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

Dorothy

I have some questions before voting.
It is certainly reasonable that a group that once thought PHY or MAC access methods would need to be changed has now concluded that they are no longer needed. 

1) If so, then shouldn't the PAR change to match this?
2) It may be true at this point that there are no changes that would require a CAD, it is possible that they could be introduced later on in the balloting process. Is it the TG's expectation that in this event a new CAD would be required?
3) At this time, 802.11ax's CAD is not yet approved. Is it implicit in this change that the 802.11ax CAD needs to be approved in order for this CSD change? 

Thanks

James Gilb

On 1/24/19 11:59 AM, Stanley, Dorothy wrote:

Hello Roger, Bob, EC members,

Below are responses to some of the comments made on the reflector related to the ongoing P802.11az CSD modification ballot.

The ballot and direction indicated in the motion are in accordance with the 802 P&P, and I ask for your support of the motion.

Thanks,

Dorothy
==============================


a)      Re: Roger Marks’ comment that “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. “

                                  i.            The WG11 position is that there is NO (not limited) coexistence impact from the P802.11az amendment.
The rationale is indicated in the reason provided, “The amendment will use the same channel assement methods, modulation, protection and reservation method and same spectral mask as the respective PHY it uses.”

                                ii.            The 802 Criteria for Standards Development (CSD) process specifically provides for the ability of a project to indicate that a Coexistence Assurance Document is not applicable. I note that an amendment with “Not Applicable” 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.


b)      Re: Bob Heile’s initial comment that “Even if the same PHY is being used, there may be new 802 Wireless Standards that have been published in the meantime that should be examined with respect to coexistence assurance. If a CAD is provided I will vote approve.”

a.       P802.11az mechanisms use the 11n (HT2.4/5GHz), 11ac (VHT/5GHz), 11ax (HE 2.4/5- 7GHz), and 11ay (60GHz) PHYs.

                                                                i.      The Coexistance Assurance document for P802.11ay was approved August 20, 2018. There have been no new 802 Wireless standards re: 60 GHz published in the meantime to examine.

                                                              ii.      A revised version of the Coexistence Assurance document for P802.11 ax (covers 2.4 & 5-7GHz) will be balloted shortly.  There are no new 802 Wireless standards published in the meantime to examine.

b.      Noting “should be examined” in the comment, CADs are not required to consider standards published in the meantime.

                                                                i.      For example, the recently approved (August 2018) 802.15.4x CAD<https://mentor.ieee.org/802.15/dcn/18/15-18-0388-00-004x-coexistence-assurance-document-802-15-4x-fane.pdf>, while indicating that no changes were made to the underlying PHY, did not consider/require consideration of the 802 Wireless standards published in the meantime (since 2011).



c)       Re: Bob Heile’s subsequent comment that  “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…”

                                  i.            The WG11 position is that indeed there is NO (not limited) coexistence impact from the P802.11az amendment changes.
This is indicated in the reason provided, “The amendment will use the same channel assement methods, modulation, protection and reservation method and same spectral mask as the respective PHY it uses.”

                                ii.            If the 802 EC require that a project with “any MAC changes which affected over the air behavior” have a CAD, then virtually every project will require a CAD – for example when any new frame that is transmitted over the air is defined.  I fail to see how such a statement is remotely reasonable. An amendment modifying security parameters in a transmitted frame would be included in such a definition. The phrase “affected over the air behaviour” is overly broad and not consistent with 802 CAD practice.

                               iii.            The 802 Criteria for Standards Development (CSD) process specifically provides for the ability of a project to indicate that a Coexistence Assurance Document is not applicable. I note that an amendment with “Not Applicable” 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.

==============================

------------------------
Dorothy Stanley
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
dorothy.stanley@hpe.com<mailto:dorothy.stanley@hpe.com>
+1 630-363-1389

From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Bob Heile
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2019 5:55 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [802SEC] Please read: Comments on motion to modify 11az CSD
Importance: High

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 <r.b.marks@IEEE.ORG><mailto:r.b.marks@IEEE.ORG>
To: Stanley, Dorothy <dorothy.stanley@hpe.com><mailto:dorothy.stanley@hpe.com>, stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto: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 (dorothy.stanley@hpe.com<mailto:dorothy.stanley@hpe.com>) wrote:


Dear EC members,

Â

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 .

Â

Per Clause 9.2 of the LMSC Operations Manual (“Sponsor approval 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 me, this email opens a 10 day EC electronic ballot to approve the updated P802.11az CSD document.

Â

Â

EC motion: Approve CSD modification documentation in https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/19/11-19-0215-01-00az-csd-update.docx .

Â

In the WG: Y/N/A): 58/0/0

Â

Moved: Dorothy Stanley

Seconded: Jon Rosdahl

Result:

Â

Thank you,

Â

Dorothy

=====================

For your information, the change to the CSD is shown below.

Â
1.1.2Â Â  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)Â Â Â Â  Will the WG create a CA document as part of the WG balloting process as described in Clause 13?
Yes No.

b)Â Â Â Â  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.

Â

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

Dorothy Stanley

Hewlett Packard Enterprise

dorothy.stanley@hpe.com<mailto:dorothy.stanley@hpe.com>

+1 630-363-1389

Â
________________________________
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
________________________________
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

________________________________

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

----------
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.