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

James,

According to the procedure, the CA document accompanies the draft in ballot, and the "ballot group makes the determination on whether the coexistence necessary for the standard or amendment has been met." So, even if that one sentence from the proposed CSD forms the entire CA document, then the CA process differs by including three key features:

(a) The ballot group would review the CA document in conjunction with the balloted draft and ensure that they are (and remain) consistent.
(b) The ballot would include 802.19 ("As part of its ballot comments, the IEEE 802.19 WG will verify the CA methodology was applied appropriately and reported correctly.")
(c) The EC would have a technical record on which to base a decision.

At the very minimum, a ballot process could fix the spelling and clarify the wording, which I believe could stand some improvement.

Cheers,

Roger

On January 25, 2019 at 9:55:53 PM, James P. K. Gilb (000008e8b69871c2-dmarc-request@listserv.ieee.org) wrote:

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:� 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 <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,
>>
>> �
>>
>> 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-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.†), 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.
>>
>> �
>>
>> �
>>
>> 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-update.docx
>> .
>>
>> �
>>
>> In the WG: Y/N/A): 58/0/0
>>
>> �
>>
>> Moved: Dorothy Stanley
>>
>> Seconded: Jon Rosdahl
>>
>> Result:
>>
>> �
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> �
>>
>> Dorothy
>>
>> =====================
>>
>> For your information, the change to the CSD is shown below.
>>
>> �
>>
>>
>> 1.1.2�   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)� � �   Will the WG create a CA document as part of the WG
>> balloting process as described in Clause 13?
>> Yes No.
>>
>> b)� � �   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.
>>
>> �
>>
>> ------------------------
>>
>> Dorothy Stanley
>>
>> Hewlett Packard Enterprise
>>
>> <mailto:dorothy.stanley@hpe.com>dorothy.stanley@hpe.com
>>
>> +1 630-363-1389
>>
>> �
>>
>> ----------
>> 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