November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1220r1
WG11 Comments on 802-22 PARs
submitted Nov 2009
Date: 2009-11-17
Authors:
Name
Affiliations
Address
Phone
email
Jon Rosdahl
CSR
Highland, UT
+1-801-492-4023
jrosdahl@ieee.org
Submission
Slide 1
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1220r1
Abstract
This Submission contains the comments to 802.22 on the
two PARs that are under consideration for the
November Plenary.
There was a motion to forward these comments to 802.22,
each motion passed 12-0-0 for sending these comments
from 802.11.
There are 2 sets of comments, one for each PAR.
802.22 slides 3-7
802.22.3 slides 8-11
Submission
Slide 2
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1220r1
802.22 PAR modification to clarifying
scope, PAR and 5C
• Item 1: Doc 11-09/1105r1 – submission that has some
discussion on the rational for changing the scope.
• Item 2: Problem: Dates for completion are not
realistic. The dates need to be corrected (we suggest
that the dates of Start Sponsor 12-2012 and RevCom
12-2013 would be more realistic/acceptable.)
• Item 3: the form presented was not the correct PAR
form. The PAR modification form should be used.
Submission
Slide 3
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November
Month
Year2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1220r1
Questions and Responses to 802.11
• Question 1: Doc. 11-09/1106 discusses possible issues
with the PAR and 5C submitted by Peter E
• Response: Accept document
• Proposed Resolution
– See document IEEE 802.22. 09-235 addressing the questions and
comments in doc.11-09-1106
Submission
Slide 4
Wendong
Jon Rosdahl,
Hu, STM
CSR
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1220r1
Questions and Responses to 802.11
• Question: Problem- Dates for completion are not realistic. The
dates need to be corrected (we suggest that the dates of Start
Sponsor 12-2012 and RevCom 12-2013 would be more
realistic/acceptable.)
Response: Reject comment
Explanation
No significant effort is anticipated for addressing the requirements in the
modified PAR. The date of initial sponsor ballot is expected to be 072010 and Revcom is 07-2011.
• Question - The form presented was not the correct PAR form. The
PAR modification form should be used.
Response: Accept comment
Proposed Resolution
Will use the right form:
Submission
Slide 5
Wendong
Jon Rosdahl,
Hu, STM
CSR
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1220r1
802.22 (2)
• 5.1 Scope: This standard specifies the air interface,
including the cognitive medium access control layer
(MAC) and physical layer (PHY), of point-to-multipoint
wireless regional area networks comprised of a
professional fixed base station with fixed and portable user
terminals operating in the VHF/UHF TV broadcast bands
between 54 MHz and 862 MHz.
– Issue 4: “professional fixed base station” should be “professionally
installed fixed base station” – (insert the word “installed”)
Submission
Slide 6
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1220r1
Questions and Responses to 802.11
• Question: Scope 5.1 This standard specifies the air
interface, including the cognitive medium access control
layer (MAC) and physical layer (PHY), of point-tomultipoint wireless regional area networks comprised of a
professional fixed base station with fixed and portable user
terminals operating in the VHF/UHF TV broadcast bands
between 54 MHz and 862 MHz.
– Issue 4: “professional fixed base station” should be “professionally
installed fixed base station” – (insert the word “installed”)
Response: Accept comment
Proposed Resolution
Modified document
Submission
Slide 7
Wendong
Jon Rosdahl,
Hu, STM
CSR
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1220r1
802.22 (3)
• 8.1 other comments:
– Issue 5: Remove the following text as it is no longer
necessary/needed from the end of the first paragraph:
• “The IEEE 802.18 Study Group chartered to develop this PAR does not
believe that any existing IEEE 802 PHY/MAC combination can meet these
requirements without extensive modifications. The Study Group has therefore
concluded that placing the project in a new WorkingGroup is the most efficient
approach..”
• 5c: Distinct Identity A
– Issue 6: This text fails to distinguish among 802.16h, which will be
an approved amendment in early 2010, and 802.22 and the efforts
proposed in the 802.22.3 PAR. Add distinctions between each of
the three. Be aware that 802.16h clause 6.3.2.3.86 does report
DTV, wireless microphones and other licensed users.
Submission
Slide 8
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1220r1
Questions and Responses to 802.11
• Question: 8.1 other comments– Issue 5: Remove the following text as it is no longer necessary/needed
from the end of the first paragraph:
•
“The IEEE 802.18 Study Group chartered to develop this PAR does not believe that any
existing IEEE 802 PHY/MAC combination can meet these requirements without extensive
modifications. The Study Group has therefore concluded that placing the project in a new
Working Group is the most efficient approach..”
Response: Accept comment
Proposed Resolution
Modified document
•
Question: 5c: Distinct Identity A
– Issue 6: This text fails to distinguish among 802.16h, which will be an approved
amendment in early 2010, and 802.22 and the efforts proposed in the 802.22.3
PAR. Add distinctions between each of the three. Be aware that 802.16h clause
6.3.2.3.86 does report DTV, wireless microphones and other licensed users.
