Comments on proposed coexistence rule changes Sean Coffey Texas Instruments 141 Stony Circle, Suite 130 Santa Rosa, CA 95401

1
Comments on proposed coexistence rule
changesSean CoffeyTexas Instruments141
Stony Circle, Suite 130Santa Rosa, CA 95401
2
Background

• There are proposals to change LMSC rules relating
  to coexistence
• Docs. 802.19-04-0004-02 and 802.19-04-0010-01
  Proposed Changes to LMSC Rules
• Propose developing a coexistence assurance
  methodology
• Propose adding an extra 6th criterion to the
  PAR5
• WGs shall list all the known wireless standards
  with which the proposed standard might mutually
  interfere.
• Propose adding a mandatory step prior to
  forwarding to sponsor ballot
• WGs must submit a coexistence assurance
  document, demonstrating that the new standard
  coexists with present standards, to the IEEE
  802.19 wireless coexistence technical advisory
  group (TAG)

3
Issues with coexistence issues

• Widely differing interpretations of what should
  be required of draft standards
• Interpretations that are overly onerous or
  impossible to satisfy
• Lack of criteria to specify when a draft standard
  coexists lack of safe harbors
• Failure to distinguish between general
  coexistence issues that should be handled via
  uniform policy and particular coexistence issues
  that are properly handled in a TG
• Ex post facto requirements

4
Issues, contd.

• Widely differing interpretations of what should
  be required of draft standards
• E.g. draft standard must coexist with
  yet-to-be-completed amendments from different
  standards stated in multiple No votes in
  802.11g
• Overly onerous or impossible requirements
• E.g. draft standard must not affect other
  standard in any way/must affect other standard by
  10 or less stated in presentations in 802.11
  and 802.19
• No safe harbor
• E.g. no provision to certify coexistence based
  on comparison with legacy

5
Questions on proposed rule change

• To which standards and amendments is it intended
  to apply?
• Standards and amendments for which PAR5 is
  approved after completion of CA methodology?
• By what criteria do we decide if two wireless
  standards might interfere?
• Is this limited only to standards that are
  complete at the time the PAR5 is submitted?
  What happens at sponsor ballot time if subsequent
  standards have been approved?
• How will the CA demonstrate that two standards
  coexist?
• Is there a unified set of criteria that apply to
  all combinations of standards?
• Does the CA methodology by itself determine
  whether the draft standard satisfies coexistence
  requirements?
• If so, why is it necessary to seek the technical
  opinion of 802.19?

6
Recommendations

• Defer LMSC rule change until appropriate
  coexistence criteria have been defined,
  coexistence assurance methodologies have been
  developed, and procedural issues have been
  resolved