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always was" argument is no longer valid given the addition of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
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
(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
Benjamin A. Rolfe (Blind
On 1/28/2019 4:43 PM, Bob Heile wrote:
What did the WG consider in item 4 to reach this conclusion?
At 11:48 PM 1/28/2019 +0000, Stanley, Dorothy wrote:
In response to your question " Does the draft have any PHY
affect over the air behavior?":
I note that the term â€œover the air behaviorâ€? is broad. A
add (or delete) any new frame type or to define a new value in
can be viewed as changing â€œover the air behaviorâ€?.
The 802.11az draft contains changes to MAC and PHY clauses.
- In the 60Ghz band, P802.11az changes the TRN field to
field for positioning purposes rather than data
demodulation; the changes
will have no effect on co-existence.
- In the <7Ghz band, P802.11az changes the HE LTF field
the field for positioning purposes rather than data
changes will have no effect on co-existence.
- The amendment adds a new frame sequence that is used for
The co-existence with 802.11 and non-802.11 devices is
identical to that
for other frame sequences of the respective PHY.
- The WG believes that these changes do not impact
other PHYs; the result in the WG on the CSD approval
motion was 58-0-0.
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
On Behalf Of James P. K. Gilb
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 8:55 PM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Please read: Comments on motion to
Dear Bob and Roger
It isn't clear to me what the 802.11az drafters would put into
other than the statement that is in the CSD.
The CSD has a section to describe why a CAD isn't needed. This
states "The amendment will use the same channel assement
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
coexistence that is not addressed in the preceding statement.
Does the draft have any PHY that affect over the air behavior?
On 1/24/19 5:55 AM, Bob Heile wrote:
> Hi All
> I strongly encourage those of you who have already voted
> change your vote to "NO". FWIW I agree with Roger:Ã¯Â¿Â½
If the 11az
> draft when balloted contains no PHY changes of any kind,
> new channel plans/band plans,Ã¯Â¿Â½ or MAC features that
> over the air behavior, then it would still require
> is the actual purpose of having a CAD.
> The stated rational *might* be an appropriate analysis if
> no PHY changes at all, nor any MAC changes which affected
> behavior.Ã¯Â¿Â½ I find such situation unlikely given the
> the task group and the scope of the PAR:
> This amendment defines modifications to both the IEEE
> access control layer (MAC) and physical layers (PHY) of
> Throughput (HT), Very High Throughput (VHT), Directional
> (DMG) and PHYs under concurrent development (e.g. High
> (HEW), Next Generation 60GHz
> (NG60)) that enables determination of absolute and
> with better accuracy with respect to the Fine Timing
> protocol executing on the same PHY-type, while reducing
> wireless medium use and power consumption and is scalable
> This amendment requires backward compatibility and
> legacy devices. Backward compatibility with legacy 802.11
> implies that devices implementing this amendment shall
> data communication compatibility and (b) support the Fine
> Measurement (FTM) protocol.
> Since modifications to PHY layer are included, and it
> reaching the goal of improved position accuracy will
> changes. I would also expect MAC changes which would
> behavior which may (or may not) affect coexistence. The
> requires assessment of coexistence with 'legacy devices"
> rules require at least "consideration" of other wireless
> which may operate in the same bands. The scope of the PAR
> definitely allows the task group to propose changes that
> coexistence with both legacy 802.11 devices and other 802
> standards which operate in the same band.
> We created the CAD process for good reasons. Why
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++10 day EC Electronic Ballot+++
> modification approval motion: IEEE 802.11 WG P802.11az
> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 15:11:05 -0800
> From: Roger Marks
> To: Stanley, Dorothy
> I vote Disapprove.
> The argument about the limited coexistence impact seems
> reasonable, but I think it would be better to transfer
> into a Coexistence Assurance document and circulate that
> so that the broader community can have a chance to review
> On January 19, 2019 at 12:54:32 PM, Stanley, Dorothy
>> Dear EC members,
>> At the 802.11 meeting this past week, WG11 approved
>> P802.11az CSD document, attached, and available here:
>> Per Clause 9.2 of the LMSC Operations Manual
>> changes to the CSD statement after its initial
>> either at plenary sessions or by electronic ballot,
>> 4.1.2.Ã¢€?), and with PaulÃ¢€™s delegation of conduct
ballot to to
>> me, this email opens a 10 day EC electronic ballot to
>> updated P802.11az CSD document.
>> EC motion: Approve CSD modification documentation in
>> In the WG: Y/N/A): 58/0/0
>> Moved: Dorothy Stanley
>> Seconded: Jon Rosdahl
>> Thank you,
>> For your information, the change to the CSD is shown
>> 1.1.2Ã¯Â¿Â½ Ã‚ Coexistence
>> A WG proposing a wireless project shall demonstrate
>> through the preparation of a Coexistence Assurance
>> unless it is not applicable.
>> a)Ã¯Â¿Â½ Ã¯Â¿Â½ Ã¯Â¿Â½ Ã‚ Will the WG create a CA
as part of the WG
>> balloting process as described in Clause 13?
>> Yes No.
>> b)Ã¯Â¿Â½ Ã¯Â¿Â½ Ã¯Â¿Â½ Ã‚ If not, explain why the CA
document is not applicable.
>> The amendment will use the same channel assement
>> protection and reservation method and same spectral
mask as the
>> respective PHY it uses.
>> Dorothy Stanley
>> Hewlett Packard Enterprise
>> +1 630-363-1389
>> To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the
> To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the
> To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-WPAN list, click the
> 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
> 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,
Bob Heile, Ph.D
Chair, IEEE 802.15 Working Group on Wireless Specialty
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
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following
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