| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Agree typo in the header should be fixed: Executive Summary
Discussion on proposed changes to the 3rd point in the executive summary:
Steve commented:
I believe the comments submitted by C-V2X organizations make it clear that they recommend the upper 30 MHz for current C-V2X technology and the lower 40 to 55 MHz for Advanced C-V2X technology. This is clearly different than the IEEE proposal, but I think to say we do not understand their proposal does not make sense. So, I recommend deleting this sentence.
Response:
We were commenting on statements that were made claiming that C-V2X is superior to DSRC. We were not commenting on the C-V2X proponents’ position on band split or use of spectrum. We pointed out one key attribute of 802.11 (DSRC) that we believe is superior to C-V2X, which is same channel co-existence and backward compatibly. We propose to re-word this point to clarify our position the new text is based on text currently in the reply comments. We are also keeping the focus on what IEEE 802 is doing.
Original:
Third, IEEE 802 believes C-V2X is not superior to DSRC as it has several shortcomings that make DSRC better-suited for deployment of ITS safety and efficiency services. Furthermore, in spite of claims to the contrary, IEEE 802 does not see where C-V2X has a path forward that ensures backward compatibility and coexistence with the current version of C-V2X technology that the Commission proposes to adopt.
Proposed by Steve:
Third, IEEE 802 believes C-V2X is not superior to DSRC as it has several shortcomings that make DSRC better-suited for deployment of ITS safety and efficiency services.
Proposed resolution by 802.18:
Third, IEEE 802 believes C-V2X is not superior to DSRC as it has several shortcomings that make DSRC better-suited for deployment of ITS safety and efficiency services. For example IEEE 802 believes IEEE 802.11 WG practice of insuring same channel backwards compatibility and the same coexistence for evolving IEEE 802.11 technologies is greatly superior than the proposed C-V2X evolution plan for Release 14 LTE V2X to 5G NR V2X that does not provide same channel backward compatibility nor same channel coexistence.
Discussion on proposed changes in Section 5, DSRC and C-V2X, in the first paragraph
Proposed by Steve:
Moreover [7], DSRC supports a wide range of “advanced V2X” [8] services that 3GPP concedes Release 14 LTE V2X was never designed to support such as vehicle platooning and sensor data sharing, and 3GPP decided to support advanced C-V2X features in 5G NR Release 16
Response:
We would rather not talk to what 3GPP is claiming so would like to leave the original text. The NPRM is mainly only Release 14, it does request comment on additional frequency resources for C-V2X, which is not something IEEE 802 should comment on.
Stay with Original:
Moreover [7], DSRC supports a wide range of “advanced V2X” [8] services that 3GPP concedes Release 14 LTE V2X was never intended to support such as vehicle platooning and sensor data sharing.
Discussion on proposed changes in Section 5, DSRC and C-V2X, in the second paragraph
Steve commented:
This is a little confusing. Seems like it is mixing non-ITS function (e.g. regular consumer cellular services) with ITS services (both basic and advanced). It seems to be confusing advanced ITS services with consumer cellular use cases. But maybe I am missing something.
Response:
The proposed updates are changing the meaning and we would like to leave the original text. We are objecting to the claim that if one implements C-V2X one also gets cellular connectivity. Our understanding is that a C-V2X radio operating in the ITS band will not provide cellular connectivity it will only provide ITS services. While, cellular connectivity is provided in the cellular bands by cellular radios. We do not address spectrum for 5G NR C-V2X in this document. We propose adding: (i.e. radios and non-ITS channels) and striking the phrase after that, , to clarify the intent.
Original:
Cellular connectivity will require separate communication resources to provide such connectivity. Hence, the advantages of cellular connectivity are orthogonal to C-V2X.
Proposed by Steve:
Cellular connectivity will require additional spectrum for 5G NR C-V2X to provide such connectivity. Hence, the advantages of cellular connectivity are additional to basic safely C-V2X.
Proposed resolution by 802.18:
Cellular connectivity will require
separate communication resources (i.e. radios and non-ITS channels)
to provide such connectivity.
Hence, the advantages of cellular connectivity are orthogonal to C-V2X.
