections from 802.11 experts to slide 39. As a result, I have turned it into a slide saying more work is needed
I have also added animation to the backup slide
See
https://mentor.ieee.org/802.19/dcn/15/19-15-0063-07-0000-proposal-for-ieee-802-submission-to-3gpp.pptx for latest
Roger, when will you send me your revised deck of integration? Ben has sent me his
Andrew
|
|
||
|
Andrew Myles |
Cisco Systems Limited |
|
August 7, 2015 at 11:55 AM
Andrew,
Thanks for the update. I have a few comments. Talk to you on Monday.
Steve
--------------------------------------
General
·
Please merge all three presentations by Monday so we can vote on a single presentation on the call
Slide 12
·
I think the following statement is inaccurate: “IEEE 802 were told in 2014 during a presentation from 3GPP that influencing LAA required participation in 3GPP, and alignment with LTE operators”
o
I recommend it be replaced with the more accurate statement: “IEEE 802 were told in 2014 during a presentation from 3GPP that to influence the 3GPP process they can send their comments as IEEE via the
official communication channels (LSs) but it is probably best if they participate / make their points directly in the 3GPP debate convincing as many companies as possible about their thesis, including operators that have an important say in the process, and
many of them have a Wi-Fi business to protect”
o
By the way the presentation was in January 2015 if you would also like to fix the date.
o
It would also be good to clarify that the presentation also covered the work on LTE/Wi-Fi interworking
·
I recommend dropping the word “arbitrary” from the phrase “Many IEEE 802 participants believe that 3GPP has arbitrarily dismissed at many of the comments received via LS’s from IEEE 802.” I do not
see any basis for saying this.
Slide 17
·
Change “Def” to “Define” At least one person on the last call said they did not know what “Def” means
Slide 19
·
Lots of 802.11 acronyms which have not been written out. This makes it harder for the audience. Please write them out the first time they are used.
From: Andrew Myles (amyles) [mailto:amyles@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2015 12:25 AM
To: STDS-802-19@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [802.19] More changes
G’day all
I have received multiple objections from 802.11 experts to slide 39. As a result, I have turned it into a slide saying more work is needed
I have also added animation to the backup slide
See
https://mentor.ieee.org/802.19/dcn/15/19-15-0063-07-0000-proposal-for-ieee-802-submission-to-3gpp.pptx for latest
Roger, when will you send me your revised deck of integration? Ben has sent me his
Andrew
|
|
||
|
Andrew Myles |
Cisco Systems Limited |
|
August 7, 2015 at 1:25 AM
G’day all
I have received multiple objections from 802.11 experts to slide 39. As a result, I have turned it into a slide saying more work is needed
I have also added animation to the backup slide
See
https://mentor.ieee.org/802.19/dcn/15/19-15-0063-07-0000-proposal-for-ieee-802-submission-to-3gpp.pptx for latest
Roger, when will you send me your revised deck of integration? Ben has sent me his
Andrew
|
|
||
|
Andrew Myles |
Cisco Systems Limited |
|