Re: [802SEC] Coexistence and wired devices

["Stephens, Adrian P" <Adrian.P.Stephens@INTEL.COM>]

Hello Glen,

 

I’m not sure I’m redefining coexistence.   Just pointing out that

it is not merely an issue for wireless devices.

 

The definition of the term  by 802.19 (don’t know if this is still active) is:

Coexistence:  The ability of one system to perform a task in a given shared environment where other systems have an ability to perform their tasks and may or may not be using the same set of rules.

 

There’s no mention of radio,  only a “shared environment”.   I’d claim that a limited

resource that is competed for comprises a shared environment and is therefore within

the purview of this definition.

 

 

 

Best Regards,

 

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

 

From: Glenn Parsons [mailto:glenn.parsons@ericsson.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 7:36 AM
To: Stephens, Adrian P
Cc: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Coexistence and wired devices

 

Adrian

 

The 802c response is completely reasonable for the current CSD

 

You are instead proposing to redefine coexistence.

 

Cheers,

Glenn

 

--

Sent from my LTE mobile

On Oct 30, 2014, at 6:50 AM, "Stephens, Adrian P" <Adrian.P.Stephens@INTEL.COM> wrote:

Dear all,

 

The 802c CSD has in it:

 

“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.\\

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

wireless behaviour.

 

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.

 

Best Regards,

 

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.

---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.