G’day Bob
I am not sure which “key 802.11 people” you are referring to or what positions you think they took at the Coexistence Workshop, or
elsewhere. What I can tell you is that the workshop survey indicated 83% of respondents wanted IEEE 802.11 WG and 3GPP RAN to collaborate and coordinate on coexistence in the future at the same level on coexistence issues as in the past, or better. A lot
of people appear to believe collaboration and coordination are key to good coexistence. BTW I will publish the full survey results in the next day or so.
The key message from 802.11 WG in relation to coexistence with NR-U/LAA/NR-U etc has always been
collaboration and coordination. The nice aspect of the current proposed rules being balloted by 802.19 is that they define a process to enable a conversation between the WG developing the standard in question and other WGs (with 802.19 as a proxy) about
coexistence. The conversation (aka collaboration and coordination) then occurs through the well proven IEEE-SA comment resolution process.
The alternative being proposed by some 802.19 voters appears to provide 802.19 with an effective veto. This is terrible way to promote
collaboration and coordination. Indeed, I fear all that would happen is that 802.19 would suddenly discover it is much bigger than it currently is, and that poor coexistence would be blasted through without a proper conversation. This would be a terrible
outcome from a governance perspective and for coexistence.
Andrew
PS I voted “approve” with comments as below:
|
Comment |
Proposed change |
|
802.19 WG shall have one vote in WG letter ballots that include CA documents" This text could be improved editorially. It does not make sense |
Change to, "The IEEE 802.19 WG may have one vote in any WG letter ballots that include a CA document." |
|
Clause 13 of the proposed IEEE 802 OM states, "The IEEE 802.19 WG evaluates the CA document, and submits comments on the CA document
to the WG letter ballot" This text could be improved editorially. The second sentence is not written in a way that suggests any particular action. It would
be better to say what the WG vote is based on in an active way, rather than some vague sentence about the process. |
Change to, "The IEEE 802.19 WG's vote, and any associated comments, shall be based on its evaluation of the CA document" |
|
The proposed IEEE 802 LMSC Chair's Guidelines and EC Policy Decisions states, "The CA document includes an assessment of the impact
on coexistence on the identified standards. The assessment should consider aspects such as: transmit power, bandwidth, duty cycle, channel access methods and proximity" The first sentence suggests that an assessment is required for all the identified standards. The problem with this requirement is that
it discourages the WG from identifying a full list of standards, because, while it is easy to identify standards operating in the same or adjacent channels, it is not always easy for the WG developing the standards to undertake coexistence assessments. The
assessments will often require knowledge not available in the WG. I am similarly concerned that any requirement reverses the onus of proof so that the WG developing the new standards is required to
show there is not a problem, rather than those that believe there is a problem (with the expertise) having to show there is a problem. This is not good practice. |
A much better approach is to encourage the WG developing the standard to undertake coexistence assessments (as much as they can), and
to set up the process where IEEE 802.19 votes as one that enables a conversation about coexistence to occur in a formal manner (ie under the rules of ballot comment resolution) between the WG developing the standard and other stakeholders (working through
the IEEE 802.19 WG). Change to, "The CA document shall include any coexistence assessments on the impact of the proposed new standard on the identified
standards that have been agreed by the WG developing the new standard. The coexistence assessments should consider aspects such as transmit power, bandwidth, duty cycle, channel access methods and proximity" |
From: Bob Heile <bheile@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, 4 August 2019 10:09 PM
To: STDS-802-19@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [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
|
|
Virus-free.
www.avast.com |
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
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