The 802c CSD has in it:
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.\\
A CA document is not applicable because this is not a wireless project”
I believe the argument we are having is essentially a coexistence one. Certainly two devices
on the same segment that choose the same address will coexist badly, and that is not a
It seems reasponable to me to see an explanation in the CSD of how the protocol interacts with
or conflicts with proposed (admittedly hard to do) and actual other MAC address assignments.
For example, we might cite products (perhaps 20% of you are carrying one such) that do this,
and John Kenny dells me that 802.11p/wave devices all do this, so eventually your car will be
doing it too.
Coexistence has always been seen as a wireless concern, because it is a shared medium.
However, at some level of the stack, you get something that behaves like a shared medium, and
needs the same protection.
Adrian P STEPHENS
Tel: +44 (1793) 404825 (office)
Tel: +44 (7920) 084 900 (mobile, UK)
Tel: +1 (408) 2397485 (mobile, USA)
Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
Registered No. 1134945 (England)
Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
VAT No: 860 2173 47
---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.