Reza, attached are some of
my comments to your original message.
Regards,
Jim
Tomcik
At 06:20 PM 8/1/2003 -0400, Reza Arefi wrote:
Resubmission of
the previous message so that it gets into the archives.
Reza
- -----Original Message-----
- From: owner-stds-80220-coexistence@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-80220-coexistence@majordomo.ieee.org]On
Behalf Of Reza Arefi
- Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 2:22 AM
- To: 802. 20 Coex CG (E-mail)
- Subject: Coexistence CG Kick-off
- Dear Coexistence CG participants,
-
- In its July meeting, 802.20 WG chose to form a Coexistence
Correspondence Group to "study and create a consensus recommendation
on how to address the issues of coexistence of future 802.20 systems
with other wireless technologies deployed in the licensed bands below
3.5 GHz."
- There were two contributions on the issue of coexistence presented
to the WG.
-
- - C802.20-03/72,
by Reza Arefi
- - C802.20-03/61r1,
by Jim Tomcik, Ayman Naguib, and Arak Sutivong
-
- The above two contributions, while consistent on acknowledging the
challenges of the task, presented different views on how to address
the issue within 802.20. While document 72 asked for a Coexistence
Task Group within 802.20 to deal exclusively with the issue in
parallel to the air interface work, document 61r1 suggested that the
matter should be studied by the entire body in series prior to the air
interface work.
Reza, I
believe the above statement is somewhat in error. Document 61r1
suggests that the matter of coexistence should be incorporated into the
standards development process, not necessarily "studied in series prior to
the air interface work." This could be accomplished through suitable
requirements, or evaluation criteria, so that we have some idea how
different technical proposals "stack up" when deployed (for example)
adjacent to current systems.
Reza> Jim, If you want to characterize your opinion
exactly as in the above it is perfectly fine. But I see no error in
the way I presented it. If the coexistence work is to be incorporated into
the requirements and evaluation criteria, this means that
it should be done "prior to air interface work", as I put it,
since these two activities are being done prior to looking at any air
interface proposals. In 802 terms, the air interface development
starts when the WG issues a Call for Proposals for the air
interface.
Samir> Can someone
give specific examples of items in a co-existence study that can
or need to be done before/during/after air-interface development? This
will help us understand and resolve the "timing" issue more
clearly.
-
- The goal of the CG is to come up with a recommendation on the best
way to address coexistence within the WG. The coexistence analyses
themselves are outside the scope of the CG and are left to a
Coexistence document that 802.20 is likely to produce. Therefore, I
see the output of this CG as a concise document (probably one page)
that includes a clear recommendation to the WG and the rationale
behind that recommendation.
Yes, I think this is what we agreed to do.
The document may as you note be 1 page.
- The way I propose to go forward is to have open discussions on the
reflector for a while so that we get a sense of the range of opinions
and the amount of interest in the subject. I will submit to the group
a compilation of all views prior to our first conference call on
August 15. I propose the following four specific topics for discussion
on the reflector so that we stay focused on what we are chartered to
do. Please feel free to choose from the list or suggest other related
topics I might have missed.
I may not be able to make the conference call on August
15 due to other commitments. I will try to get one of our other
802.20 members to attend.
- Given the fact that 802.20 will be deployed in licensed bands,
does 802.20 WG need to address coexistence or should the matter be
left to the regulatory regime in each country?
I don't believe this is a strictly regulatory question - we need to
address the effects of a new technology deployed in bands that are
currently being used by other technologies. A good start would be to
scope the problem by defining the targetted bands of operation and mode of
operation anticipated as of this date.
Reza> Jim, as stated in doc 72, I also see the
identification of a few bands for detailed analysis as one of the
first steps that a Coexistence task group should take.
- In case the WG chooses to take up the task, should it create a
"Recommended Practice" (one containing the word "should") or a
"Guideline" (one containing the word "may")?
I don't believe a separate document is what's needed for
coexistence. Rather we need to define either requirements or
evaluation criteria so that coexistence is properly considered as 802.20
considers technology alternatives in building an air interface
standard.
Reza> Jim, evaluation criteria document
does not cover this topic.
Samir> I support the idea for a
separate co-existence document from others such as requirements and evaluation. This
will better facilitate an expert sub-group to focus on this
topic and produce a concise document that then can be used in conjuntion
with the others instead of distributing these recommendations in multiple
places.