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



Hi Dorothy

The cases where a CAD is not needed have been clear cut and supported by the experts in coexistence.  That is not the case here where there are real concerns by the very people who are in the best position to offer a relevant opinion. I still fail to see what the big deal is in creating an up to date CAD.

Best

Bob


At 08:40 PM 1/29/2019 +0000, Stanley, Dorothy wrote:

Hello Bob, all,

 

The motion to approve the updated CSD document was brought to the floor.
Discussion was held. The CSD changes were reviewed and the CSD document was updated from R0 to R1 as a result of the discussion.
The motion was held. The WG voted 58-0-0 to approve the updated CSD document.


The 802 Criteria for Standards Development (CSD) process specifically provides for the ability of a project to indicate that a Coexistence Assurance Document (CAD) is not applicable. I note that an amendment with â??Not Applicableâ?? means that the amendment is MORE limited in the scope of changes that can be made; the amendment CANNOT make changes which would impact coexistence; an amendment must meet both PAR and CSD requirements.

802 has many approved CSD documents which indicate a rationale as to why a CAD is not applicable; these CSD were developed without requiring development of a CAD to document why a CAD is not needed.

 

Thanks,

Dorothy

------------------------

Dorothy Stanley

Hewlett Packard Enterprise

dorothy.stanley@hpe.com

+1 630-363-1389

 

From: Bob Heile [mailto:bheile@ieee.org]
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2019 4:44 PM
To: Stanley, Dorothy <dorothy.stanley@hpe.com>; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Please read: Comments on motion to modify 11az CSD

 

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 â??over the air behaviorâ?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 â??over the air behaviorâ??.
&nb

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:�¯�¿�½ If the 11az
> draft when balloted contains no PHY changes of any kind, is absent of
> new channel plans/band plans,�¯�¿�½ or MAC features that would affect
> over the air behavior, then it would still require explaining;�¯�¿�½ 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.�¯�¿�½ 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,
>>
>> �¯�¿�½
>>
>> 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
>> .
>>
>> �¯�¿�½
>>
>> Per Clause 9.2 of the LMSC Operations Manual (�¢??Sponsor approvalalal 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.
>>
>> �¯�¿�½
>>
>> �¯�¿�½
>>
>> 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
>> .
>>
>> �¯�¿�½
>>
>> In the WG: Y/N/A): 58/0/0
>>
>> �¯�¿�½
>>
>> Moved: Dorothy Stanley
>>
>> Seconded: Jon Rosdahl
>>
>> Result:
>>
>> �¯�¿�½
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> �¯�¿�½
>>
>> Dorothy
>>
>> =====================
>>
>> For your information, the change to the CSD is shown below.
>>
>> �¯�¿�½
>>
>>
>> 1.1.2Ã?¯Ã?¿Ã?½ Ã??  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)Ã?¯Ã?¿Ã?½ Ã?¯Ã?¿Ã?½ Ã?¯Ã?¿Ã?½ Ã??  Will the WG creatte a CA document as part of the WG
>> balloting process as described in Clause 13?
>> Yes No.
>>
>> b)Ã?¯Ã?¿Ã?½ Ã?¯Ã?¿Ã?½ Ã?¯Ã?¿Ã?½ Ã??  If not, explain why the CA docuument 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.
>>
>> �¯�¿�½
>>
>> ------------------------
>>
>> Dorothy Stanley
>>
>> Hewlett Packard Enterprise
>>
>> <mailto:dorothy.stanley@hpe.com>dorothy.stanley@hpe.com
>>
>> +1 630-363-1389
>>
>> �¯�¿�½
>>
>> ----------
>> 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


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