doc.: ieee 802.22-09/0134r10€¦ · web viewcomment 989 – comment – charles einolf –...

December 2009 doc.: IEEE 802.22-09/0134r10

IEEE P802.22Wireless RANs

Meeting Minutes of the Cognitive Radio Capability Ad-Hoc Group in 802.22

Date: 2009-12-15

Author(s):Name Company Address Phone email

Apurva Mody BAE Systems P.O. Box 868, MER 15-2350,

Nashua, NH 03061-0868603-885-2621404-819-0314

[email protected],

[email protected]

Ranga Reddy US Army (CERDEC) Ft Monmouth, NJ - [email protected]

Submission page 1 Apurva Mody, BAE Systems

AbstractThis document provides the minutes of the Cognitive Radio Capabilities Ad-Hoc conference calls which were held on August 4th, August 11th, August 18th, August 25th , September 1st , September 8th and September 15th, October 6th, October 13th , October 27th and November 3rd, November 10th , December 1st , December 15th 2009.

Notice: This document has been prepared to assist IEEE 802.22. It is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein.

Release: The contributor grants a free, irrevocable license to the IEEE to incorporate material contained in this contribution, and any modifications thereof, in the creation of an IEEE Standards publication; to copyright in the IEEE’s name any IEEE Standards publication even though it may include portions of this contribution; and at the IEEE’s sole discretion to permit others to reproduce in whole or in part the resulting IEEE Standards publication. The contributor also acknowledges and accepts that this contribution may be made public by IEEE 802.22.

Patent Policy and Procedures: The contributor is familiar with the IEEE 802 Patent Policy and Procedures <http://standards.ieee.org/guides/bylaws/sb-bylaws.pdf>, including the statement "IEEE standards may include the known use of patent(s), including patent applications, provided the IEEE receives assurance from the patent holder or applicant with respect to patents essential for compliance with both mandatory and optional portions of the standard." Early disclosure to the Working Group of patent information that might be relevant to the standard is essential to reduce the possibility for delays in the development process and increase the likelihood that the draft publication will be approved for publication. Please notify the Chair <Carl R. Stevenson> as early as possible, in written or electronic form, if patented technology (or technology under patent application) might be incorporated into a draft standard being developed within the IEEE 802.22 Working Group. If you have questions, contact the IEEE Patent Committee Administrator at <[email protected]>.

mailto:[email protected]


http://standards.ieee.org/guides/bylaws/sb-bylaws.pdf








1. Minutes of the Telecon on Tuesday, August 4th, 2009

1. Attendance

Apurva ModyGerald Chouinard Ranga ReddyWinston CaldwellMichael Lynch

2.1 Agenda

Attendance was taken Chair asked if everyone was familiar with the IEEE Patent Policy:

o http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.pdf - Everyone was familiar. Meeting minutes from last week's call were approved: doc: 09/0134r7

o https://mentor.ieee.org/802.22/dcn/09/22-09-0134-04-0000-meeting-minutes-of-the-802-22- cognitive-radio-capability-adhocs.doc

Resolution of the comments Comment Database – https://mentor.ieee.org/802.22/dcn/09/22-09-0120-03-0000-wran-draft-2-0-ballot-

comment-database.xls

Minutes and Discussions

The call was devoted to revisting the comment resolutions from the July, San Francisco, Plenary meeting Comments – 982, 983, 989, 990, 991, 992, 993 and 994 were discussed. Some of the proposed changes from the telecons for comments are as follows: Comment 989 – Comment – Charles Einolf – Signals being sensed must include Medical Device

Transmissions – New Counter - Other incumbent devices such as medical telemetry devices which may need to be protected in the local regulatory domain.

Other than Comment 989, there were no other changes.


https://mentor.ieee.org/802.22/dcn/09/22-09-0120-03-0000-wran-draft-2-0-ballot-comment-database.xls


https://mentor.ieee.org/802.22/dcn/09/22-09-0134-04-0000-meeting-minutes-of-the-802-22-cognitive-radio-capability-adhocs.doc


http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.pdf



1. Attendance

Apurva ModyRanga ReddyWinston CaldwellWendong Hu

2.1 Agenda





comment-database.xls


The meeting started late since there were many people attending the 802.19 co-existence conference call. The group started resolving Comment 1024 – 1038 related to Table 255 which talks about the Policy of

the 802.22 system in various situations. Based on many comments which are suggesting that this table is in-adequate and a new streamlined table

must be created which exhaustively deals with various situations, Document 22-09-0122 on Spectrum Manager Policy was created.

Apurva Mody started discussing various policies of this document. In many situations, occurance of an event – e.g. spectrum sensing / detection of an incumbent or a beacon

results in either a channel being abandoned, OR the SM decides to start a timer and go about collecting information on the event, such as authentication of the signal through sensing.

The value of the Timer is currently set to 2 Seconds. Wendong Hu pointed out that this timer needs to be less than 2 S since there has to be some time left for

the SM to initiate the move. Apurva Mody agreed and said that 802.22 needs to define parameters such as the Channel Abandonment

Time and Network Formation Time. Apurva Mody asked if Wendong Hu can discuss this issue in the MAC ad-hocs and if the MAC ad-hoc

can formally specify the Channel Abandonement Time. Channel Abandonment Time is defined as the timer from which the BS issues a command to abandon the channel and when the actual switch occurs.

