| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
We could address the first point (a) by providing a definition of "technology neutrality" that fits what we usually mean by the term in 802. Which if the goal is to allow use of 802 wireless technologies (even if only one) as an alternative to 3GPP would make
sense. It might read something like:
"Technology Neutrality as used in this document means that regulations do not require the use of any specific technology and do not favour nor discriminate against any technology. It
is possible to adhere to the regulations with solutions and technologies from different manufacturers, developers, suppliers and distributors and based upon different standards."
(I paraphrased from "European
Interoperability Framework" definition. Maybe someone has a better definition?)
I have no suggestions for (b) and (c). I am remaining neutral 🙂.
Ben
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org> on behalf of Roger Marks <r.b.marks@IEEE.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 4:41 PM To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ Yet another new EC ballot +++ Approval of submission for RSPG’s consultation on DRAFT Opinion on “The development of 6G and possible implications for spectrum needs and guidance on the rollout of future wireless broadband networks” Edward,
Thanks for the response. For the record, I want to explain why I’m maintaining my DIS: (a) The draft statement says that it supports the Draft Opinion’s statement about technology neutrality. “Technology neutrality” is not defined in the documents, but I believe that the RSPG would follow the definition of GSMA, which says "In the context of mobile communications, technology neutrality enables the flexible use of subsequent 3GPP standards within licensed frequency bands… The real focus of technology neutrality is to allow mobile operators to replace older equipment in a frequency band with equipment of a newer standard to move from 2G to 3G, or 3G to 4G or 5G”. I don’t see any need for IEEE 802 to take a position in support of that concept. As best I can understand, intention of the draft 802 statement is basically that "we support technology neutrality as long as it means something entirely different from the definition of the mobile industry but we aren't providing our alternative definition." (b) I understand the statement about industrial sites, since the proprietor can restrict the devices operating therein. But I cannot understand how this can extend to the typical stadium scenario. Sure, the stadium can provide APs that support the cited scheduling mechanisms; however, it cannot easily prevent the patrons from carrying devices that operate without regard to those scheduling mechanisms. If the cited mechanism can actually control the network QoS in the presence of legacy devices, then a citation to demonstrate that should be added. (c) I don’t understand why wide channel bandwidth (up tp 320 MHz) supports “high determinism”. For example, how does the “determinism" compare when two users share 320 MHz, as compared to each user getting a clear 160 MHz? A citation would be helpful. Cheers,
Roger
On Aug 22, 2023, 9:44 AM -0600, Edward Au <edward.ks.au@gmail.com>, wrote:
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 |