WAVE should be a standalone “standard” instead of an “amendment”

1. WAVE should be a standalone “standard” instead of an “amendment” Andrew Myles Andrew Myles

2. ExCom will consider the WAVE PAR this week that defines the scope of an amendment to 802.11 • The Orlando meeting of ExCom is going to consider establishing 802.11 TGp to develop an amendment to 802.11-1999 (rev2003) • The amendment will specify changes to the  PHY (specifically the 802.11a PHY) and the MAC for the purposes of WAVE/DSRC • The types of changes envisaged are specified in ASTM E2213-02. Andrew Myles

3. It is inappropriate for the WAVE PAR to define the proposed work as an "amendment" • 802.11-1999 (rev2003) is very complex with many errors and ambiguities. This will only get worse once 802.11e/g/h/i/j/k are added. Adding WAVE functionality, which will have little relevance to many/most users of 802.11, just increases the danger of "document collapse" • Making changes to the 802.11 documentation is very difficult anyone without a long history in 802.11. It is not clear anyone in WAVE has those skills and it is also not clear those with the appropriate skills are willing to invest time in WAVE • The WAVE architecture is fundamentally different from 802.11. ASTM E2213-02 speaks of OBU's and RSU's using groups of channels in ways (eg control channel and service channels, suppressing Beacons, etc) that are orthogonal to the traditional 802.11 architecture. Describing this new architecture in the same document as 802.11 will only be confusing • Many aspects of the WAVE work only applies to channels in 5.9GHz and so are not generally applicable to all 802.11 devices Andrew Myles

4. Why risk the integrity & stability of 802.11 for an application (WAVE) that is unproven? • Many of the claimed applications for WAVE can be more easily implemented using other mechanisms • e.g. location service can easily be provided using GPS • e.g. toll booths work perfectly well using interoperable RFID tags, etc. • It is unclear how WAVE will be successful without overcoming the "chicken and egg problem” • WAVE is not very useful until lots of RSU's are deployed • But lots of RSU's will not be deployed until WAVE is useful • And WAVE will not have "homeland security" money financing it! • Some of the claimed applications are “enthusiastic” • Would anyone seriously trust a wireless network to tell them there was no oncoming traffic at a busy intersection? • Note that even the proponents of WAVE admit some of the applications are unlikely to come to fruition Andrew Myles

5. The goals of WAVE can still be achieved by changing the PAR to specify a standalone “standard” • WAVE can still piggyback on the reputation and momentum of 802.11 • WAVE can still leverage the skills and knowledge of 802.11 members during the development and balloting process • WAVE will not be constrained by the existing documentation and history of 802.11 thus accelerating the standards development process and ensuring a readable output • 802.11 can expand its scope without endangering the integrity of its core product • It is claimed that WAVE only consists of additions (i.e. no modifications) and that the architecture can be put into an Annex, which suggests WAVE could easily be defined in a separate document • A “standard” (in contrast to a “recommended practice”) allows WAVE to satisfy regulatory requirements (?) that a standard be used in the 5.9GHz spectrum Andrew Myles