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

Re: [802SEC] Please read: Comments on motion to modify 11az CSD



I don't see how that explains why coexistence analysis and documentation as reqiored in the 802 process rules should be circumtented.  It suggests at least 4 things that should be documented, and leaves out an important consideration.   In particular, (2) concerns me as there is currently no CAD that covers coexistence between 802.11 and 802.15.4 in the bands between 6 and 10 GHz.  The only CADs I find that cover that region, the CAD for 802.15.4a and 802.15.4f, were performed before there were any 802.11 channel plans covering this region.  This was raised in comments to the the  802.11ax CAD ballot in 802.19, which included comments that the "same as it always was" argument is no longer valid given the addition of channelization overlapping with the existing 802.15.4 UWB PHYs. 

The scope of the project is not limited to only those items you list, and my (perhaps wrong) understanding is that it has not yet been balloted.  That understanding is based on the requirement that a CAD be produced and balloted with the initial draft. Based on the scope there is clear potential for the amendment to make changes which impact coexistence.   If in fact the draft content is limited to only those 4 things listed, and the group has determined either analytically, empirically or by other means that there is no coexistence impact from these changes, those findings and the method used should be documented. References to prior coexistence documentation is fine IMO where the prior work covers the affected bands, but obviously will not cover other 802 wireless standards and amendments that did not exist when the work was done.

If the group has determined that

(1) there are no changes in MAC or PHY that impact coexistence performance,

(2) There are no changes to 802.11 channel plans or spectrum utilization,

(3) there are no new standards or amendments to other 802 wireless standards which have been published are known to be underway which add to the channel and band plan of the respective standards, and

(4) there is no potential impact on legacy 802.11 systems

Then such determination should be documented and reviewed as part of the draft review process. 

Respectfully

Benjamin A. Rolfe (Blind Creek Associates)




On 1/28/2019 4:43 PM, Bob Heile wrote:
Hi Dorothy

What did the WG consider in item 4 to reach this conclusion?

Best

Bob


At 11:48 PM 1/28/2019 +0000, Stanley, Dorothy wrote:
Hello James,
 
In response to your question " Does the draft have any PHY that affect over the air behavior?":
 
I note that the term “over the air behavior� is broad. A change to add (or delete) any new frame type or to define a new value in a field can be viewed as changing “over the air behavior�.
 
The 802.11az draft contains changes to MAC and PHY clauses.
  1. In the 60Ghz band, P802.11az changes the TRN field to optimize the field for positioning purposes rather than data demodulation; the changes will have no effect on co-existence.
  2. In the <7Ghz band, P802.11az changes the HE LTF field to optimize the field for positioning purposes rather than data demodulation; the changes will have no effect on co-existence.
  3. The amendment adds a new frame sequence that is used for positioning. The co-existence with 802.11 and non-802.11 devices is identical to that for other frame sequences of the respective PHY.
  4. The WG believes that these changes do not impact coexistence with other PHYs; the result in the WG on the CSD approval motion was 58-0-0.
 
Thanks,
 
Dorothy
 
------------------------
Dorothy Stanley
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
dorothy.stanley@hpe.com
+1 630-363-1389
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of James P. K. Gilb
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 8:55 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Please read: Comments on motion to modify 11az CSD
 
Dear Bob and Roger
 
It isn't clear to me what the 802.11az drafters would put into the CAD other than the statement that is in the CSD.
 
The CSD has a section to describe why a CAD isn't needed. This currently states "The amendment will use the same channel assement methods, modulation, protection and reservation method and same spectral mask as the respective PHY it uses."
 
What other potential PHY changes could be made that would affect coexistence that is not addressed in the preceding statement.
 
Dorothy
 
Does the draft have any PHY that affect over the air behavior?
 
