November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1219r1
WG11 Comments on 802-19 PAR
submission 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 802.11-09/1219r1
Abstract
These Comments for 802.19 on the proposed PAR under
consideration by the 802 EC for Nov 2009 Plenary
represent the official set from 802.11 WG.
In some cases a straw poll was conducted and the results
are indicated where a question on the level of support
for the comment was made.
The Official motion to submit this set of comments/issues
was passed 7 yes, 0 no, 6 abstain.
Submission
Slide 2
Jon Rosdahl (CSR)
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1219r1
802.19 new standard for TV white space
coexistence mechanisms, PAR and 5 C
• Questions – Issues to 802.19
• 2.1 Title: Standard for Information Technology Telecommunications and Information Exchange Between
Systems - Local and Metropolitan Area Networks Specific Requirements - Part 19: TV White Space
Coexistence Mechanisms
– Situation #1: Title includes “Coexistence Mechanism”,
– Problem: The PAR and 5C does not define what “Coexistence
Mechanism” is.
– Suggested Fix: In the PAR and 5C define what “Coexistence
Mechanism” really is.
• Straw Poll: Submit to .19: 14 yes, 2 no, 11 abstain
Submission
Slide 3
Jon Rosdahl (CSR)
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1219r1
IEEE 802.19 Response (1)
• Response
– We agree that a definition of “Coexistence Mechanism” is lacking
in the PAR. We will add such a definition in the Explanatory
Notes section. Additional detail is provided in response to the
Technical Feasibility comment. We have changed the term
“coexistence mechanisms” to “coexistence methods”
• Changes
– In 8.1 Explanatory Notes we added a definition of coexistence
methods.
Submission
Slide 4
Steve Shellhammer,
Jon Rosdahl
Qualcomm
(CSR)
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1219r1
Questions – Issues to 802.19 (2)
• 2.1 Title
– Situation #2: The title specifies that this a Standard.
– Problem: We do not believe it should be Standard. The level of
evidence provided for Feasibility in the 5C does not justify a
Standard
• The 5C does not identify any existing proven similar “coexistence
mechanisms” in any unlicensed bands.
– Suggested Fix. Make this PAR for a Recommended Practice to
provide 802.19 group an opportunity to demonstrate the feasibility
• A Recommended Practice has a trial use aspect that should be
addressed.
• Typically the technical rigor that is employed in creating documents
increases as you go from Guides -> Recommended Practices ->
Standards.
• Strawpoll: submit to .19 – 9 yes 6 no 13 abstain
Submission
Slide 5
Jon Rosdahl (CSR)
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1219r1
802.19 Response (2)
• Response
– We disagree that this should be Recommended Practice. We believe that a
Recommended Practice will do little to promote coexistence in the TV
band. An 802 Standard for coexistence will provide the market a toolset
for enabling coexistence among their systems.
– We agree that additional material could be added to the Technical
Feasibility section of the 5C
– In the 802.11 TVWS PAR it states in the Explanatory Notes that 802.11
will coexist with other networks and hence it seems that 802.11 believes
that coexistence is feasible
• Changes
– In the Technical Feasibility section of the 5C additional detail has been
added
Submission
Slide 6
Steve Shellhammer,
Jon Rosdahl
Qualcomm
(CSR)
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1219r1
Questions – Issues to 802.19 (3)
• 3. The PAR and 5C subject matter do not match.
– The content of the 5C do not relate to the PAR
• 4. 5C - Technical Feasibility
– The responses to the 3 points are non responsive. The technical details are
not given, or shown by example.
• 11-09/1107r0 (https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/09/11-09-1107-00-tvwssome-802-11-comments-on-802-19-par-and-5c.pdf)
• 5. 5C – Economic Feasibility
– The response does not address what the cost factors are nor if there is
economic feasibility that has been demonstrated.
• 6. 8.1 – 5.5 need explanation
– The Claim is made in the PAR that Quality of Service is improved for all
participants. In unlicensed bands, that is not technically feasible. There is
not enough bandwidth to provide independent control of QoS.
Submission
Slide 7
Jon Rosdahl (CSR)
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1219r1
Questions – Issues to 802.19 (3)
• 3. The PAR and 5C subject matter do not match.
– The content of the 5C do not relate to the PAR
Submission
Slide 8
Jon Rosdahl (CSR)
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1219r1
802.19 Response (3)
• Response
– 802.19 disagrees that the 5C does not match the PAR
– 802.19 acknowledges that the 5C needs additional text on technical
feasibility
• Change
– Will add additional material on technical feasibility in the 5C
Submission
Slide 9
Steve Shellhammer,
Jon Rosdahl
Qualcomm
(CSR)
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1219r1
Questions – Issues to 802.19 (3)
• 4. 5C - Technical Feasibility
– The responses to the 3 points are non responsive. The technical
details are not given, or shown by example.