This is the summary of the discussions from the e-mail reflector. It was agreed that a time period of One Super-frame duration – that is 160 mS is required in the worst

case (at the time of Co-existence) since the channel switch information is contained in the broadcast messages present in the DCD. In the co-existence mode, at the most one frame may be allocated to each BS. Furthermore, in case due to interference, the CPEs did not receive the information, this a factor or 3 is applied. Which means the Group recommends that the Worst Case Channel Abandonment Time = 480 mS.









1. Attendance

Apurva ModyRanga ReddyWinston CaldwellMicheael LynchWendong HuGerald ChouinardGeorge Vlantis

2.1 Agenda





comment-database.xls Spectrum Manager Policy - https://mentor.ieee.org/802.22/dcn/09/22-09-0122-05-0000-802-22-spectrum-

manager-policy.xls


There were discussions on Comments related to the 802.22 policy, as currently shown in Table 255 of the 802.22 Draft v2.0 of the Standard

Many comments suggest that the policies are ambiguous. Some comments suggest that corner cases are not defined. Some comments want to get rid of the [TBD]s in the table and specify numbers

The discussion on the call particularly focused on the Policy related to an incumbent database – as shown in https://mentor.ieee.org/802.22/dcn/09/22-09-0122-05-0000-802-22-spectrum-manager-policy.xls

This new table shown in Document 22-09-0122 is likely to replace the old Table 255. The focus was on the following policy – If the connection to the Incumbent Database is lost for more than

[TBD] minutes then the BS will terminate its operation. Ranga suggested that the BS should de-register the CPEs before terminating its operation. Wendong suggested that system should work even if BS did not de-register the CPEs Wendong asked if we had any de-register command. Ranga said that 802.22 BS is capable of de-

authorizing the CPEs. Gerald suggested that the [TBD] minutes factor be left upto a regulatory domain database that will be

contained in Appendix B of the 802.22 Standard Winston was extremely un-comfortable with this idea and wants to specify a strict time limit as if the

device was going to be in the US Gerald suggested that we must keep in ming that 802.22 is an international standard Winston asked then if that was the case, why have we specified a 0.5 Second rule where a system must

start channel abandonment operation at least 0.5 Seconds before the maximum time limit allowed. Apurva told Winston that this spec. came from 802.22 system constraints rather than regulatory. George Vlantis suggested that normally these parameters are programmable through the MIBs. However,

for best practices, some number may be specified as a default.


https://mentor.ieee.org/802.22/dcn/09/22-09-0122-05-0000-802-22-spectrum-manager-policy.xls









The group finally agreed with the following Policy – Event - “Where a database service exists for the regulatory domain of operation, if such a service becomes unavailable for greater than the timing requirements specified in Annex B for that domain (default value shall be 1 hour).” Action – “The BS may de-register the CPEs and it shall terminate its own operation.”

There was another [TBD] related to collaborative sensing for wireless microphones. Stephen Kuffner suggested that this [TBD] needs to be 1 km. Gerald disagrees and said that he will provide a spread sheet on why this number needs to increase.




1. Attendance

Apurva ModyRanga ReddyWinston CaldwellMicheael LynchWendong HuGerald ChouinardGeorge Vlantis

2.1 Agenda






manager-policy.xls


The cognitive radio capability ad-hoc group decided to continue the discussion on Table 255 related to Spectrum Manager Policy to resolve Comments 1024 to 1042.

The Spectrum Manager Policy document can be found in 22-09-0122 Rev 6 Apurva Mody said that one of the policies in the document was covered by two other policies in the

document and should be removed. This particular policy pertained to the case when a TV signal or a microphone signals are detected.

Ranga Reddy said that we can not delete this particular case since it talks about the O R cases. What happens if both TV signal and wireless mircrophone signal are detected on that channel. Such cases need to be considered

Apurva Mody said that if we consider all the permutations and combinations of various triggers then there are possibilities for hundreds of cases.

Apurva Mody – one way for us to avoid going into various combination scenarios was to define a new policy which explicitly suggested as to which trigger was more important. One can specifiy that the trigger from the database always has a precedence over a trigger from sensing

Winston Caldwell said that he did not like that idea since if database suggests that keep operating on another channel, but detection of beacon says vacate that channel then there are some conflicts

Apurva Mody suggested that in that case one can formulate a policy based on Actions rather than Events – E. g. Action – BS operation is terminated has higher precedence over BS switches the channels,

Gerald Chouinard suggested that instead of marking the various triggers with ‘X’ we should provide a priority listing for them. This would make things simpler. Winston was fine with that approach for the time being – various triggers can have priorities for each policy

Gerald will work on modification to the structure of the Policy Table (22-09-0122) and provide it in a subsequent telecon.










Discussed Comment 1037 – Charles Einolf – Medical Telemetry devices – Winston – Traditionally Part 90 devices have been protected. But FCC didn’ t specifically say if medical telemetry devices are protected or not. Perhaps Philips has a better idea on whether medical telemetry devices are supposed to move out of TV bands.



