doc.: IEEE /1220r0 Submission November 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 1 WG11 Comments on PARs submitted Nov 2009 Date: Authors:

doc.: IEEE /1220r0 Submission November 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 2 Abstract This Submission contains the comments to on the two PARs that are under consideration for the November Plenary. There was a motion to forward these comments to , each motion passed for sending these comments from There are 2 sets of comments, one for each PAR slides slides 8-11

doc.: IEEE /1220r0 Submission November 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide PAR modification to clarifying scope, PAR and 5CPAR and 5C Item 1: Doc 11-09/1105r1 – submission that has some discussion on the rational for changing the scope. Item 2: Problem: Dates for completion are not realistic. The dates need to be corrected (we suggest that the dates of Start Sponsor and RevCom would be more realistic/acceptable.) Item 3: the form presented was not the correct PAR form. The PAR modification form should be used.

doc.: IEEE /1220r0 Submission November 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide (2) 5.1 Scope: This standard specifies the air interface, including the cognitive medium access control layer (MAC) and physical layer (PHY), of point-to-multipoint wireless regional area networks comprised of a professional fixed base station with fixed and portable user terminals operating in the VHF/UHF TV broadcast bands between 54 MHz and 862 MHz. –Issue 4: “professional fixed base station” should be “professionally installed fixed base station” – (insert the word “installed”)

doc.: IEEE /1220r0 Submission November 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide (3) 8.1 other comments: –Issue 5: Remove the following text as it is no longer necessary/needed from the end of the first paragraph: “The IEEE Study Group chartered to develop this PAR does not believe that any existing IEEE 802 PHY/MAC combination can meet these requirements without extensive modifications. The Study Group has therefore concluded that placing the project in a new WorkingGroup is the most efficient approach..” 5c: Distinct Identity A –Issue 6: This text fails to distinguish among h, which will be an approved amendment in early 2010, and and the efforts proposed in the PAR. Add distinctions between each of the three. Be aware that h clause does report DTV, wireless microphones and other licensed users.

doc.: IEEE /1220r0 Submission November 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide (4) 5C Technical Feasibility – –Issue 7: There is no experience of WLAN devices operating under the control of fixed outdoor devices reliably, and indeed the question of reliable operation without common control is an issue in every unlicensed band. 5C Economic Feasibility – –Issue 8: Not all devices are autonomous, indeed the FCC ruling requires that Master Devices contact the TV bands database before any transmission is allowed. Change this text to include operation with a TV bands database.

doc.: IEEE /1220r0 Submission November 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide (5) 2.1 Title: Information Technology -Telecommunications and information exchange between systems – Wireless Regional Area Networks (WRAN) - Specific requirements - Part 22: Cognitive Wireless RAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) specifications: Policies and procedures for operation in the TV Bands –Issue 9: The Title is in properly formed. Prior to the “Part 22” it is should be the consistent boilerplate that all 802 Standards have. Then after the “Part 22” it should have what designates this to the 22WG and then the specific title part for the covered technology

doc.: IEEE /1220r0 Submission November 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide new standard for scalable WRAN operations, PAR and 5CPAR and 5C 11-09/1106 discusses possible issues with the PAR and 5C. 2.1 Title of Standard: Cognitive Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) specifications: Policies and procedures for Scalable operations of Wireless Regional Area Networks (WRAN) in the TV Bands. –Issue 1: delete “Policies and procedures for “ from the title. This is a standard for… –Issue 2: The full title is not listed in the PAR form.. It should have the Boiler Plate from 802 followed by “Part 22” followed by the designation that this is for the “WRAN..” and then the specific designation of what is being covered. –Issue 3: the title for should be Distinct and yet consistent with the 802/ family of titles.

doc.: IEEE /1220r0 Submission November 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide (2) 8.1 Notes: –Issue 4: Remove the following text “Item Number: 5.5 (Need for the Project): The IEEE standard is intended to be integrated to IEEE standard. This may be more correctly included in C Distinct Identity: a) Substantially different from other IEEE 802 standards. Table –Issue 5: Page 8 of r0 shows several errors in the table and in the explanation notes. Please correct as noted in 11-09/1106r0.

doc.: IEEE /1220r0 Submission November 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide (3) Technical Feasibility –Issue 6 : the statements are very broad, and in some cases not accurate…” Existing 802 wireless standards in other bands (e.g h) have demonstrated that detection and avoidance of operation in spectrum occupied by licensed users is technically feasible.” The h does not do detect and avoid (DAA) it only specified DFS and TPC. – Issue 7: The statements should address the “demonstrated” technology that show the technical feasibility. –Issue 8: The addition of “Scalable” as the main focus, should be addressed in the 5C to show the distinct difference from the base 22 standard. –Issue 9 (to be renumbered as #1): If is an extension of , and creating a “Scalable” extension of the standard, then this should be an amendment. The Amendment should be created after the standard is approved to allow a consistent target for the amendment to modify.

doc.: IEEE /1220r0 Submission November 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 11 References review-802-pars-underconsideration-for-nov- plenary.ppthttps://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/09/ review-802-pars-underconsideration-for-nov- plenary.ppt