November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.19-09/00XXr0
Responses to Comments on 802.19.1 PAR
Date: 2009-11-17
Authors:
Name
Company Address
Steve Shellhammer Qualcomm
5775 Morehouse Dr
San Diego, CA 92121
Phone
E-mail
(858) 658-1874
Shellhammer@ieee.org
Notice: This document has been prepared to assist IEEE 802.19. It is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in
this document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein.
Release: The contributor grants a free, irrevocable license to the IEEE to incorporate material contained in this contribution, and any modifications thereof, in the creation of an IEEE
Standards publication; to copyright in the IEEE’s name any IEEE Standards publication even though it may include portions of this contribution; and at the IEEE’s sole discretion to permit
others to reproduce in whole or in part the resulting IEEE Standards publication. The contributor also acknowledges and accepts that this contribution may be made public by IEEE 802.19.
Patent Policy and Procedures: The contributor is familiar with the IEEE 802 Patent Policy and Procedures <http:// ieee802.org/guides/bylaws/sb-bylaws.pdf>, including the statement
"IEEE standards may include the known use of patent(s), including patent applications, provided the IEEE receives assurance from the patent holder or applicant with respect to patents
essential for compliance with both mandatory and optional portions of the standard." Early disclosure to the TAG of patent information that might be relevant to the standard is essential to
reduce the possibility for delays in the development process and increase the likelihood that the draft publication will be approved for publication. Please notify the Chair
<shellhammer@ieee.org> as early as possible, in written or electronic form, if patented technology (or technology under patent application) might be incorporated into a draft standard being
developed within the IEEE 802.19 TAG. If you have questions, contact the IEEE Patent Committee Administrator at <patcom@ieee.org>.
Submission
Slide 1
Steve Shellhammer, Qualcomm
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.19-09/00XXr0
Outline
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Comments from and responses to 802.11
Comments from and responses to 802.16
Comments from and responses to 802.21
Comments from and responses to 802.22
Comments from and responses to Paul Nikolich
Comments from and responses to James Gilb
Comments from and responses to Bob Grow
Comments from and responses to Wendong Hu
Comments from and responses to Richard Kennedy
Comments from and responses to T. Olson
Submission
Slide 2
Steve Shellhammer, Qualcomm
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.19-09/00XXr0
Abstract
• This document provides responses to comments
received on the 802.19.1 PAR/5C
Submission
Slide 3
Steve Shellhammer, Qualcomm
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.19-09/00XXr0
Comments from 802.11
Submission
Slide 4
Steve Shellhammer, Qualcomm
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.19-09/00XXr0
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 5
Jon Rosdahl (CSR)
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.19-09/00XXr0
IEEE 802.19 Response
• 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
• Changes
– In 8.1 Explanatory Notes we added
– Coexistence Mechanism – A technique to provide effective sharing
of the spectrum between networks of TV band devices. Examples
include power control, frequency, time and spatial domain
techniques.
Submission
Slide 6
Steve Shellhammer, Qualcomm
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.19-09/00XXr0
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 7
Jon Rosdahl (CSR)
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.19-09/00XXr0
802.19 Response
• 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 believe it is feasible
Submission
Slide 8
Steve Shellhammer, Qualcomm
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.19-09/00XXr0
802.19 Response
• Changes
– In section 17.5.4 Technical Feasibility we added,
– “Dynamic frequency selection (DFS), Bluetooth Adaptive
Frequency Hopping (AFH), Transmit Power Control (TPC),
Submission
Slide 9
Steve Shellhammer, Qualcomm
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.19-09/00XXr0
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 10
Jon Rosdahl (CSR)
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.19-09/00XXr0
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 11
Jon Rosdahl (CSR)
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.19-09/00XXr0
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 802.19-09/00XXr0
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 13
Jon Rosdahl (CSR)
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.19-09/00XXr0
802.19 Response
• Response
– We disagree that the PAR and 5C do not match
• Changes
– No changes were made
Submission
Slide 14
Steve Shellhammer, Qualcomm
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.19-09/00XXr0
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 15
Jon Rosdahl (CSR)
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.19-09/00XXr0
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 16
Jon Rosdahl (CSR)
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.19-09/00XXr0
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 17
Jon Rosdahl (CSR)
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.19-09/00XXr0
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 18
Jon Rosdahl (CSR)
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.19-09/00XXr0
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 19
Jon Rosdahl (CSR)
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.19-09/00XXr0
Comments from 802.16
Submission
Slide 20
Steve Shellhammer, Qualcomm
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.19-09/00XXr0
PAR Comment #1
• Comment 1: In sections “Type of Project: New IEEE Standard”
and “3.1 Working Group: Coexistence TAG (C/LM/WG802.19)”
• There could be potentially a conflict of interest between this new
802.19.1 Project for a new standard and the 802.19 TAG’s
advisory role, which is mandated by Clause 14 of the IEEE 802
Operations Manual (http://www.ieee802.org/PNP/200811/LMSC_OM_approved_081114.pdf ).