5. Minutes of the Telecon on Tuesday, September 1st, 2009

1. Attendance

Apurva ModyRanga ReddyWendong HuGerald Chouinard

2.1 Agenda






manager-policy.xls


Comments 1193, 1194 – were assigned to Ranga Reddy Regarding comments related medical telemetry devices – Apurva will take action to find out on whether

FCC mandates that such telemetry devices are to be protected. Gerald Chouinard presented his updates to the Spectrum Manager Policy.The document was circulated to

the participants via e-mail during the call. Gerald presented the changes that he had made to create a priority list for the Triggers, where an

incumbent database related policies preceded the triggers from sensing. Gerald also combined some of the policies that Apurva had written, so as to reduce the number of such

policies. There were many discussions on the wordings and framing of the sentence. Some policies were changed on the fly since participants were able to see the document being presented

due to the teleconferencing facility. The wording of some of the policies was modified during the call to reach a consensus. The call went on for thirty minutes beyond the allocated 1 hour. Apurva suggested that he will clean up this document and post it to the mentor.










6. Minutes of the Telecon on Tuesday, September 8th, 2009

1. Attendance

Apurva ModyGerald Chouinard

2.1 Agenda






manager-policy.xls


Regarding comments related to the inclusion of Medical telemetry devices – in Section 9 – Sensing and Policies related to Comments from Charles Einolf, Apurva Mody referred to the FCC Report and Order and found out that according to the R&O, medical telemetry devices are limited to Channel 37 where Whitespace device operation is not permitted. There are also certain power restrictions on the Whitespace Devices operating on Channels 36 and 38.

Proposed Resolution for CID 1037 – Chales Einolf – Which requires definition of a policy when a medical telemetry telemetry device signal is detected = REJECTED.

For the rest of the time, Apurva Mody and Gerald Chouinard worked using the on-line collaboration tool to solidify the Document 22-09-0122 related to 802.22 Spectrum Manager Policies.










7. Minutes of the Telecon on Tuesday, September 15th, 2009

1. Attendance

Ranga ReddyGerald ChouinardMichael LynchWendong HuApurva Mody

2.1 Agenda




Resolution of the comments Discuss the following Technical Required Comments:

o TR 1167 - Tom Kiernano TR 1168 - Tom Kiernano TR 1169 - Apurva Modyo TR 1170 - Apurva Modyo TR 1178 - Charles Einolfo TR 1181 - Steve Shellhammero TR 1187 - Charles Einolfo TR 1189 - Charles Einolfo TR 1191 - Charles Einolfo TR 1193 - Tom Kiernano TR 1194 - Apurva Mody


CID 1167, 1169, 1178: o G Chounarid: .22 database ad-ohc should be responsible, based on final submission to .18 and

google’s database group. Action to Wendong and Apurva to ask Winston to help supply this text.

CID 1168, 1170:o R Reddy: Mgmt stuff is not just MIBs it is also primitives used to manipulate them. So a separate

section should be developed for easy maintenance of MIBs and management primitives.o G Chounaird: It goes beyond editorial work because it affects the structure of the draft.o R Reddy: Action, pending to discuss in security ad-hoc.

CID 1181:o G Chounaird: Same approach as for 1167, 1168, 1178

CID 1187:o G Chounaird: Reference to 9.3.1.1 is incorrect.o R Reddy: Use Table 257, 258, 259, in 9.4.1.1 as a reference to fill the table in questiono G Chounaird: Consider changing name of column in Table 291 from “Valid Range” to something

more useful such as “Size”






o R Reddy/G Chounaird: Alternatively we just reference Table 257, with exception of the RF input into SSF

CID 1189:o R Reddy: Reference to 9.3.1.1 is incorrect, refer to 9.4.1.1. Sensing mode and Signal Type array

can be referenced from Table 257, 258 CID 1191:

o R Reddy: This table incorporate stuff from 9.4.1.1 and 9.4.1.2. Rename column to “Size”, and we need some work to determine the size of each value in one of those arrays. Info from solving 1187 and 1189, can be used to fill in the fields related to 9.4.1.1. Action, Apurva to send email to D Calvalcanti and W Caldwell to help supply the proper text

CID 1193, 1194:o R Reddy: No new text for Clause 9 needed. Text at the end of 6.20.2 to reference that multicast

management connections, the ones that can be multicasted are described in Table 30. Procedures for establishing GSAs and providing keying for them are already set up.



