[802.19] URGENT: 802.19 vote on CAD doc19-19-0024-05
Hi All
The vote on CAD doc19-19-0024-05 will end this coming Tuesday. We
were heading more or less in the right direction until the last meeting
in Vienna, when it was essentially gutted. Below you will find some
thoughts assembled from various members of 802.15 on why this is the
case. I strongly encourage you to vote NO or if you have already
voted and not voted NO, to change your vote to NO. Also attached is
the comment spreadsheet submitted by Billy Verso. Feel free to pile
on. It is vitally important we take coexistence seriously. As an
aside, I attended the 802.11/3GPP Coex workshop in Vienna. I found
it interesting how different the positions of key 802.11 people were when
the shoe was on the other foot.
For your convenience, the document is provided at:
https://mentor.ieee.org/802.19/dcn/19/19-19-0024-05-0000-recommended-text-on-802-coexistence-process.docx
Go here to vote:
https://mentor.ieee.org/802.19/poll-vote?p=33100008&t=33100008
Here are the thoughts we put together:
1.The version that is currently being proposed is so weak as to be not requiring any analysis at all. The final changes that were made relegated any listed standard criteria as simple as power, band, etc. as a may be considered. There is no requirement to provide any analysis, even a paper analysis of the impact of the new technology on the incumbents. Further,
2. It does not address the problem that started the conversation, which is to provide clear and unambiguous guidance to Working Groups as to what is required. The goal is a consistent understanding of what is expected. That is not provided in this much weakened version. Specifically:
- a.There is no valid reason for a new wireless standard, or an amendment to a wireless standard to not require coexistence assessment. To answer "not applicable" in the CSD before the task group has begun is absurd unless the scope of the project specifically prohibits any changes to the MAC or PHY. It is hard to imagine any amendment that does not affect the MAC or the PHY. Likewise for any new standard that includes a PHY or MAC. Standards that are above the MAC, e.g. ULP, might arguably be unlikely to impact coexistence, but even that should be assessed
- b. As previously noted by James Gilb, not until the WG has a technically complete draft can the WG know what impact it might have on coexistence, and (obviously) if they then determine the impact is nil, the CA document is the mechanism to capture the conclusions and rational for reaching that conclusion.
- c.The only valid reason that a CA is "N/A" is if the project scope prohibits changes to over the air behavior such as signaling, channel access methods, time of channel occupancy, and so forth. Instead we should instead simply remove this question from the CSD and require a CA for all wireless projects.
- d. It provides no consequences of failing to meet the CA requirement. Under the text as written, there is no consequence if the WG simply ignores the requirement. The WG11 chair has pointed out repeatedly that the reason the CADs produced are often void of technical content is that no one volunteers to do the work. To address this we must make completion of, and approval of, the CAD a requirement to begin SA balloting. Then it becomes a clear, unambiguous requirement, just as completing WG ballots, comment resolution, and so on: it is simply part of the job and if you don't do it the draft does not move forward. Anything less and we continue the illusion that we consider coexistence contrary to the fact that it is not consistently being done.
- e. While this additional text in the document under ballot provides more guidance on what should go into a CAD than before (which was zero), it still isn't much help. Identifying other 802 standards that share the bands is of course an essential step which must be done to know what to "consider', it provides no clues as what "consider' should include. At a minimum we should require the CAD consider, for each identified standard, if it is expected to operate in the same space and time, how co-located operation impacts the subject system ("how they affect us"), how the subject system affects other standards ("how we affect them"), and what mitigation factors are likely. We then should encourage further assessment of how coexistence impacts might be mitigated.
At the end of the day, we need to continue the discussion and arrive at something meaningful. My hope is a significant number of you will agree to that.
Best
Bob
Bob Heile, Ph.D
Chair, IEEE 802.15 Working Group on Wireless Specialty Networks
Chair IEEE 2030.5 Working Group for Smart Energy Profile 2
Co-Chair IEEE P2030 Task Force 3 on Smartgrid Communications
11 Robert Toner Blvd, Suite 5-301
North Attleboro, MA 02763 USA
Mobile: +1-781-929-4832
email: bheile@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-19 list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-19&A=1
Attachment:
Comments-on-802p19-motion-to-approve-19-19-0024-05.xls
Description: Binary data