Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

[802SEC] My comments on 802.11 PARs

Dear Bruce

Here are my comments on the PARs.  My initial impression is that these
PARs should not be approved as is.

This amendment will be backward compatible and co-exist with IEEE
802.11-2007 and all published amendments.

802.11 TVWS


5.2 The scope is inadequate.  What are the documents that allow
operations in the TVWS bands.  Where are they defined?  Does this
apply only to US regulations?  What is the target data rate or range?
What problem does the MAC/PHY modifications solve?  Based on this
scope, a solution that delivers 1 kb/s at 2 feet would meet the scope.

5.2 Of course the modifications are standardized.  That is why it is
called a standard.  Delete "standardized"

5.4 The purpose is not adequately defined.  Are all 802.11 wireless
networks used?  Aren't these networks already allowed in their bands?
I would guess that the idea is to take one of the many PHYs in the
802.11 standard (not all of which interoperate) and have it operate at a
different frequency.  However, this is not stated in the PAR.  If this
is true, which PHY will be used to operate in this band?  What problem
is going to be solved?  Based on that, there will be range and rate
requirements.  Since there are incumbent users in this band,
presumably some form of coexistence is required with non-802 wireless
systems would necessarily be part of the scope and purpose.

5.5 Is the spectrum globally available?  Is is different in different
regulatory regimes.  Has it been allocated for license free use in
those regions?  What requirements are there to operate in those
regions?  The specific regulatory regions should have been identified
to show that there is bandwidth available for use and to know the
restrictions that there will be on the operation of these systems.
Without that initial information, it is not possible to evaluate the
technical feasibility or cost.

6.1.a - date is missing, this needs to be filled in.

I don't think this is the correct section from a PAR submittal form.

8. - Here we see the regulatory reference.  However, the scope here
says that the amendment will "adapt to changes in the regulations, as
they progress", but that would leave an open-ended requirement and the
standard would never be finished.  Instead, list the existing
regulations and include any that are completed within x years or by a
certain date so that this amendement can be finished on time.  If new
regulations appear later, additional amendments can be created to deal
with them.

If this section is going to be part of the scope, it should be written
as if it was going to be part of the standard and hence it would not
refer to "WG11 TVWS" but instead would be "this standard"

"other approaches are also possible" is a meaningless statement,
of course other approaces are possible.  Delete the phrase.

This is not an explanatory note, this needs to be part of the Scope
section in the PAR, not as a part of 8.


17.5.3.a: If the key difference is that this standard would support
personal/portable devices, then this should be stated in the Scope and
Purpose.  As written, the Scope is not distinct.  If the difference is
personal/portable, then the group needs to explain why existing
standards are unable to support this capability.

17.5.4.a: Certainly the MAC and PHY are feasible in the bands, but
what about accessing the database over the internet?  Is there a
feasible method for doing this that is not cost prohibitive?

17.5.5.b: I think that the cost will be reasonable, but the impact to
the radio going lower in frequency is much different than adding 4.9
and 5.0 GHz.  For example, passive in the < 900 MHz band are much
larger on chip.  Also, the percent bandwidth is significantly larger
in these lower bands.  A better comparison would be to compare to TV
tuner chips which deal with these issues.

802.11 prioritization


5.2 The scope does not adequately define the project.  Which
management frames?  What priority is sought?  What problem is going to
be solved?

5.4 The purpose does not adequately define the project, see comments
on the scope.

5.5 This has more information, but not enough.  What are the
circumstance in which the performance could be adversely affected?
Which networks?  How much of a problem is this?  What problem does the
application see?

6.1.a - I don't think these are the correct sections from the current
online PAR form.

7.1 It is not up to 802.11v to decide that the scopes are different.
The questions not that the current project is "outside of their
scope", but rather are there projects with similar scopes.

The questions should be answered as "Yes" and the group needs to
provide reasons why the two are different.

8.  These need to be in the scope, not in the explanatory notes and
they need to be written for inclusion in the standard.

I would think that the mechanisms "shall allow for backward
compatibility" rather than should.  Is there a specific reason why
this amendment would need to break backward compatibility?  In 17.5.2,
it is stated that "This amendment will be backward compatible and
co-exist with IEEE 802.11-2007 and all published amendments."

"This project will consider mechanisms to be deployed on existing IEEE
802.11-2007 devices in the market."  Are these non-standard
mechanisms?  This sentence doesn't say anything, it should be deleted.

"The mechanisms defined in IEEE 802.11i, IEEE 802.11r, and IEEE
802.11w should be applicable to solutions considered by this project."
Please clarify what you mean here.  Is this a statement of fact or a
requirement for the project to meet?

"The data encapsulation mechanisms developed in P802.11v and P802.11z
may be leveraged in the solution."  This doesn't seem like a
requirement, does it need to be here?

No comments

James Gilb
802 EC Recording Secretary

This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.