Response: Accept comment
Proposed Resolution
Modified document..See changes in the revised PAR/5C document
Submission
Slide 9
Wendong
Jon Rosdahl,
Hu, STM
CSR
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1220r1
802.22 (4)
• 5C Technical Feasibility –
– Issue 7: There is no experience of WLAN devices operating under
the control of fixed outdoor devices reliably, and indeed the
question of reliable operation without common control is an issue
in every unlicensed band.
• 5C Economic Feasibility –
– Issue 8: Not all devices are autonomous, indeed the FCC ruling
requires that Master Devices contact the TV bands database before
any transmission is allowed. Change this text to include operation
with a TV bands database.
Submission
Slide 10
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1220r1
Questions and Responses to 802.11
•
Question: 5C Technical Feasibility –
– Issue 7: There is no experience of WLAN devices operating under the control of
fixed outdoor devices reliably, and indeed the question of reliable operation without
common control is an issue in every unlicensed band.
Response: Accept comment
Proposed Resolution:
Modified text to clarify this statement
•
Question: 5C Economic Feasibility –
– Issue 8: Not all devices are autonomous, indeed the FCC ruling requires that
Master Devices contact the TV bands database before any transmission is allowed.
Change this text to include operation with a TV bands database.
Response: Accept comment
Proposed Resolution:
Modified text to clarify this statement
Submission
Slide 11
Wendong
Jon Rosdahl,
Hu, STM
CSR
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1220r1
802.22 (5)
• 2.1 Title:
• Information Technology -Telecommunications and information
exchange between systems – Wireless Regional Area Networks
(WRAN) - Specific requirements - Part 22: Cognitive Wireless RAN
Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY)
specifications: Policies and procedures for operation in the TV Bands
– Issue 9: The Title is in properly formed. Prior to the “Part 22” it is should
be the consistent boilerplate that all 802 Standards have. Then after the
“Part 22” it should have what designates this to the 22WG and then the
specific title part for the covered technology
Submission
Slide 12
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1220r1
Questions and Responses to 802.11
• Question:2.1 Title:
– Issue 9: The Title is in properly formed. Prior to the “Part 22” it is should
be the consistent boilerplate that all 802 Standards have. Then after the
“Part 22” it should have what designates this to the 22WG and then the
specific title part for the covered technology
Response: Accept comment
Proposed Resolution:
Modified title to conform with 802.Standards
Submission
Slide 13
Wendong
Jon Rosdahl,
Hu, STM
CSR
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1220r1
802.22.3 new standard for scalable WRAN
operations, PAR and 5C
• 11-09/1106 discusses possible issues with the PAR and 5C.
• 2.1 Title of Standard: Cognitive Medium Access Control (MAC)
and Physical Layer (PHY) specifications: Policies and procedures
for Scalable operations of Wireless Regional Area Networks
(WRAN) in the TV Bands.
– Issue 1: delete “Policies and procedures for “ from the title. This is a
standard for…
– Issue 2: The full title is not listed in the PAR form.. It should have the
Boiler Plate from 802 followed by “Part 22” followed by the designation
that this is for the “WRAN..” and then the specific designation of what is
being covered.
– Issue 3: the title for 802.22.3 should be Distinct and yet consistent with
the 802/802.22 family of titles.
Submission
Slide 14
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1220r1
Questions and Responses to 802.11
• Question 1: Doc. 11-09/1106 discusses possible issues
with the PAR and 5C submitted by Peter E
• Response: Accept document
• Proposed Resolution
– See document IEEE802.22. 09-235 addressing the questions and
comments in doc.11-09-1106
Submission
Slide 15
Wendong Hu, STMicroelectronics
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1220r1
Questions and Responses to 802.11
•
Question: 2.1 Title of Standard- Cognitive Medium Access Control (MAC)
and Physical Layer (PHY) specifications: Policies and procedures for
Scalable operations of Wireless Regional Area Networks (WRAN) in the
TV Bands.
– Issue 1: delete “Policies and procedures for “ from the title. This is a standard
for…
Response: Accept comment
– Issue 2: The full title is not listed in the PAR form.. It should have the Boiler Plate
from 802 followed by “Part 22” followed by the designation that this is for the
“WRAN..” and then the specific designation of what is being covered.
Response: Accept comment
– Issue 3: the title for 802.22.3 should be Distinct and yet consistent with the
802/802.22 family of titles.
Response: Accept comment
Proposed Resolution
Change to: “Information Technology -Telecommunications and information exchange
between systems – Local and Metropolitan Area Networks – Specific requirements
– Part 22.3: Wireless Regional Area Networks (WRAN), Cognitive Medium Access
Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) specifications: Standard for scalable
operation in the TV Bands”
Submission
Slide 16
Wendong Hu, STMicroelectronics
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1220r1
802.22.3 (2)
• 8.1 Notes:
– Issue 4: Remove the following text “Item Number: 5.5 (Need for
the Project):
The IEEE 802.22.3 standard is intended to be integrated to IEEE
802.22 standard.
This may be more correctly included in 5.5.
• 5C Distinct Identity: a) Substantially different from other IEEE
802 standards. Table
– Issue 5: Page 8 of 11-09-1106r0 shows several errors in the table
and in the explanation notes.