8. Minutes of the Telecon on Tuesday, October 6th, 2009

1. Attendance

Apurva ModyGerald ChouinardWinston CaldwellIvan Reede

2.1 Agenda




Resolution of the comments


There were some discussions on the 802.22 Spectrum Manager Policy Document – 22-09-0122 Rev 8 Apurva Mody said that he will upload the latest document onto the server so that people have a chance to

review it until the following week, when the intention was to resolve all the security related comments. Gerald Chouinard suggested that the Policy text should be translated to flow diagrams as in Section 6 Apurva Mody agreed and took up the responsibility for this translation. Ivan Reede suggested that the the Policy document should be translated into a state machine

representation. Gerald Chouinard though that Policy was one time Even and Action and did not have any memory, so it

was not a state machine. Apurva Mody suggested that the overall Spectrum Manager operation will be a state machine with

processes represented as a flow diagrams pointing to the policies. Later in the call Comment 1085 was resolved – New proposed text – Comment 1085 Counter is as

follows: Comment 1085 - Original: At initial turn-on and self-test, the CPE shall sweep a specific channel, a

specified range of channels or all the channels that are likely to be impacted by the CPE operating on a given channel depending on the pre-set at the CPE or direction from the higher layers at thte CPE. If all TV channels of a range of operation need to be sensed, o. One additional channel at both ends of the range shall be sensed to cover the adjacent channel case unless it goes beyond the extent of the relevant TV band.

Comment 1085 - New Proposed: The CPE operation shall be limited to the user pre-set value defined using a MIB or higher layers. At the initial turn-on and self-test the CPE shall sweep all the channels that may be impacted by the CPE operating on any of these pre-set channels.







1. Attendance

Apurva ModyGerald ChouinardWinston CaldwellIvan ReedeRanga Reddy

2.1 Agenda




Resolution of the comments


The group started discussing the Spectrum Manager Policy Document – 22-09-0122 Rev 9 were discussed. The Spectrum Manager Policies define the case when the message is sent to the subscribers de-registering them and asking them to move to some specific other channel.

Winston – suggested that we define an appropriate MAC message in Policies 1b, 1d Gerald suggested that incidentally, the MAC ad-hoc just updated the DREG-CMD which does this. It is

necessary to make sure that not only are the CPEs de-registered, but they also don’ t transmit on that channel in the immediate future by trying to contend for the channel.

So it was decided in the Cognitive Radio Capability ad-hoc telecon to add the DREG-CMD into these policies.

Winston had some other comments related to Policies 1e and 1f which he said should be merged. He was also concerned about the confidence metric in the spectrum sensing function since none of the

sensing techniques explicitly defined how a confidence metric is computed. Ivan – On the CPE de-registration and asking them to move to a particular channel, he described this as a

handover process which needs to be defined by the Network Operator and not the standard / spectrum manager.

Comments 1098, 1101, 1102 were discussed. Gerald will provide an appropriate text. There were lots of discussions on the Comment 1103 from Gerald Chouinard – Comment is as follows:

CPE automaton can operate over idle time and also during receiving time at the CPE if there are two separate tuners, one for sensing and one for WRAN operation. It has to stop when the CPE transmits because of the large signal differential present at the CPE WRAN transmit chain versus the level of signal to be sensed on the sensing chain.

Ivan – This makes us re-visit why 802.22 introduced quiet periods in the first place. Sensing will not work unless everyone in the system remains quiet.

Ivan - The CPEs can not be sensing even on other channels, even if they have a separate tuner because of a co-site co-channel issues that is likely to saturate the sensor front end.

Gerald - The problem is accentuated because we will be using cheaper devices for sensing (large bandwidth front end filter where it is difficult to maintain linearity over a wide range – signal differentials.






This means that even if 802.22 systems maintain quiet periods for sensing, a high power transmitter (e. g. 1 MW TV tower) or even another CPE transmitting at 4W, on some other channel is likely to produce second and third order inter-mods that are likely to leak into the channels that are being sensed.

In the post telecon e-mail exchange, following were Gerald’ s viewpoints. Gerald Chouinard - The dynamic range of the DTV receivers goes from -8 dBm (the stated saturation

level) to -84 dBm (the expected signal level reaching the DTV demodulator for the 41 dB uV/m present at the edge of the noise protected contour, for a 12 dBi receive antenna gain and 4 dB cable loss). -84 dBm is 30 dB higher than the -114 dBm sensing threshold specified by the FCC in the R&O. Hence, DTV could be perfectly received while the DTV sensing threshold is completely overwhelmed by intermod products at -114 dBm.

Gerald Chouinard - There is nothing wrong with RF sensing as such. It is the proposed level for the sensing threshold that makes it so difficult.

Gerald Chouinard - The problem raised last night about sensing in presence of a high power TV station is however something that can be constrained to a known area around the high power DTV station. Never-the-less, the size can be relatively important. If you take a look at the "DTV=>CPE" tab of the 22-04-0002-17-0000_WRAN_Reference_Model.xls spreadsheet, you will see that the extent of the area where the DTV signal exceeds the -8 dBm saturation level can go from 2 to 10 km in free space propagation depending on whether the CPE antenna is directed away or toward the DTV transmitter, or 1.4 to 5 km according to the ITU-R P.1546 propagation model (cells A47:E48).