• Possible Remedy:
– Option 1: Separate this new standard effort from the 802.19 TAG and
create a new Working Group for this PAR.
– Option 2: Delete Clause 14 from the 802 Operations manual and allow
this group to define coexistence standards that are not mandatory on other
Working Groups.
Submission
Slide 21
Steve Shellhammer, Qualcomm
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.19-09/00XXr0
PAR Comment #2
•
Comment 2: In Section 5.2 (Scope):
•
There is concern that this standard would address coexistence with a new
PHY and MAC that would be incompatible with other IEEE 802
standards. We would like this project to define mechanisms that (as
described in the explanatory notes) are radio technology independent and
can be applied in conjunction with existing wireless standards.
•
•
Suggested Remedy:
Please modify the Scope statement “5.2 Scope: The standard specifies radio
technology independent mechanisms for coexistence among dissimilar or
independently operated TV Band Devices (TVBDs). These mechanisms are
applicable to existing IEEE 802 wireless standards.”
Submission
Slide 22
Steve Shellhammer, Qualcomm
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.19-09/00XXr0
5C Comment #1
•
Regarding “Coexistence of 802 wireless standards specifying devices for
unlicensed operation” in the 5C, the following modifications would be
appropriate (see text in blue):
•
“A working group proposing a wireless project is required to demonstrate
coexistence through the preparation of a Coexistence Assurance (CA)
document unless it is not applicable. The Working Group will create a
CA document as part of the WG balloting process. If the Working Group
elects not to create a CA document, it will explain to the EC the reason the
CA document is not applicable.
This standard will enhance coexistence in the TVWS. Evaluation of the
effectiveness of coexistence will be done during standard development.
The working group will create a CA document as part of the WG
balloting process. This document will demonstrate that 802.19.1 coexists
with 802.16h and other unlicensed wireless standards.”
•
Submission
Slide 23
Steve Shellhammer, Qualcomm
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.19-09/00XXr0
Comments from IEEE 802.21
Submission
Slide 24
Steve Shellhammer, Qualcomm
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.19-09/00XXr0
Comments on Scope
Scope:
• - Does this PAR propose changes to MAC/PHY to address co-existence
• issues or does this PAR propose media independent mechanisms for coexistence?
• * Please note that 802.21 MIIS (Media Independent Information
• Service) is a protocol/mechanism for signaling or control channel access
• information.
• - Does this Project consider developing specific signaling mechanisms
• between devices for resolving co-existence issues or does it just rely on the
• regulatory TVWS database to discover available frequencies in any given
area?
• - Can the mechanisms proposed in this specification apply to other
• unlicensed bands as well?
Submission
Slide 25
Steve Shellhammer, Qualcomm
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.19-09/00XXr0
Comments on Purpose
Purpose:
• - The purpose of the standard is to enable the family of IEEE 802
• Wireless Standards to most effectively use TV White Space by
providing
• standard coexistence mechanisms among dissimilar or
independently operated
• TVBD networks and dissimilar TVBDs
• Clarify what is meant by "most effectively" in above sentence? Is
there
• any quantitative criteria/metrics for measuring this?
Submission
Slide 26
Steve Shellhammer, Qualcomm
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.19-09/00XXr0
Comments from IEEE 802.22
Submission
Slide 27
Steve Shellhammer, Qualcomm
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.19-09/00XXr0
Comment #1
• 5.2 Scope of Proposed Standard
• Comments:
• Clarify what layers the to-be-specified coexistence
mechanisms will reside in, and whether they will be in
the MAC/PHY layers or higher layers or cross-layers.