• Please correct as noted in 11-09/1106r0.
Submission
Slide 17
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1220r1
Questions and Responses to 802.11
• Question: Section 8.1 NotesRemove the following text “Item Number: 5.5 (Need for the Project):
The IEEE 802.22.3 standard is intended to be integrated to IEEE 802.22
standard. This may be more correctly included in 5.5.
Response: Accept comment
Proposed Resolution
Modified text accordingly
Submission
Slide 18
Wendong Hu, STMicroelectronics
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1220r1
Questions and Responses to 802.11
• Question: 5C Distinct Identity• a) Substantially different from other IEEE 802 standards. Table
– Issue 5: Page 8 of 11-09-1106r0 shows several errors in the table and in
the explanation notes.
• Please correct as noted in 11-09/1106r0.
Response; Accept comment
Proposed Resolution
Necessary corrections/changes have been made in the revised PAR/5C document.
Rebuttal -1: The Table is still incorrect. 802.16h range should be from
0 to 11GHz. (still shows 2GHz as a lower limit which is incorrect).
Submission
Slide 19
Wendong Hu, STMicroelectronics
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1220r1
802.22.3 (3)
• Technical Feasibility
– Issue 6 : the statements are very broad, and in some cases not accurate…”
Existing 802 wireless standards in other bands (e.g. 802.11h) have demonstrated that detection
and avoidance of operation in spectrum occupied by licensed users is technically feasible.”
The 802.11h does not do detect and avoid (DAA) it only specified DFS and TPC.
– Issue 7: The statements should address the “demonstrated” technology
that show the technical feasibility.
– Issue 8: The addition of “Scalable” as the main focus, should be
addressed in the 5C to show the distinct difference from the base 22
standard.
– Issue 9 (to be renumbered as #1): If 802.22.3 is an extension of 802.22,
and creating a “Scalable” extension of the standard, then this should be an
amendment. The Amendment should be created after the standard is
approved to allow a consistent target for the amendment to modify.
Submission
Slide 20
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1220r1
Questions and Responses to 802.11
•
Question: Technical Feasibility
– the statements are very broad, and in some cases not accurate…” Existing
802 wireless standards in other bands (e.g. 802.11h) have demonstrated
that detection and avoidance of operation in spectrum occupied by
licensed users is technically feasible.”
The 802.11h does not do detect and avoid (DAA) it only specified DFS
and TPC.
Response: Accept comment
Proposed Resolution
The statement was modified appropriately
– The statements should address the “demonstrated” technology that
show the technical feasibility.
Response: Accept comment
Proposed Resolution
The statement was modified to provide the “demonstrated” technologies (by cited examples)
that can be leveraged by the proposed 802.22.3
Submission
Slide 21
Wendong Hu, STMicroelectronics
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1220r1
Rebuttal - 2
• Rebuttal There has not been any demonstration of
independently operated scalable operation in
unlicensed bands.
•
Submission
Slide 22
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1220r1
Questions and Responses to 802.11
•
Question: Technical Feasibility (continued)
– Issue 8: The addition of “Scalable” as the main focus, should be addressed
in the 5C to show the distinct difference from the base 22 standard.
Response: Accept comment
Proposed Resolution
The distinct different from the base 22 standard of the 802.22.3 is provided in a
revised text.
– Issue 9 (to be renumbered as #1): If 802.22.3 is an extension of
802.22, and creating a “Scalable” extension of the standard, then
this should be an amendment. The Amendment should be created
after the standard is approved to allow a consistent target for the
amendment to modify.
Response: Reject Comment
“Scalable” is not an extension of 802.22. It addresses a different area of TVWS operation of WRAN
as opposed to that of 802.22, and does not depend on the completion of 802.22 project.
Proposed Clarification
Propose a clarification by changing the wording for the purpose to: “The purpose of
this standard is to specify scalable wireless regional area network (WRAN)
operations in the TVWS, enabling WRAN deployments and communications in
flexible network topologies and range, with greater network coverage, offering a
variety of in-door and out-door network services.
Submission
Slide 23
Wendong Hu, STMicroelectronics
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1220r1
Rebuttal - 3
• Rebuttal – You should not have a new PAR for changes
to an existing PAR. If 802.22 baseline par was never
finished, would it make a difference to 802.22.3? The
Fixed and portable mechanisms in 802.22 would not be
available, then what are you “scaling”.
• We still believe that the PAR type should be an
Amendment. It is an extension of the base standard.
• Integration of the new standard into the old standard
sounds like an amendment rather than a new standard.
Submission
Slide 24
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1220r1
References
• https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/09/11-09-1197-00-0000-review802-pars-underconsideration-for-nov-plenary.ppt
• Responses:
• Doc: 22-09-236
(https://mentor.ieee.org/802.22/dcn/09/22-09-0236-00-0000responses-to-comments-on-802-22-par-modification.ppt)
Doc: 22-09-237
(https://mentor.ieee.org/802.22/dcn/09/22-09-0237-00-0000comment-response-for-802-22-and-802-22-3-par-5c.ppt)
Submission
Slide 25
Jon Rosdahl, CSR