| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hello James, Thank you. Responses inline below. Dorothy ------------------------ Dorothy Stanley Hewlett Packard Enterprise dorothy.stanley@hpe.com +1 630-363-1389 -----Original Message----- 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? DS: The (somewhat high level) P802.11az PAR is still accurate. The understanding of WG11 is that the type of changes made 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? DS: At this point, there are no changes specified that require a CAD. It is theoretically possible, though unlikely, that changes
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? DS: The proposed P802.11az CSD change can be made at this time.
As indicated in the P802.11az PAR, P802.11az mechanisms will apply to the HE (TGax) PHY.
In the scenario that the P802.11ax amendment is ratified/published and 11ax CSD is approved but the 11ax CAD is not approved, Thus the answer to “Is it implicit in this change that the 802.11ax CAD needs to be approved in order for this CSD change?” is no.
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 . > >  > > 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.â€), 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. > 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 |