Gerald Chouinard - The masking coming from other WRAN operation in the area is something that cannot easily be controlled and this is why quiet periods are needed. WRAN transmissions will rarely saturate the sensing RF chain (4 W EIRP with the transmit antenna pointing toward the sensing antenna will produce a -8 dBm at 6 m separation distance). The effect of the RF energy from other WRAN systems will create linear interference effects and would therefore be limited to the channels close to the channel being sensed (e.g., N and N+/-1). The quiet periods are therefore needed for the N and N+/-1channels but not necessarily for out-of-band sensing except that there could be a chaining effect where there are many WRAN systems in operation in an area where the N+1 channel for one sensor will become the N-1 channel for another sensor and so on. In a number of cases, the quiet periods of a number of channels would need to be synchronized to each other and the SCH scheduling of the quiet periods being transmitted to other nearby WRAN cells through the CBP bursts will take care of such synchronization.

Gerald Chouinard - The need to synchronize the quiet periods of all WRAN operations on any channel really comes from the fact that there may be other types of TVBDs in the TV white space and the synchronization of the required quiet periods would no longer be possible through the SCH and CBP transmissions. Although this may be required to accommodate sensing when different types of TVBDs are used in the white space, there is a big jump between the quiet periods scheduled by the WRAN BS's and a completely regular pattern of quiet periods following the UTS second tick. Even if such a universal quiet period scheduling was to happen, it is not clear whether there would be agreement on the rate of such quiet periods and on the length of these quiet periods. In the case of the WRAN, we would likely ask that each quiet period be at least 5.1 ms to allow the capture of the TG1 beacon. This will probably not be acceptable to other white space technologies (e.g., 802.16 used 5 ms frames). The rate of these quiet periods would need to be determined based on the sensing thresholds to be reached, the allowed time before vacating the channel and the performance of the sensing technologies used which translate into the required sensing time for integration within a given period. How and who will take these decisions, and in what time frame?

Gerald Chouinard - I believe we have reached a dead-lock with respect to the quiet period scheduling and we have two choices in pursuing the development of the 802.22 Draft Standard: either continue resolving the comments towards finalizing the Draft assuming that the BS's will schedule the quiet periods according to their needs and coordinate among WRAN systems, or open the discussion for a universal quiet period scheduling and try to arrive at a consensus and then modify the Draft accordingly. I am afraid that the second option will take a long time and will be out of control of 802.22 WG. We may not have any other option but continue plowing ahead with the Draft with the assumptions that we have been using up to now. Meanwhile, we could participate in discussions to arrive at a universal quiet period scheduling. Where would these discussions take place? Note that there will likely be TVBD technologies outside the IEEE802 realm.



Gerald Chouinard - This is certainly something that we need to address during our November plenary session.




1. Attendance

Apurva Mody – BAE SystemsGerald Chouinard - CRCWinston Caldwell - FoxIvan Reede - AmerisysRanga Reddy – US Army

2.1 Agenda


o http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.pdf - Everyone was familiar. Meeting minutes from last week's call were approved: doc: 09/0134r7:


Comment Resolution


Document 22-09-0122 Winston’ s version was discussed The call lasted for almost 2 hours and there were discussions on many issues. Winston’s general take on the Spectrum Manager Policy was to reduce the complexity that he thought

was un-necessary for the 802.22 operation. However, the group thought that in doing so, he had left several corner cases un-accounted.

Winston – Combined Policies 1e and 1f as proposed in Document (https://mentor.ieee.org/802.22/dcn/09/22-09-0122-09-0000-802-22-spectrum-manager-policy.xls) – related to inputs from the database – Event - Timer NoDB exceeds the time value of TDBavail specified in Annex B (default value for TDBavail shall be 1 hour), Action - The BS shall de-register the CPEs and terminate its own operation.

The group in general was okay with this idea however, Gerald Chouinard asked as to what happens if there is no database

Ivan answered that the Operator can set up a dummy database at a URL of choice so that the database always exists.

Gerald Chouinard feels that if a database exists then the database always has a precedence. Winston Caldwell feels that inputs from not just the database, but also sensing need to be considered in

order to use or abandon a channel. Ivan Reed commented that we need to tell the external Database group (e. g. the one set up by Google,

Neustar and other companies) that they need to provide three values – A. Do not use this channel B. Allowed to use this channel C. Sensing has a priority

There were a few more discussions on merging 1e and 1f, however in general most people were okay with it.

Winston Caldwell then discussed the changes to his Policies 2a and 2b (Document 22-09-0122 Rev 09) where he combined the Policies 2a and 2b in a new Policy 2. Event - The SM is notified of a detection of a TV incumbent signal on the operating channel or one of the first adjacent channels by its SSF or by a combination of one or more of its CPE SSFs. Action - Initiate a channel switch of the entire cell to a new operating channel within (Tch_move - 0.5) seconds from the time when the TV signal was detected. The new operating channel should be the highest priority backup channel such that no adjacent channels contain a TV signal. The default value of the Tch_move shall be 2 Seconds.

