IEEE P802.11 Wireless LANs TGax Coexistence Assurance Document Comments Date: 2018-09-05 Author(s): Name Affiliation Address Phone Email Eldad Perahia HPE eldad.perahia@hpe.com CID Comment Proposed Change Resolution 16876 802.19 comment from Timothy Harrington: IEEE 802.15.4 HRP UWB and LRP UWB PHYs operate in the 6 GHz band. Coexistence has not been characterized or analyzed with respect to 802.15.4 HRP UWB and LRP UWB which use Impulse Radio (IR) modulation. Standard 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz standard CCA will not sense low power IR transmissions 6 GHz band as IEEE 802.15.4 UWB. Therefore must be tested and analyzed Change to: "The traditional mechanisms for 802.11 devices to coexist with devices is clear channel assessment (CCA). However, traditional CCA techniques may not be adequate to sense UWB IR radios transmitting at -41.3 dBM. Analysis of sensing IR UWB transmissions at GHz must performed." Rejected This is not a comment on the amendment, however with respect to the CA document: The IEEE 802 LMSC OPERATIONS MANUAL states as follows "The CA document shall address coexistence with all relevant approved IEEE 802 LMSC wireless standards specifying devices for unlicensed operation. The WG should consider other specifications in their identified target band(s) in the CA document." 802.11 coexistence with non-802.11 systems is addressed in Section 3 of the CA document. There is no LMSC requirement for analysis or simulation or testing. CA document has been amended to acknowledge UWB with the relevant regulations. Refer to 7.125
16879 802.19 comment from Timothy Harrington: Analysis of noise floor impact to low power -41.3 dBm devices IR radios at different distances were not performed Analysis of noise floor impact to low power -41.3 dBm devices using 802.15.4 compliant devices with IR radios at different distances should be performed Rejected This is not a comment on the amendment, however with respect to the CA document: The IEEE 802 LMSC OPERATIONS MANUAL states as follows "The CA document shall address coexistence with all relevant approved IEEE 802 LMSC wireless standards specifying devices for unlicensed operation. The WG should consider other specifications in their identified target band(s) in the CA document." 802.11 coexistence with non-802.11 systems is addressed in Section 3 of the CA document. There is no LMSC requirement for analysis or simulation or testing. CA document has been amended to acknowledge UWB with the relevant regulations. Refer to
16886 802.19 comment from Alaa Mourad: Add consideration of 802.15.4 HRP UWB and LRP UWB PHYs which both include channel definitions operating in 6 GHz band. Coexistence has not been characterized or analyzed with respect to impulse modulations in the same band. Rejected This is not a comment on the draft amendment, however with respect to the CA document: The IEEE 802 LMSC OPERATIONS MANUAL states as follows "The CA document shall address coexistence with all relevant approved IEEE 802 LMSC wireless standards specifying devices for unlicensed operation. The WG should consider other specifications in their identified target band(s) in the CA document." 802.11 coexistence with non-802.11 systems is addressed in Section 3 of the CA document. There is no LMSC requirement for analysis or simulation or testing. CA document has been amended to acknowledge UWB with the relevant regulations. Refer to 16887 802.19 comment from Benjamin Rolfe: In general, the CAD assumes that the coexistence characteristics of 802.11ax are "just like" legacy 802.11 OFDM, addressing only where new features would differ, which seemed reasonable. However with the expansion of channel plans into bands previously not specified, the 'just like' assumption is no longer true. There are other 802 services in the bands covered by the expanded scope which need to be considered and are not. Expand the analysis to include specifically coexistence between 802.11ax and 802.15.4 UWB systems operating in the bands above 6 GHz. Rejected This is not a comment on the draft amendment, however with respect to the CA document: The IEEE 802 LMSC OPERATIONS MANUAL states as follows "The CA document shall address coexistence with all relevant approved IEEE 802 LMSC wireless standards specifying devices for unlicensed operation. The WG should consider other specifications in their identified target band(s) in the CA document." 802.11 coexistence with non-802.11 systems is addressed in Section 3 of the CA document. There is no LMSC requirement for analysis or simulation or testing. CA document has been amended to acknowledge UWB with the relevant regulations. Refer to
16888 802.19 comment from Benjamin Rolfe: The CAD does not discuss coexistence in bands other than 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz, other than when describing the PAR scope. In Clause 2 it explicitly says "Therefore 802.11ax will be an enhancement to 802.11n in 2.4 GHz and 802.11ac in 5 GHz" but this is not consistent with the project scope as identified in clause 1. There are devices implementing 802.15.4 operating in the band above 6 GHz using the LRP and HRP UWN PHYs. The entire scope of 802.11ax is within the scope of the CAD, not just 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz operation. Add analysis of coexistence with services based on 802.15.4 using the LRP and HRP UWB PHYs in all bands where 802.11ax and 802.15.4 UWB PHYs overlap. Rejected This is not a comment on the draft amendment, however with respect to the CA document: The IEEE 802 LMSC OPERATIONS MANUAL states as follows "The CA document shall address coexistence with all relevant approved IEEE 802 LMSC wireless standards specifying devices for unlicensed operation. The WG should consider other specifications in their identified target band(s) in the CA document." 802.11 coexistence with non-802.11 systems is addressed in Section 3 of the CA document. There is no LMSC requirement for analysis or simulation or testing. CA document has been amended to acknowledge UWB with the relevant regulations. Refer to