•
Submission
Slide 28
Steve Shellhammer, Qualcomm
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.19-09/00XXr0
Comment #2
• 5.3 Is the completion of this standard is dependent upon the
completion of another standard
• Comments:
• The proposed project is intended to develop cross-technologies
coexistence mechanisms. At this point, there is no existing
technology that has completed its development or in operation in
the TVWS. Please clarify how the mechanisms to be developed in
this project can be applicable to TVWS coexistence without having
any knowledge of or compatibility with any known TVWS radio
technologies. We suggest changing the answer to “YES”.
Submission
Slide 29
Steve Shellhammer, Qualcomm
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.19-09/00XXr0
Comment #3
• 8.1 Additional Explanatory Notes
•
• Comments on Section 5.2 (Scope):
• There are two types of TVBDs: 1) lower power personal/portable
devices at up to 100mW EIRP and 2) fixed device at up to 1W
output power and 4W EIRP. Please clarify whether they are all
considered as "low power" transmitters in indicated in this
section?
Submission
Slide 30
Steve Shellhammer, Qualcomm
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.19-09/00XXr0
Comment #4
• 8.1 Additional Explanatory Notes
•
• Comments on Sec. 5.5 (Need):
• Again, please clarify how the technology-independent coexistence
mechanisms could address operations such as "discovery",
"connectivity" and "QoS maximization" for different technologies
without having had any knowledge of and compatibility with those
technologies. Note that the answer to item 5.3 is "NO". We suggest
changing the answer to question in 5.3 to “YES”.
Submission
Slide 31
Steve Shellhammer, Qualcomm
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.19-09/00XXr0
Comments from Paul Nikolich
Submission
Slide 32
Steve Shellhammer, Qualcomm
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.19-09/00XXr0
Comment #1 (1)
•
•
Steve, Bruce, Wendong,
Please circulate the following comments to your respective WGs regarding the draft PARs on TV
Whitespace.
•
1) The proposed 802.11 TV Whitespace PAR contains coexistence language "It is in the best interest of
users and the industry to strive for a level of coexistence between wireless systems in the TVWS bands.
WG11 TVWS provides mechanisms for coexistence with other systems. One approach is a common
coexistence mechanism that may be used by other TVWS systems; other approaches are also possible."
•
2) The proposed 802.22 modified PAR also contains coexistence language "It is in the best interest of
users and the industry to strive for a level of coexistence between wireless systems. The IEEE 802.22 WG
provides mechanisms for coexistence with other systems in the TVWS band. One approach is a common
coexistence mechanism that may be used by other TVWS systems; other approaches are also possible.
•
•
3) The proposed 802.19 TV Whitespace Coexistence Mechanisms PAR contains coexistence language
Scope: "The standard specifies mechanisms for coexistence among dissimilar or independently operated
TV Band Device (TVBD) networks and dissimilar TV Band Devices." and
Purpose: "The purpose of the standard is to enable the family of IEEE 802 Wireless Standards to most
effectively use TV White Space by providing standard coexistence mechanisms 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."
•
Submission
Slide 33
Steve Shellhammer, Qualcomm
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.19-09/00XXr0
Comment #1 (2)
•
•
My comment:
There is a fair degree of common language in the coexistence language taken from
the above 3 draft PARs addressing the TV Whitespace bands.
•
Since the 3 draft PARs (dot 19, dot11 and dot22) are being proposed
simultaneously the groups haven't had much time to work on coordinating their
activities on the draft PAR language. However it will be useful for EC members to
better understand how the groups are thinking about coordinating their
coexistence specifications going forward.
•
I understand the groups have begun general discussion on coordinating their
activities--this is good. I believe any specifics that each of you can provide
regarding future coordination mechanisms among the 3 projects would be useful to
the EC members.
•
•
Regards,
--Paul
Submission
Slide 34
Steve Shellhammer, Qualcomm
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.19-09/00XXr0
Comments from James Gilb
Submission
Slide 35
Steve Shellhammer, Qualcomm
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.19-09/00XXr0
Comment #1 (1)
•
Dear EC members
•
It appears that we have multiple PARs that potentially deal with the same
problem but leading to different solutions to the same problem.
•
There can be reasons to do this, but I think we would benefit by working
together in some of these areas.