The Policies 2a and 2b as described in 22-09-0122 Rev 09 are much more detailed as follows –







Policy 2a as described in Document 22-09-0122 Rev09 – Event - If the SM confirms the presence of a TV Incumbent signal with a confidence metric greater than 128 (Decimal) on the operating channel or one of its first adjacent channels through the BS spectrum sensing function or through a combination of sensing results from multiple CPEs. Action - If a Database is available and precedence is given to the Database then execute Decision 1 followed by Policy 1a If a Database is available in the area and does not have precedence over sensing then go to Decision 2. If a Database is not available in the area then go to Decision 2. where Decision 1: Note the information about the detection of TV signal and make it available according to the local regulatory requirements AND Decision 2: Initiate a channel switch of the entire cell to a new operating channel within (Tch_move - 0.5) seconds from the time when the TV signal was detected. The new operating channel should be the highest priority backup channel such that no adjacent channels contain a TV signal. The default value of the Tch_move shall be 2 Seconds.

Policy 2a as described in Document 22-09-0122 Rev09 – Event - If the SM receives a notification from the BS sensing function or a CPE of the presence of TV signal, however, the confidence metric was less than 128 (decimal). Action - If a Database is available in the area and precedence is given to the Database then execute Decision 1 followed by Policy 1a If a Database is available in the area and does not have precedence over sensing then go to Decision 2. If a Database is not available in the area then go to Decision 2. Where Decision 1: Note the information about the detection of TV signal and make it available according to the local regulatory requirements. Decision 2: SM may choose to either execute Decision Option I or Decision Option II. Option I: BS skips the TV signal authentication step and initiates the switching of the entire cell to a new operating channel within the next (Tch_move - 0.5) seconds, which should be the highest priority backup channel. The defaule value of Tch_move shall be 2 seconds. Option II: A (Tch_move -0.5) second timer is set. SM schedules quiet periods and directs CPEs within 4km of the BS and/ or CPE that sensed the TV signal to do further sensing and notify the SM of the results within (Tch_move - 0.5) seconds. If the TV signal is found to be authentic through collaborative sensing or if the (Tch_move - 0.5) seconds timer expires then the BS shall initiate the switch of the entire cell to a new operating channel which should be the highest priority backup channel. If the TV signal is found to be non-authentic, no action is taken. The default value of the Tch_move shall be 2 Seconds.

In general, the group felt that the Policy 2 as proposed by Winston was a radical shift from the existing Policies 2a and 2b that the group had been working on for many weeks.

Some people in the Cognitive Radio capability ad-hoc agreed that since the standard did not define explicitly how the Confidence Metric was computed, it was in-appropirate for it to be used in the Policy unless it was defined.

There was much time spent on figuring out if the word “incumbent” need to specified in the Event description since 802.22 was only supposed to protect LICENSED incumbents.

Winston Caldwell suggested that he does not know of any techniques that can confirm if the incumbent is indeed LICENSED.

Gerald Chouinard suggested that this is the reason why the Policies 2a and 2b in Document 22-09-0122 Rev 09 were more comprehensive, since they accounted for all these different possibilities – i. e. database service available, mandated by the regulators, sensing etc.

Apurva Mody felt that Winston’ s Policy 2, required the 802.22 systems to abandon the channel without taking into account if the TV signal was indeed authentic. Gerald Chouinard and Ivan Reede agreed with this assessment and suggested that Winston had set the requirements to abandon the channel such that the 802.22 operators will be required to abandon the channel, no matter if the signal detected originated from a baby monitor, masquerading as a TV signal.

Winston Caldwell was not convinced that such a technique exists which can confirm that the signal was indeed a baby monitor.

Gerald Chouinard and Apurva Mody dis-agreed and suggested that we have proposed one such technique – Collaborative Sensing and Correlation with Geolocation information in the current draft standard. Other techniques may also exist.

Winston Caldwell proposed to add the sentense that if a technique to detect only the licensed incumbent devices at the thresholds specified by the regulators with accuracies specified is PROVEN to exist then the 802.22 should use it.



Apurva Mody was apprehensive about including such a sentence into the standard, however, he asked Winston to propsed a sentence that the group was willing to discuss.



11. Minutes of the Telecon on Tuesday, November 3rd, 2009

1. Attendance

Apurva Mody – BAE SystemsGerald Chouinard - CRCRanga Reddy – US ArmyWinston Caldwell - Fox

2.1 Agenda




Comment Resolution


Comments 1103, 1104, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1115 were discussed Comment 1103 - There were lot of discussions on Comment 1103 – This comment requires to be brought

forward to the Systems Group in the Atlanta, November 2009 Plenary and the systems group needs to decide if synchronized quiet periods across the 802.22 networks need to be introduced. If that should be the case, then the questions was, how to provide variable window sensing to accommodate various sensing schemes as well as scalable quiet periods from 5.1 ms to 160 ms as required by the TG1 beacon.

Comment 1103 – Gerald Chouinard – The position that we should adopt is that in 802.22 we have the flexibility to sense from 5.1 mS to the full superframe. 802.22 should keep this in. In the end if we decided that we don’ t need this then we can remove this.

Comment 1103 - Gerald Chouinard – Synchronized quiet period would mean that for example systems in NYC as well as systems in Dakota will all have to follow the same sensing schedules which is not an optimal use of the spectrum

Comment 1103 - Winston Caldwell – Are we talking about sensing per sensing requirements? We need to send sensing reports every so often to the SM. It is a regulatory requirement

Comment 1103 - Ranga Reddy – If the group moves towards synchronized sensing approach then having a location dependent sensing schedule makes sense.