Discussion on proposed changes in Section 5, DSRC and C-V2X, in the fourth paragraph
Steve commented:
I was under the impression that for 802.11 cars would still need to support 11p and for C-V2X cars would still need to support LTE-V2X. So, both approaches still need to support the original protocol. For 802.11 the evolution is within the same channel while for C-V2X it is in a different channel. So, both systems have an evolution path, just the paths are different.
Please change this to say that 802.11 evolution path is within the one channel while C-V2X uses a different channel.
Response to EC:
Elsewhere we claim that 802.11p to 802.11bd can use the same channel, so will add a clarifying statement, “in the same channel” that C-V2X evolution does not use the same channel. See more in the updated paragraph for point 3 in summary.
Original:
The Commission should take into account what this lack of evolution and backward-compatibility of LTE-V2X (Release 14) will mean in the future, for example in the year 2030 or 2040.
Proposed resolution by 802.18:
The Commission should take into account what this lack of in the same channel evolution and backward-compatibility of LTE-V2X (Release 14) will mean in the future, for example in the year 2030 or 2040.
Jay,
I reviewed the document and have a few Comments and Suggested Edits. See attached.
Regards,
Steve
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org> On Behalf Of Jay Holcomb
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 6:36 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ 10-day EC Motion+++ Approval of reply comments to the FCC NPRMon revisiting and re-configuration of the 5.9GHz band
thanks Roger,
all your points look good and add some nice editorial clarity, need to check on the reference yet though. Jon, got your typo also.
all, as mentioned on the call last week there was a possibility of an extension, but had to cover if it didn't come. well, it came out mid-day today. the FCC is okay with reply comments out to 27 April now, + 3 weeks. it will be a discussion point on the .18 weekly call thursday, stay the course, do we explore doing updates, etc. i will pass along the outcome of the discussion.
stay safe,
jay
From: Roger Marks <r.b.marks@ieee.org>
Date: Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ 10-day EC Motion+++ Approval of reply comments to the FCC NPRMon revisiting and re-configuration of the 5.9GHz band
To: <STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org>Jay,
Comments attached.
Cheers,
Roger
On Mar 25, 2020, 8:37 AM -0600, Jon Rosdahl <jrosdahl@ieee.org>, wrote:
typo "Excutive" Section 2 - "Executive"
My vote is abstain at this time.
Jon
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Rosdahl Engineer, Senior Staff
IEEE 802 Executive Secretary Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
office: 801-492-4023 10871 North 5750 West
cell: 801-376-6435 Highland, UT 84003
A Job is only necessary to eat!
A Family is necessary to be happy!!
On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 11:10 AM Jay Holcomb <jholcomb@ieee.org> wrote:
Dear LMSC Members,
With this email I would like to announce the start of an LMSC(EC) ballot on reply comments to the FCC on response to their NPRM proposing re-configuration of the 5.9GHz band from ITS to unlicensed and ITS and allowing C-V2X instead of just DSRC (802.11p and .11bd). The deadline for reply comments is 06 April 20, a Monday.
Paul has delegated to me to conduct a LMSC(EC) 10-day electronic ballot on the motion below to approve the comments to the FCC. This EC motion is per IEEE 802 OM 7.2.1 Procedure, P&P 7.1 b) (majority response) and P&P 7.1.2 (2/3 approval of votes cast) for communication with government bodies and public statements. With that we would like to see everyone respond.
• Motion: Approve reply comments in https://mentor.ieee.org/802.18/dcn/20/18-20-0045-04-0000-reply-comments-fcc19-138-nprm-revisiting-5-850-5-925-ghz-band.docx to FCC’s NPRM (ET Docket No. 19-138) on Use of the 5.850-5.925 GHz Band and for submission to the FCC by 06 April 2020. With the Chair of 802.18 authorized to make editorial changes as necessary.
Approved in the RR-TAG: _10_ / _1_ / _1_
Mover: Jay Holcomb
Seconder: Dorothy Stanley
Start of ballot: 24 March 2020
Close of ballot: 03 April 2020
Reference documents:
The NPRM:
Proceeding OET 19-138:
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?proceedings_name=19-138&sort=date_disseminated,DESC
IEEE 802 original comments:
Regards,
Jay Holcomb
Liberty Lake (Spokane), WA
Itron, Inc.
IEEE 802.18 Chair
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1