802.19 comment from Benjamin Rolfe: This paragraph is not consistent with the project scope for 802.11ax nor the current content of the draft. It is also inconsistent with clause 5.6 of this document. . Remove first sentence after "7.125 GHz"; remove second sentence. Add a list of the bands in which 802.11ax will operate. Rejected This is not a comment on the draft amendment, however with respect to the CA document: Change "Though the PAR specifies the frequency range between 1 GHz and 7.125 GHz, the focus of 802.11ax is on the 2.4 GHz and the 5 GHz frequency bands. Therefore 802.11ax will be an enhancement to 802.11n in 2.4 GHz and 802.11ac in 5 GHz." to "Though the PAR specifies the frequency range between 1 GHz and 7.125 GHz, 802.11ax is an enhancement to 802.11n in 2.4 GHz and 802.11ac in 5 GHz frequency bands and an extension into the 6 GHz band." Refer to 16890 802.19 comment from Benjamin This paragraph describes CCA as "The mechanism" for coexistence with other 802 wireless systems other than legacy 802.11, but does not provide any analysis of the effect of CCA on mitigating interference. Provide technical analysis of how the 802.11ax signals will perform with respect to other 802 wireless services in the same bands of operation both potential impact of 802.11ax as "assailant" and as "victim" The CAD should characterize the performance of each system (e.g. packet loss, latency) and include all 802 systems operating in the same bands. Where the expected performance and impacts are "just like" analysis done for previous standards, reference CAD documents as appropriate. Rejected This is not a comment on the draft amendment, however with respect to the CA document: The IEEE 802 LMSC OPERATIONS MANUAL states as follows "The CA document shall address coexistence with all relevant approved IEEE 802 LMSC wireless standards specifying devices for unlicensed operation. The WG should consider other specifications in their identified target band(s) in the CA document." 802.11 coexistence with non-802.11 systems is addressed in Section 3 of the CA document. There is no LMSC requirement for analysis or simulation or testing. CA document has been amended to acknowledge UWB with the relevant regulations. Refer to
16891 802.19 comment from Benjamin Rolfe: Of particular interest is coexistence impacts in the 6 GHz band, where previously 802.11 has not operated and previous coexistence analysis has not covered. The 802.15.4 LRP and HRP UWB PHYs operate in this band. Include analysis of the impacts of these services on 802.11ax (likely none) and the impacts of 802.11ax on these services. In particular, the only mitigation method given, CCA, a reasonable question is will the current CCA mechanisms detect UWB signals (which seems likely not), and analysis including expected performance impacts (PER, latency, etc.) as well as mitigation factors and techniques other than CCA and CSMA which may apply. Complete analysis as described in the comment Rejected This is not a comment on the draft amendment, however with respect to the CA document: The IEEE 802 LMSC OPERATIONS MANUAL states as follows "The CA document shall address coexistence with all relevant approved IEEE 802 LMSC wireless standards specifying devices for unlicensed operation. The WG should consider other specifications in their identified target band(s) in the CA document." 802.11 coexistence with non-802.11 systems is addressed in Section 3 of the CA document. There is no LMSC requirement for analysis or simulation or testing. CA document has been amended to acknowledge UWB with the relevant regulations. Refer to
16902 802.19 comment from Billy Verso: In this clause are lots of techniques to make very high density of use of the band, which is good for 2.4 and 5GHz bands where CCA is an effectrive coexistance mechanism. However if this is translated into the 6 to 7 GHz band, I fear that any coexisting systems using 802.15.4 HRP UWB or LRP UWB PHYs will cease to operate effectively. This is worrying because these systems are critical in applications such as: robot guidance, factory automation, hospital security/safety, automotive keyless entry, safety of personnel around machines, first responder location etc. Include coexistance mechanisms for these 802.15 UWB deployments or remove the channels from the 11ax amendment that cover 6 to 7 GHz band. Rejected This is not a comment on the amendment, however with respect to the CA document: The IEEE 802 LMSC OPERATIONS MANUAL states as follows "The CA document shall address coexistence with all relevant approved IEEE 802 LMSC wireless standards specifying devices for unlicensed operation. The WG should consider other specifications in their identified target band(s) in the CA document." 802.11 coexistence with non-802.11 systems is addressed in Section 3 of the CA document. There is no LMSC requirement for analysis or simulation or testing. CA document has been amended to acknowledge UWB with the relevant regulations. Refer to
802.19 comment from Jay Holcomb: Per the IEEE Operations Manual, v21, section 13 includes, ... The CA document shall address coexistence with all relevant approved IEEE 802 LMSC wireless standards specifying devices for unlicensed operation. The WG should consider other specifications in their identified target band(s) in the CA document. I do no see in the CAD any reference to already approved non-IEEE 802.11 standards and the coexistance with them. Document what the affects are to IEEE 802.15.4 HRP and LRP UWB communications with an 802.11ax signal present, and At least worse case. This is not a comment on the draft amendment, however with respect to the CA document: The IEEE 802 LMSC OPERATIONS MANUAL states as follows "The CA document shall address coexistence with all relevant approved IEEE 802 LMSC wireless standards specifying devices for unlicensed operation. The WG should consider other specifications in their identified target band(s) in the CA document." 802.11 coexistence with non-802.11 systems is addressed in Section 3 of the CA document. There is no LMSC requirement for analysis or simulation or testing. CA document has been amended to acknowledge UWB with the relevant regulations. Refer to