Comment 1103 - Winston Caldwell – Why would anyone be opposed to synchronized quiet periods e. g. based on GPS.

Comment 1103 - Gerald Chouinard – In band sensing is totally controlled by the BS. Out of band sensing will be carried out by the automaton. In any case, this needs to be brought forward to the systems group.

Comment 1111 - Moving based on the link parameters is not a standardization issue but an implementation issue. But DCD and UCD messages define what modulation and coding formats will be used. SM can keep tab of that

Comment 1111 – Apurva Mody – The reason why we have made this comment is that abandoning the channel just because “something” was detected, since the RSSI suddenly jumped, does not make sense. The SM at the BS should still be notified of what exactly the RSSI was so that some further investigation can be carried out. The other question is, what would qualify as the a RSSI value? Since if the RSSI is not high, the 802.22 system still requires to do fine sensing. Resolution Pending - Section 9.3.4 was intended to present an example of how the CPE automaton could deal with the information that it collects during idle times. Since this information is local at the CPE and what goes to the BS is unsolicited reports in MAC messages indicating the presence of incumbents on certain backup or candidate channels, the






information presented in Table 256 may not be needed in the Draft. Another view is that the specific behavior at the CPE on how this information is assembled and how the decision is taken which result in alerting the BS that there is an incumbent on one of the backup/candidate channel should be explained more explicitely. The title of the table should be changed to relate more to the specific procedure that is applied at the CPE for local sensing during idle time. Action: Gerald to provide text to the WG in the form of a contribution trying to resolve comments 1098 up to 1115.

Comment 1112 - Table 256 - needs to also show the operating channel CINR, RSSI, modulation and coding formats used. Resolution – Pending - The RSSIs in the Table relates to the signal levels received for incumbents and other WRAN systems and not the signal level from the BS with which the CPE operates. This is dealt with elsewhere by the TPC and modulation level adjustment provided by the ranging process. Create a contribution defining the behavior rather than an example of parameters to be acquired. Also include more information on what will be sent to the BS as a result of this process of sensing during idle time. Also consider the effect of impulse noise on the sensing results. Action: Gerald to provide text to the WG in the form of a contribution trying to resolve comments 1098 up to 1115.



12. Minutes of the Telecon on Tuesday, December 1st, 2009

1. Attendance

Apurva Mody – BAE SystemsGerald Chouinard - CRCRanga Reddy – US ArmyWinston Caldwell - Fox

2.1 Agenda




Comment Resolution


The group discussed Gerald’ s document on 802.22 Spectrum Manager Policies – 22-09-0224 Rev 1 Much time was spent discussing Policy 2a. “If the SM confirms the presence of a TV Incumbent signal on the operating channel or one of its first adjacent channels through the BS spectrum sensing function or through a combination of sensing results from multiple CPEs.”

Ivan Reede is sceptical about the words “If SM confirms the presence of a TV INCUMBENT”. Ivan suggested that so far no one had been able to show the Technical feasibility if the detected signal was licensed or un-licensed.

Winston agreed. Ivan Reede suggested that the word incumbent be removed and policy should be applied if the TV signal

is detected. Gerald, Apurva – Policy should be what FCC is saying and that is protect the TV incumbents. After much deliberation, the group decided to remove the words “incumbent” from this policy. Gerald suggested that he was not sure about the word “confirms the presence.” Apurva Mody said that the word “confirm” good enough and he would support it. Gerald was wondering if the word confirms should be replaced with detects and classifies. Apurva was not comfortable with replacing “confirms” with “detects and classifies” since no one has yet

proven the classification accuracy. Plus, FCC only requires detection performance. Winston said that the word “confirms” did not sound normative enough. Winston also commented that there is an ambiguity between the channel sets in Section 9 that define the

SM behavior and the SM Policy. Apurva commented that if the word “incumbent” is removed from the SM Policy then it should be

removed from the Channel Set definitions also. Winston suggested that the context for using incumbent in Channel set definition may not be the same. There were also discussions on the Confidence Metric. Ivan Reede suggested that since no one had appropriately defined the confidence metric, It should always

be 00 or FF with all values from 01 – FE reserved. Apurva agreed with that. Gerald – we need to leave options open for different countries Ivan – Success of 802.11 lies in its simplicity. The group agreed that the confidence metric at this time shall have either a value of 00 or FF and all other

values 01-FE are reserved.






Winston – there is a disconnect between the channel list and the Policy This was taken care of for Policy 2a. After 90 minutes of discussions, the group agreed on the following sentence for Policy 2a – “If the SM

confirms the presence of a TV signal using an appropriate confidence metric* on the operating channel or one of its first adjacent channels through the BS spectrum sensing function or through a combination of sensing results from multiple CPEs. *Confidence metric at this time shall have either a value of 00 or FF and all other values between 01-FE are reserved.”

There were further discussions on the Action. Gerald will provide a revised version of Document 22-09-0224 by the next call and the discussions will

continue.