James Gilb
 
 
On 1/24/19 5:55 AM, Bob Heile wrote:
> Hi All
>
> I strongly encourage those of you who have already voted "yes" to
> change your vote to "NO". FWIW I agree with Roger:� If the 11az
> draft when balloted contains no PHY changes of any kind, is absent of
> new channel plans/band plans,� or MAC features that would affect
> over the air behavior, then it would still require explaining;� that
> is the actual purpose of having a CAD.
>
> The stated rational *might* be an appropriate analysis if there were
> no PHY changes at all, nor any MAC changes which affected over the air
> behavior.� I find such situation unlikely given the stated goals of
> the task group and the scope of the PAR:
>
> This amendment defines modifications to both the IEEE 802.11 medium
> access control layer (MAC) and physical layers (PHY) of High
> Throughput (HT), Very High Throughput (VHT), Directional Multi Gigabit
> (DMG) and PHYs under concurrent development (e.g. High Efficiency WLAN
> (HEW), Next Generation 60GHz
> (NG60)) that enables determination of absolute and relative position
> with better accuracy with respect to the Fine Timing Measurement (FTM)
> protocol executing on the same PHY-type, while reducing existing
> wireless medium use and power consumption and is scalable to dense
> deployments.
> This amendment requires backward compatibility and coexistence with
> legacy devices. Backward compatibility with legacy 802.11 devices
> implies that devices implementing this amendment shall (a) maintain
> data communication compatibility and (b) support the Fine Timing
> Measurement (FTM) protocol.
>
> Since modifications to PHY layer are included, and it seems likely
> reaching the goal of improved position accuracy will require PHY
> changes. I would also expect MAC changes which would change external
> behavior which may (or may not) affect coexistence. The PAR scope
> requires assessment of coexistence with 'legacy devices" and the 802
> rules require at least "consideration" of other wireless 802 standards
> which may operate in the same bands. The scope of the PAR most
> definitely allows the task group to propose changes that will impact
> coexistence with both legacy 802.11 devices and other 802 wireless
> standards which operate in the same band.
>
> We created the CAD process for good reasons. Why undermine it?
>
> Bob
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++10 day EC Electronic Ballot+++ CSD
> modification approval motion: IEEE 802.11 WG P802.11az CSD
> modification
> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 15:11:05 -0800
> From: Roger Marks <mailto:r.b.marks@IEEE.ORG><r.b.marks@IEEE.ORG>
> To: Stanley, Dorothy
> <mailto:dorothy.stanley@hpe.com><dorothy.stanley@hpe.com>,
> <mailto:stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>
>
> Dorothy,
>
> I vote Disapprove.
>
> The argument about the limited coexistence impact seems pretty
> reasonable, but I think it would be better to transfer that argument
> into a Coexistence Assurance document and circulate that during ballot
> so that the broader community can have a chance to review it.
>
> Regards,
>
> Roger
>
>
> On January 19, 2019 at 12:54:32 PM, Stanley, Dorothy
> (<mailto:dorothy.stanley@hpe.com>dorothy.stanley@hpe.com) wrote:
>
>> Dear EC members,
>>
>> �
>>
>> At the 802.11 meeting this past week, WG11 approved an updated
>> P802.11az CSD document, attached, and available here:
>> <https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/19/11-19-0215-01-00az-csd-update.
>> docx>https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/19/11-19-0215-01-00az-csd-upd
>> ate.docx
>> .
>>
>> �
>>
>> Per Clause 9.2 of the LMSC Operations Manual (“Sponsor approvalal of
>> changes to the CSD statement after its initial approval may occur
>> either at plenary sessions or by electronic ballot, as described in
>> 4.1.2.�), and with Paul’s delegation of conduct of the ballot to to
>> me, this email opens a 10 day EC electronic ballot to approve the
>> updated P802.11az CSD document.
>>
>> �
>>
>> �
>>
>> EC motion: Approve CSD modification documentation in
>> <https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/19/11-19-0215-01-00az-csd-update.
>> docx>https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/19/11-19-0215-01-00az-csd-upd
>> ate.docx
>> .
>>
>> �
>>
>> In the WG: Y/N/A): 58/0/0
>>
>> �
>>
>> Moved: Dorothy Stanley
>>
>> Seconded: Jon Rosdahl
>>
>> Result:
>>
>> �
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> �
>>
>> Dorothy
>>
>> =====================
>>
>> For your information, the change to the CSD is shown below.
>>
>> �
>>
>>
>> 1.1.2�   Coexistence
>>
>>
>>
>> A WG proposing a wireless project shall demonstrate coexistence
>> through the preparation of a Coexistence Assurance (CA) document
>> unless it is not applicable.
>>
>> a)� � �   Will the WG create a CA document as part of the WG
>> balloting process as described in Clause 13?
>> Yes No.
>>
>> b)� � �   If not, explain why the CA document is not applicable.
>>
>> The amendment will use the same channel assement methods, modulation,
>> protection and reservation method and same spectral mask as the
>> respective PHY it uses.
>>
>> �
>>
>> ------------------------
>>
>> Dorothy Stanley
>>
>> Hewlett Packard Enterprise
>>
>> <mailto:dorothy.stanley@hpe.com>dorothy.stanley@hpe.com
>>
>> +1 630-363-1389
>>
>> �
>>
>> ----------
>> To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link:
>> <https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1>https:/
>> /listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1
>>
>
> ----------
> To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link:
> <https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1>https://
> listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1
>
>
> ----------
> To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-WPAN list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-WPAN&A=1
>
>
> Bob Heile
>
> 11 Toner Blvd, STE 5-301
> North Attleboro, MA 02763
> (781) 929 4832
> ----------
> This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. 
> This list is maintained by Listserv.
 
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.
 

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1


Bob Heile, Ph.D

Chair, IEEE 802.15 Working Group on Wireless Specialty Networks
Chair IEEE 2030.5 Working Group for Smart Energy Profile 2
Co-Chair IEEE P2030 Task Force 3 on Smartgrid Communications

11 Robert Toner Blvd, Suite 5-301
North Attleboro, MA  02763   USA
Mobile: +1-781-929-4832
email:   bheile@ieee.org


To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1



To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1