[802SEC] 802.11 comments for 802.15.8 PSC PAR
802.15.8 new standard for personal space communications, PAR and 5C
5c- Unique Identity: How is PSC really unique from existing technologies?
On Slide 11 of Tutorial doc 15-11/158: Please explain use of PSC devices in this diagram (e.g. is a PSC device on the cell tower?)
Is it intended that multiple PSC domains will be meshed together?
5c-1a) 1st paragraph [This PAR is limited to 50Mbps, how does this address the higher speed that is discussed]
5c-1a) 2nd paragraph: [Seems to imply that the standard will address network connectivity (e.g. cellular, Wi-Fi), which is well beyond the apparent scope of personal space.]
5c-1a) 3rd paragraph: [This is not true. As described, 802.11 and 802.15 address these applications]
5c-1a) 4th paragraph: [All these features are addressed by existing standards. The issue of whether it needs to be addressed by a single standard is debatable since combo chips are very successful in the market place.]
5c-3a) [This is not a convincing argument. The market and wireless industry today has already fully embraced the multi-radio era. Laptops, netbooks, smartphones, desktops, tablets, TVs, etc., they all come with a plethora of wireless technologies ranging from Bluetooth, 802.11, 2G, 3G, HSPA, 4G, etc. There is no evidence whatsoever that there is a need in the market to "to have a new solution with one technology" for the applications listed in this PAR. In fact, the PAR seems to be largely trying to "reinvent the wheel", so to speak.]
5c-4a) Can these assertions be cited? Point to documents or papers.802.15 documents?
[No references are provided of a demonstration of this technology. We believe any such simulations, test results, and demonstrations can be demonstrated from existing examples from BT and Wi-Fi which have already provided real world examples of feasibility.]
5.2 Scope:
a) Clearly state which bands you are intending to operate in.
b) References to other PAR sections are not valid in Scope statement. remove "more info" sentence.
1) If the target data rate is less than 50Mbps, why not amend the 802.15.3 standard (or even upgrade the 802.15.4 standard) for this purpose?
2) All the ongoing activities in 60GHz in the IEEE 802 as well as throughout the industry have focused on multi-Gbps wireless communication. As an example, this is the case with both 802.15.3c and 802.11ad. The reason for this is that the 60GHz band is ideally suited for such high performing networks due to the large swath of available spectrum worldwide. Therefore, creating a new standard in this band to provide data rates < 50Mbps would severely compromise QoS sensitive applications such as wireless display, wireless docking, sync&go, etc., that depend on the multi-Gbps speeds of 60GHz. We suggest to explicitly exclude 60 GHz from the PAR, so as to not pollute the spectrum with low data rate applications that are well suited by other bands.
3) Even though 802.15.3c and 802.11ad are being developed in different WGs, a significant amount of work has been jointly done by both groups to ensure adequate coexistence between these technologies. For example, they use the same channelization, sampling frequency, similar preamble structure, and so on. If any new activity is to be formed under IEEE 802 in the 60GHz band, it must adopt the same common parameters as to ensure proper coexistence between all the technologies in this band.
4) The wording seems to imply that the scope covers ALL unlicensed bands. As one example, how does the task group plan on addressing 5 GHz radar detection with the type of applications it highlighted. Other examples include the TVWS bands, etc.
5) Need to better explain how this is any different from 802.11and/or BT in 2.4 GHz, and why we need yet another interfering system in an already crowded band.
5.2 Scope - 2nd Paragraph:
1) Apparently, all the features mentioned above can be provided by existing specifications such as 802.15.3c and 802.11ad in the 60GHz band, and 802.15.3 and 802.11 in the 2.4GHz band. It is not clear why a new task group is needed to address these commonly found features.]
2) Coverage extension seems counter to "personal space" and would allow the task group to create a specification that covers any range, further overlapping with existing standards.
3) It is not clear what "group communication" means, please explain.
5.4 Purpose:
0) should be written in present tense
1) This is no different than a piconet in 802.15 terms and a PBSS in 802.11 terms. This can already be addressed by existing technologies.
2) It is not clear what "automatically configured" has to do with a MAC/PHY Specification. Automatically configuring multiple devices surrounding a person would be handled by a higher layer in the protocol stack.
5.5 Need:
1) This is not a convincing argument. The market and wireless industry today has already fully embraced the multi-radio era. Laptops, netbooks, smartphones, desktops, tablets, TVs, etc., they all come with a plethora of wireless technologies ranging from Bluetooth, 802.11, 2G, 3G, HSPA, 4G, etc. There is no evidence whatsoever that there is a need in the market to "to have a new solution with one technology" for the applications listed in this PAR. In fact, the PAR seems to be largely trying to "reinvent the wheel", so to speak.
2) The best case scenario of this activity would be an extra radio appended to existing combo chips
3 ) The PAR argument goes that no one standard supports all their use cases, so a new standard for a new unified radio is needed. Call this new unified radio "Esperanto". This has two problems, illustrated via example.
(1) Assume the PAR argument is true. Assume further that the TG can convince device manufacturers to agree to this vision. Manufacturers make devices with just the Esperanto radio, but they do not interoperate with other people's Bluetooth/WiFi systems. To get value, customers would have to buy a completely new set of equipment and move all their data to the new systems. Accordingly, these new Esperanto devices do not sell.
Manufacturers try again, and now make combo chips with Bluetooth/WiFi and the new Esperanto radio. Assume the Esperanto radio has some additional perceived value. These devices do sell. But the Esperanto radio has made the problem of combo chips worse, not better - now there are Bluetooth/WiFi and Esperanto radios in the combo.
(2) Assume the Esperanto radio successfully solves all use cases, so over time more and more devices omit Bluetooth/WiFi. After 5-10 years, there would be only the one Esperanto radio (ignoring FM, GPS, etc). But, let's assume that 2 years into this transition period, a new use case is discovered that cannot be met by the existing Esperanto radio. And, using the logic of the PAR, adding an additional radio to devices in order to address this new use case is an inadequate approach because it would be a combo Esperanto/"additional radio" chip.
Instead, the IEEE must design a new single radio that meets all the old use cases and the new use case. Call this a "Klingon" radio. Manufacturers make devices with just the Klingon radio, but they do not interoperate with the (still hanging-on) Bluetooth/WiFi systems or even the Esperanto radio. These Klingon devices do not sell.
Manufacturers try again, and now make combo chips with Bluetooth/WiFi/Esperanto and the new Klingon radio. These devices do sell. But the Klingon radio has made the problem of combo chips worse, not better - now there are Bluetooth/WiFi plus Esperanto plus Klingon radios in the combo.
Summary: given the rich ecosystem of Bluetooth and WiFi products, backwards compatibility (and extending the user experience) is vastly more important than avoiding combo chips
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.