13. Minutes of the Telecon on Tuesday, December 15th, 2009

1. Attendance

Apurva Mody – BAE SystemsGerald Chouinard - CRCRanga Reddy – US ArmyWendong Hu – ST MicroelectronicsWinston Caldwell – FoxIvan Reede – AmerisysAziz Rahman -

2.1 Agenda




Update on Spectrum Manager Policy - https://mentor.ieee.org/802.22/dcn/09/22-09-0224-02-0000-update-of-the-spectrum-manager-policy-table.doc

Comment Resolution


Gerald Chouinard started discussing his changes to the Policy Table 255 related to approximately 26 comments in the Draft v 2.0 – The changes to the Policy table can be seen in 22-09-0224 Rev 1

The total call lasted for more than 2 hours and went well past the Systems Group call which was supposed to start on the same bridge at 9.00 p.m.

As a result, Apurva Mody, who is the chair of the Cognitive Radio Capability Ad-hoc has suggested that next week’ s call should start half an hour early at 7.30 p.m.

There were more discussions on Policy 2a as proposed by Gerald and Apurva Ivan not comfortable with removing incumbent. Apurva reminded that there were many discussions related to the word “incumbent” in the call that was

held one week earlier and the group had finally decided that since no known, proven technology existed to distinguish between a licensed and an un-licensed signal, it was better to remove the word incumbent since and incumbent meant a licensed primary user.

Policy 2b – some discussions – decided to table Policy 3a – Ivan – there should be a tri-state Ivan is afraid of the RF spurs requiring the CPE operation to stop Ivan – Database denies or authorizes and if database says nothing then rely on sensing Wendong asked the group why we are trying to protect the un-licensed wireless microphones. 802.22

should not be protecting un-licensed wireless microphones. There were discussions for half an hour on this issue. Apurva Mody read the FCC R&O and reminded people that the FCC R&O mandates regulatory

behaviour when TV or wireless microphone signals are detected. It does not specify whether those signals are licensed or un-licensed.

Wendong – We are trying to define the database behaviour Wendong – we need to decide what the precedence should be - database and / sensing, database or

sensing precedence, Gerald – Does database response override sensing


https://mentor.ieee.org/802.22/dcn/09/22-09-0224-02-0000-update-of-the-spectrum-manager-policy-table.doc

https://mentor.ieee.org/802.22/dcn/09/22-09-0224-02-0000-update-of-the-spectrum-manager-policy-table.doc





There were discussions for half an hour on the issue of precedence. Apurva Mody read the FCC R&O and reminded people that the results from the database do not over-ride

the results from sensing. If sensing detects the presence of a wireless microphone or the TV signals, even when the database says otherwise, then 802.22 devices need to act in accordance to the regulatory rules.

Wendong – suggested that we are trying to define the behaviour of the database Apurva suggested to Wendong that if we wanted to create an international standard, we need to take into

account countries which do not mandate the regulatory maintained database system Ivan agreed and said that the best way is to provide a URL of the database service in the Whitespace

Device. Prefereably this will be done using the 802.22 BS which can act as a proxy. Apurva explained to Wendong that if a regulatory domain mandates a database, and such a database

exists then the operators will specify the URL to connect to it. If such a database does not exist then the URL will point to the operator Network Management System which may say that all the channels are available or one may define operator policies which allow or dis-allow channels on various sub-nets.

Apurva asked if - Is the Database available the right question, since in an earlier call, we had decided that the database will always be available in some form. Also, not having a database means that we need to follow Policy 1e.

Gerald – mulled that yes indeed it makes sense to ask the question differently and that would be Does the database exist?

Ivan suggested that the easiest way was to create the regulatory classes where one can specify if the regulatory domain mandates a databse or not.

Gerald agreed that the BS may turn on the Country X class which does not require a database Gerald – agrees with Ivan’ s approach if one can make sure that the operator can not modify the 802.22

behavior. Ivan – We can not go and try to decide what regulators decide Gerald – We need a policy table that is flexible as well as Ivan – Sponsor level question – How does something affect the inter-operability Inter-operability – someone can design BS and CPE separately but they work together since they both

designed according to the standard. After long discussions the group agreed for the following questions for Policy 3a Question 1 – Does the database exist? Question 2 – Does the database over-ride sensing? Apurva - Question – Wireless microphone operation at less than X km from BS – This question is

difficult to determine – Should break this into sub-questions – Can the location of wireless microphone be determined? If no then entire cell needs to shift. If yes, is the wireless microphone less than X km from BS?

Ivan is trying to go away from locating with the wireless microphone but creating interference to it. The second question is easier to determine.

If you are allowed operate at more than 4W then your interference radius is greater than the sensing radius

Is any WSD (BS or the CPE) within the protected contour of the wireless microphone? Those devices shall cease to operate on the current operating channel

After some more discussions, the group agreed to ask the following questions before the policy decision / action was made.

Question 3 - Can the location of the wireless microphone be determined? Question 4 – Is the BS within the protected contour of the wireless microphone? The group decided that Gerald will incorporate these changes and present it to the group during the next

telecom as an updated Revision for Document 22-09-0224.


doc.: ieee 802.22-09/0134r10€¦ · web viewcomment 989 – comment – charles einolf –...

Documents