•
For example, the systems in these bands will need to access a database of
incumbents. The access to this database should be the same in any
standard we develop.
Submission
Slide 36
Steve Shellhammer, Qualcomm
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.19-09/00XXr0
Comment #1 (2)
Coexistence:
• We have proposal for a project to define coexistence between these systems,
but neither PAR references this.
•
•
I would hope that we can find some language that strongly encourages the
TVWS MAC/PHY groups to adopt the work of the coexistence group.
However, I would not be happy with the case where the groups were held up
waiting for completion of the coexistence standard.
•
I would encourage the 802.11 TVWS and 802.22.3 to find agreement on
language that requires support of the 802.19 methods, if they are completed in
a timely manner.
•
•
James Gilb
802 Recording Secretary
Submission
Slide 37
Steve Shellhammer, Qualcomm
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.19-09/00XXr0
Bob Grow (Email to James Gilb)
• James:
• I support your comment, on the need for the different projects to
relate with each other. But, I also was disappointed in the failure
to address the work of SCC 41 and its relationship to the various
white space draft PARs.
• --Bob Grow
Submission
Slide 38
Steve Shellhammer, Qualcomm
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.19-09/00XXr0
Comments from Wendong Hu
Submission
Slide 39
Steve Shellhammer, Qualcomm
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.19-09/00XXr0
Comment #1
• Scope
• What layers will the to-be-specified coexistence
mechanisms be resided in? Will they be in the
MAC/PHY layers or higher layers or across all layers?
Submission
Slide 40
Steve Shellhammer, Qualcomm
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.19-09/00XXr0
Comment #2
• Completion of another standard
• The project is intended to develop cross-technologies
coexistence mechanisms. At this point, there is no
existing technology that has completed its development
or in operation in the TVWS. How can the mechanisms
developed in this project be applicable to TVWS
coexistence without having any knowledge of or
compatibility with known TVWS radio technologies?
Submission
Slide 41
Steve Shellhammer, Qualcomm
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.19-09/00XXr0
Comment #3
• Explanatory Notes
• There are two types of TVBDs: 1) lower power
personal/portable devices at up to 100mW EIRP and 2)
fixed device at up to 1W output power and 4W EIRP.
Are they all considered "low power" transmitters?
Submission
Slide 42
Steve Shellhammer, Qualcomm
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.19-09/00XXr0
Comment #4
• Again, how could the technology-independent
coexistence mechanisms address operations such as
"discovery", "connectivity" and "QoS maximization"
for different technologies without having knowledge of
and compatibility with those technologies? Note that
the answer to item 5.3 is "NO".
Submission
Slide 43
Steve Shellhammer, Qualcomm
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.19-09/00XXr0
Comments from Richard Kennedy
Submission
Slide 44
Steve Shellhammer, Qualcomm
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.19-09/00XXr0
Comment #1
•
Steve:
•
We are adding the following to our 5 Criteria document and request that
you do the same, changing “802.19” to “802.11”:
•
The 5 Criteria (17.5.4.1 ) will be modified to say “The working group will
create a CA document as part of the WG balloting process. The WG will
maintain liaisons with the other WGs regarding coexistence in the TVWS.
IEEE 802.11 will provide WG drafts with CA documents to 802.19 and
802.22 members for review and WG balloting.”
•
Rich Kennedy
Submission
Slide 45
Steve Shellhammer, Qualcomm
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.19-09/00XXr0
Comments from T. Olson
Submission
Slide 46
Steve Shellhammer, Qualcomm
November 2009
doc.: IEEE 802.19-09/00XXr0
Comment #1
•
•
•
C/LM/WG802.19/802.19.1
P802.19.1 Standard for Information Technology - Telecommunications and
Information Exchange
Between Systems - Local and Metropolitan Area Networks - Specific
Requirements Part 19: TV White Space Coexistence Mechanisms
Original Comment from T Olsen
Approve, but only for four-year validity. Schedule shows completion in over 5
years
(12/2013 is really 2014). Accelerate schedule to complete balloting no later than
Sept, 2013 with submittal to RevCom in early October, 2013 for consideration
at the
December 2013 meeting.
•
There is no dialog for this comment.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Submission
Slide 47
Steve Shellhammer, Qualcomm