Re: [802.15_GENERAL] [802.19] [802.15_GENERAL] TGn Letter Ballot Support
more on coexistence.
At 08:20 AM 5/26/2008 -0400, Ivan Reede wrote:
My
question on this is simple....
How does a device, which does not have a
clue of the 802.11 modulation and MAC mechanisms form a message that will
"set" the magic bit?
The next obvious question follows: How
does a low power device, with a shorter range and lower transmitting
power than an 802.11 device, signal anything to a 802.11 device that
prevents it from operating if the 802.11 device is bewyond the low power,
short range device. How doe a 10 meter range device tell an problematic
802.11 device at 30 meters to switch to the 20 MHz
mode?
The next one is, how does one protect
802.11 devices which claim to have a higher transmission speed to be
attacked by another device that simply signals it to reduce its speed. To
me, this sounds pretty bad... the comnsumer buys a device that claims to
go faster, puts it in a "normal" urban setting (where meny
devices go) where alot of legacy devices are present and ends up wirth a
device that will not perform at the higher
speeds.
Next, how does an older device perform
when a new device comes along... if it does not know how to signal the
"magic" bit to tell the new device to slow down... we have
millions of 02.11 devices deployed at 2.4 GHz. Are they going to be
negatively impacted. Is that in agreement with the 5 criteria we all work
so hard on when we create a PAR?
A question for the EC and the IEEE SA,
sonsors of 802 projects. Once a project has been approved, is the body
authorised to override the PAR's scope and most importantly, is the body
authorised to override the 5 criteria that were required to approve the
PAR, even if the limitations imposed by any of these 5 criteria is not
explicitly set out in the scope. I am seriously concerned by this last
question. My feeling for having participated in many groups is that I
have the growing perception whereby there appears to be a forming mindset
that a PAR is simply something to make the EC happy and that once the
prject has been authorised, any thing goes, the project body has ultimate
power. I think the body has been delegated a limited power by the EC
to create a standard wtihin the bounds of the project's scope and the 5
criteria upon which it was authorized and that this ought to be well
communicated to the working group members.
As far as people making things that are
beyond the standard, I have to fully agree, its about time we set limits
to proprietary things that can be "added" to comlpiant devices
and still claim compliance to a standard. What would happen for example,
if a manufacturer decided one day to make an 802.11 complaint device have
a special mode that could be set by the user, whereby it would transmit a
carrier whenever it wants, under user control. That device could pass all
802.11 compliance tests with that mode off, yet, when another of his
devices happens be be in vicinity, he could recognise it and both could
agree to "pre-emt" all neighbouring devices by killing them via
the carrier sense mode. That would give the 2 devices an unfair advantage
over other devices that respect the "carrier sense" by shutting
them off... but would that be a compliant device? Yes, I do support
prduct vendor can make additions to devices that give them an edge in so
much as they respect the spit of the standard and in general, improve the
orverall system performance and I would not like to curtail that, yet, I
think there are limits to these if they break some of our basic
principles, like network access fairness and I am not sure how we could
make those "implementations"
non-compliant.
As you can see, I have many questions
which beg for hard answers. This is food for thought. How does 802 make
sure that compliance promotes coexistence between vendors and all 802.xx
compliant wireless products in general?
Ivan Reede
- ----- Original Message -----
- From: Shellhammer,
Steve
- To:
paul.nikolich@att.net ; bkraemer@marvell.com ; carl.stevenson@ieee.org ; david.cypher@nist.gov ; eldad.perahia@intel.com ; I_reede@amerisys.com ; john.barr@motorola.com ; Joseph.Levy@InterDigital.com ; Mark.austin@ofcom.org.uk ; mjlynch@nortel.com ; nada.golmie@nist.gov ; ppiggin@nextwave.com ; bheile@ieee.org ; Shellhammer, Steve ; sli@sibeam.com ; swhitesell@vtech.ca ; vivek.g.gupta@intel.com
- Cc: bill.shvodian@ieee.org
- Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2008 11:16 PM
- Subject: RE: [802.19] [802.15_GENERAL] TGn Letter Ballot Support
- I wanted to forward this onto those who are not on the 802.19 reflector
-
- Steve
-
- From: Bill Shvodian [mailto:bill.shvodian@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Bill Shvodian
- Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2008 7:16 PM
- To: Shellhammer, Steve
- Subject: RE: [802.19] [802.15_GENERAL] TGn Letter Ballot Support
-
- Steve, I am not an 802.19 member, but I monitor the reflector so I am not doing a reply-all. I think that 40 MHz operation should be banned by the FCC and other regulatory agencies. I think .19 and .18 should be active on this. There are 2 billion Bluetooth/802.15.1 devices deployed that will be adversely impacted by 40 MHz 802.11n devices. You and others did a lot of good work to help 802.11 and 802.15.1 devices coexist and this definitely will not help. The 40 MHz intolerant bits seems nearly useless to me.
