Re: [802SEC] Feedback on PARs from 802.11
G'day all
I would like to offer the attached comment as a personal comment in
relation to the 802.21 MRPM PAR. Unfortunately it was contributed to
late too be considered by the 802.11 WG
Andrew Myles
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org]
On Behalf Of Jon Rosdahl
Sent: Wednesday, 11 March 2009 10:48 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [802SEC] Feedback on PARs from 802.11
Hello All
Attached is the feedback we have for the PARs under consideration this
week.
Respectfully submitted,
Jon
802.11 WG Vice-Chair
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
Jon Rosdahl 10871 North 5750 West
hm:801-756-1496 Highland, UT 84003
cell:801-376-6435
office: 801-492-4023
A Job is only necessary to eat!
A Family is necessary to be happy
----------
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.
--- Begin Message ---
G 'day Jon
I would like to offer an additional comment on the 802.21 PAR
Andrew
________________________________
The stated objective for the PAR is as follows:
"The purpose of this amendment is to enhance the user experience
by extending the battery operating life of multi-radio mobile devices"
In reading the PAR/5C (in particular Clause 5.5 & Clause 17.5.4) the
text suggests that the power improvement only applies to multi-radio
devices while only 1 radio is active.
The problem with focusing on saving power by choosing 1 radio over an
other is that it implies that the device may only use 1 radio at a time
for all applications running on the dual mode device.
Several points are worth raising about this issue:
* Many dual radio devices operate today with both radios active.
Saving power while BOTH radios are active is a major concern. However,
this PAR ignores this use case by suggesting that the solution to the
power save problem is to deactivate or disable the secondary radio. The
PAR should not suggest a solution to the dual-radio device power save
problem is to deactivate the secondary radio.
* The proposed PAR suggests having the .21 "system" enable a
mechanism to switch between radios rather than enabling both radios at
the same time. It would seem that the .21 is forcing itself into the
data path of applications to ensure only one radio is active at a time.
It is not clear that this is practical and scalable. The PAR needs to
focus on saving power without requiring devices switching between radios
coordinated by the .21 system. The PAR also suggests that the .21 will
become the entity that chooses the "right" network/radio. This is
inappropriate for a IEEE technology to create such a system.
* It is not clear how a .21 system knows what is the best power
saving option for each radio technology so in a practical sense what
terms are defined in the PAR for saving power other than shutting down
radios? It is not clear that the PAR is focused on the right problem to
saving power with dual radios active.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
--- End Message ---