• 11-09/1107r0 (https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/09/11-09-1107-00tvws-some-802-11-comments-on-802-19-par-and-5c.pdf)
Submission
Slide 10
Jon Rosdahl (CSR)
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1219r1
802.19 Response (3a)
• Response
– 802.19 acknowledges that the 5C needs additional text on technical
feasibility
• Change
– Will add additional material on technical feasibility in the 5C
Submission
Slide 11
Steve Shellhammer,
Jon Rosdahl
Qualcomm
(CSR)
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1219r1
Questions – Issues to 802.19 (3)
• 5. 5C – Economic Feasibility
– The response does not address what the cost factors are nor if there
is economic feasibility that has been demonstrated.
Submission
Slide 12
Jon Rosdahl (CSR)
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1219r1
802.19 Response (3b)
• Response
– 802.19 acknowledges that additional text needs to be added to the
economic feasibility section of the 5C
• Change
– Added text to economic feasibility section of 5C
Submission
Slide 13
Steve Shellhammer,
Jon Rosdahl
Qualcomm
(CSR)
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1219r1
Questions – Issues to 802.19 (3)
• 6. 8.1 – 5.5 need explanation
– The Claim is made in the PAR that Quality of Service is improved
for all participants. In unlicensed bands, that is not technically
feasible. There is not enough bandwidth to provide independent
control of QoS.
Submission
Slide 14
Jon Rosdahl (CSR)
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1219r1
802.19 Response (3c)
• Response
– We acknowledge that QoS may not be improved for all
participants, though QoS for most participants may be improved
– We believe that the coexistence mechanisms will improve QoS for
the majority of participants
• Change
– Will change “all” to “most”
Submission
Slide 15
Steve Shellhammer,
Jon Rosdahl
Qualcomm
(CSR)
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1219r1
Questions – Issues to 802.19 (4)
• 7. The PAR does not justify the need for a Standard.
– Suggesting a Messaging system rather than a physical system.
– Power consumption considerations.
– Data plane system that does not change the MAC/PHYs, so the
relative rates that are needed to match for communication between
the disparate systems is not shown.
• 8.Confusion on what the proposed PAR will actually
change?
– It is not clear if 802.19 is going to propose another MAC/PHY or
just provide a layer-3 and above specification.
• 9. Title is very ambiguous as to what the “Coexistence
Mechanism” really are?
– Is this requiring a new MAC/PHY or changes to existing 802
WGs.
Submission
Slide 16
Jon Rosdahl (CSR)
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1219r1
Questions – Issues to 802.19 (4)
• 7. The PAR does not justify the need for a Standard.
– Suggesting a Messaging system rather than a physical system.
– Power consumption considerations.
– Data plane system that does not change the MAC/PHYs, so the
relative rates that are needed to match for communication between
the disparate systems is not shown.
Submission
Slide 17
Jon Rosdahl (CSR)
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1219r1
802.19 Response (4)
• Response
– We disagree that the PAR does not justify the need for the
standard, even if it is only a messaging system. A messaging
system requires standardization so that all devices can interoperate
– The toolset provided by the standard to the market will allow
device manufacturers and network operators to select the right
tradeoffs (e.g. power consumption) for their systems
• Change
– No changes to PAR required
Submission
Slide 18
Steve Shellhammer,
Jon Rosdahl
Qualcomm
(CSR)
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1219r1
Questions – Issues to 802.19 (4)
• 8.Confusion on what the proposed PAR will actually
change?
– It is not clear if 802.19 is going to propose another MAC/PHY or
just provide a layer-3 and above specification.
Submission
Slide 19
Jon Rosdahl (CSR)
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1219r1
802.19 Response (4a)
• Response
– A messaging system above the MAC layer will be provided in the
standard
– To support sensing only devices, which do not have backhaul
connectivity, coexistence methods may be included in the standard
– Some specific MAC/PHY capabilities (e.g. DFS) may be required
in the individual MAC/PHY standard in order for the devices to
adapt so as to reduce interference between systems
– The standard is not a new MAC/PHY standard
• Change
– Change the phase in the title “coexistence mechanisms” to
“coexistence methods”
– Added language to Explanatory Notes expanding on the scope
Submission
Slide 20
Steve Shellhammer,
Jon Rosdahl
Qualcomm
(CSR)
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1219r1
Questions – Issues to 802.19 (4)
• 9. Title is very ambiguous as to what the “Coexistence
Mechanism” really are?
– Is this requiring a new MAC/PHY or changes to existing 802
WGs.