-
- Bill Shvodian
- Director of Standards
- NII Holdings
-
- From: Shellhammer, Steve [mailto:sshellha@QUALCOMM.COM]
- Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2008 2:38 PM
- To: STDS-802-19@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
- Subject: Re: [802.19] [802.15_GENERAL] TGn Letter Ballot Support
- IEEE 802.19 TAG,
-
- Paul Nikolich would like the opinion of the 802.19 members on the 40 MHz 802.11n discussion.
-
- If you have an opinion to share please “reply-all” so that everyone can hear your opinion.
-
- Regards,
- Steve
-
- From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:paul.nikolich@att.net]
- Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2008 7:06 AM
- To: Shellhammer, Steve
- Subject: Fw: [802.15_GENERAL] TGn Letter Ballot Support
-
- Steve,
-
- What is dot19's opinion on the below debate?
-
- --Paul
-
- ----- Original Message -----
- From: Matthew Fischer
- To: STDS-802-WPAN@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
- Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 10:29 PM
- Subject: Re: [802.15_GENERAL] TGn Letter Ballot Support
-
-
- I will be voting YES on TGn LB129, and I would urge others who are interested in defending 802.15.x devices' access to the ISMii band to vote YES as well.
-
- The current draft of the 802.11 TGn amendment contains normative language describing a mechanism (i.e. the 40 MHz Intolerant bit) that allows non-related devices to signal to the 40 MHz TGn devices that they cannot send 40 MHz transmissions, effectively allowing other users of the ISMii band to restrict the use of 40 MHz transmissions by TGn devices. 40 MHz 802.11 TGn devices are required to obey this signaling whenever it occurs.
-
- If 40 MHz operation is forbidden in ISMii by 802.11 TGn, then 40 MHz operation will be implemented as a set of vendor-specific non-standardized modes with variable degrees of good citizenship regarding spectrum sharing and with little or no opportunity for such devices to be controled by other users of the ISMii band.
-
- For these reasons, it is in the best interest of 802.15.x technology providers and other users of the ISMii band to vote YES on the TGn-standardized mode of 40 MHz operation that includes specific requirements to force TGn devices to cease 40 MHz operation when requested.
-
-
- Matthew Fischer
- Nice Guy
- +1 408 543 3370 office
- +1 650 796 9206 mobile
- mfischer@broadcom.com
-
-
- From: John Barr [mailto:john.barr@MOTOROLA.COM]
- Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 8:36 AM
- To: STDS-802-WPAN@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
- Subject: [802.15_GENERAL] TGn Letter Ballot Support
- As mentioned in Jacksonville, the current draft of TGn includes use of 40 MHz channels in 2.4 GHz spectrum. This will significantly impair ability of other IEEE standards using 2.4 GHz spectrum to coexist with TGn devices running at 40 MHz. Even though the rejection of my comment number 6069 states that there is provision for coexistence with other radio systems using 2.4 GHz spectrum, the actual text for this is informative and does not actually include tests for IEEE 802.15.1 nor IEEE 802.15.4 devices. See attached note to TGn I sent during the Jacksonville meeting. At the one session where there was any discussion on my comment, I spoke against the resolution and no one spoke for the resolution rejecting my suggested change (not to allow any use of 40 MHz channels in 2.4 GHz spectrum). (See attached)
- As it current stands there is no clear method to prevent use of 40 MHz channels in 2.4 GHz when IEEE 802.15.1 and 802.15.4 devices are operating in the same spectrum.
- You can vote against the current TGn letter ballot by referencing my comment (6069) that is unresolved (not accepted by the submitter) and requesting the same resolution:
In 20.3.15 change "When using 40 MHz channels, it can operate in the channels defined in 20.3.15.1 and 20.3.15.2." to "When using 40 MHz channels, it can only operate in the channels defined in 20.3.15.2."
- James Gilb may be able to clarify just how to vote on this. Voters who previously approved the original LB can change their vote to disapprove based on this comment.
- Thank you for your support.
- Regards, John
- --
- John R. Barr (John.Barr@Motorola.com)
- Director, Standards Realization - <http://www.motorola.com>
- Vice Chairman of the Board, Bluetooth SIG - <http://www.bluetooth.org>
- (847) 576-8706 (office) +1-847-962-5407 (mobile) (847) 576-6758 (FAX)
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.24.1/1464 - Release Date: 5/24/2008 8:56 AM
Bob Heile, Ph.D
Chairman, ZigBee Alliance
Chair, IEEE 802.15 Working Group on Wireless Personal Area Networks
11 Robert Toner Blvd
Suite 5-301
North Attleboro, MA 02763 USA
Mobile: +1-781-929-4832
email: bheile@ieee.org