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

[802SEC] 802.11 Sub 1 GHz PAR

Dear Bruce and EC members.

(Bruce, please forward this to the S1G reflector.)

I disagree with the 802.11 sub 1 GHz PAR scope because it is too vague.

The scope says:
This amendment defines standard operation and channelization of license-exempt frequency bands below 1 GHz, except the TV White Spaces, for IEEE 802.11 networks while meeting legal requirements across regulatory domains.

So the only requirements are:
 - wireless system
 - uses license-exempt frequency bands below 1 GHz (except TVWS)
("meeting legal requirements" is implied by operating in the bands.)

There are no requirements for:
 - range
 - data rates
 - power consumption (or an application that implies this)
- compatibility with 802.11 MAC (in fact, they could create a completely different MAC, according to the PAR).

Almost anything could meet these requirements, for example
 - 100 b/s with 1 km range
 - 100 Mb/s with 10 cm range
and almost anything in between. Because of this, it is not possible to say that any of the 5Cs are met. If the goal is 10 Mb/s at 100 km for mobile devices, then I don't think it is technically or economically feasible. If it replicates the data rate and range of 802.15.4 in the 902-928 MHz band, then it is difficult to say it is unique.

If we are going to approve scopes like this, then there is no reason to bother voting on them as we are basically saying that anything goes with the group.

I recommend adding to the scope the following items:
 - target range, e.g., 1 km
 - target data rate, (examples: nominally 5 Mbs; > 100 kb/s; or < 2 Mb/s,)
- Uses the 802.11 MAC with only those changes required to support the new PHY. - Specify a target application (i.e., is QoS required? If so, what level? Are they networks with only occasional transmissions? Are the devices mobile? Stationary but battery powered? How long do they need to operate off of batteries.)

Without these clarifications, the EC cannot possibly evaluate the 5 C to say that it applies to this project.

Furthermore, I don't think these clarifications change the intention of the group. Rather they are simply to put down in the scope the design target of the proposed amendment.

James Gilb
IEEE 802 Recording Secretary

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