Submission
Slide 21
Jon Rosdahl (CSR)
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1219r1
802.19 Response (4b)
• Response
– We acknowledge that the term is not precise enough and additional
material is needed
• Change
– In the title the term “coexistence mechanisms” has been replaced
by “coexistence methods”
– Additional detail on the coexistence methods is provided in the
explanatory notes section
Submission
Slide 22
Steve Shellhammer,
Jon Rosdahl
Qualcomm
(CSR)
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1219r1
Questions – Issues to 802.19 (5)
• 10. From the 5C the following statement needs to be
clarified as to what changes to the 802 WGs are going
to be targeted.
– This standard will not require changes to any existing 802 MAC
SAP definitions, ensuring that all LLC and MAC interfaces are
compatible to and in conformance with the IEEE 802.1
architecture, management and internetworking standards.
• 11 – It is implied that a Standard will be imposed on all
the 802 WG after ratification, and what changes may
be required is unknown.
– Provide more detail on what the expectation is that justifies this
being a Standard rather than a Recommended Practice.
Submission
Slide 23
Jon Rosdahl (CSR)
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1219r1
Questions – Issues to 802.19 (5)
• 10. From the 5C the following statement needs to be
clarified as to what changes to the 802 WGs are going
to be targeted.
– This standard will not require changes to any existing 802 MAC
SAP definitions, ensuring that all LLC and MAC interfaces are
compatible to and in conformance with the IEEE 802.1
architecture, management and internetworking standards.
Submission
Slide 24
Jon Rosdahl (CSR)
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1219r1
802.19 Response (5)
• Response
– This section of the 5C is on compatibility with higher layers
– We plan to be compatible with higher layers
– The standard will provide a toolset that will leverage MAC/PHY
capabilities at defined in the respective MAC/PHY standards
• Change
– No change required
Submission
Slide 25
Steve Shellhammer,
Jon Rosdahl
Qualcomm
(CSR)
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1219r1
Questions – Issues to 802.19 (5)
• 11 – It is implied that a Standard will be imposed on all
the 802 WG after ratification, and what changes may
be required is unknown.
– Provide more detail on what the expectation is that justifies this
being a Standard rather than a Recommended Practice.
Submission
Slide 26
Jon Rosdahl (CSR)
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1219r1
802.19 Response (5a)
• Response
– There is nothing in the PAR/5C that implies this standard would be
mandated on any of the 802 working groups
– 802 produces standards, standards are not mandated on any group
or individual
• Change
– No change required
Submission
Slide 27
Steve Shellhammer,
Jon Rosdahl
Qualcomm
(CSR)
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1219r1
Rebuttal 1
– From your response, we are confused, in one place you say it is not
mandated, but in another you claim that it would be required. Please
Clarify how this would be implemented at the standards setting
process.
Slide 26 (19-09/96r0)
– There is nothing in the PAR/5C that implies this standard would be
mandated on any of the 802 working groups
– 802 produces standards, standards are not mandated on any group
or individual
Slide 20 (19-09/96r0)
– Some specific MAC/PHY capabilities (e.g. DFS) may be required
in the individual MAC/PHY standard in order for the devices to
adapt so as to reduce interference between systems
Submission
Slide 28
Jon Rosdahl (CSR)
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1219r1
Rebuttal - 2
• 1900.4a is an existing project in SCC41 on Coexistence
methods . Why is 802.19 necessary then?
– As noted in PAR section 7.1, 1900.4a is of similar scope.
– 1900.4a provides coexistence facilities that can be used by wireless
devices in the TVWS.
– What is the benefit that will be achieved from the 802.19 effort
above what is provided in 1900.4a?
– If the IEEE 802 Wireless groups were compliant with 1900.4a
would that be sufficient?
• The presentations listed in the Technical Feasibility are
not either demonstrated system feasibility nor proven
technology nor confidence of reliability.
– Are there any other documents that do address this topic.
Submission
Slide 29
Jon Rosdahl (CSR)
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1219r1
Rebuttal - 3
•
802.11 WG Suggestion for improvement to the Purpose statement in order
to address the concern of forced compliance:
•
The current 802.19 PAR states:
•
5.4 Purpose: The purpose of the standard is to enable the family of IEEE
802 Wireless Standards to effectively use TV White Space by providing
standard coexistence methods among dissimilar or independently
operated TVBD networks and dissimilar TVBDs. This standard
addresses coexistence for IEEE 802 networks and devices and will also be
useful for non IEEE 802 networks and TVBDs
•
Recommend that the scope change to:
•
5.4 Purpose: The purpose of the standard is to provide standard
coexistence methods among dissimilar or independently operated TVBD
networks and dissimilar TVBDs to effectively use TV White Space, some
or all of which may be adopted by any of the family of IEEE 802 Wireless
Standards.
Submission
Slide 30
Jon Rosdahl (CSR)
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/1219r1
References
• https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/09/11-09-1197-000000-review-802-pars-underconsideration-for-novplenary.ppt
Submission
Slide 31
Jon Rosdahl (CSR)