12.16.08

UHF Cognitive Networks Alliance (CogNeA)

Posted in CogNeA, cognitive standards, white space at 6:01 pm by JamesNeel

I was just emailed a press release announcing the formation of an industry group to define a protocol (PHY / MAC) for white space data networks.

They hope to have a draft standard for comment available in the first half of 2009.

Since I don’t have an external link, I’ve put the press release below the fold.

Read the rest of this entry »

12.02.08

SDRF White Space Testing Group Starts

Posted in cognitive standards, white space, white space test group at 7:30 pm by JamesNeel

While I’m mentioning cognitive radio groups starting up, the SDRF White Space Testing Group had its first official meeting a couple weeks ago (unofficial meetings had been going on since mid-summer). Right now it’s focused on developing / documenting use cases for white space (beyond “WiFi on Steroids”). This is primarily intended to help develop testing recommendations for white space devices, but will also probably feed into the 802 ECSG on white space mentioned below, which will also be starting with use cases.

The press release announcement is here.

802 study group (ECSG) on white space

Posted in cognitive standards, white space at 1:53 pm by JamesNeel

This is last minute, but I just found out.

There’s a 802 study group on white spaces starting up today. The first telecon/ webex is at 1:00 PM Eastern today (Dec 2). More information (where you can also sign up for the listserv) is here.

There will be telecons every two weeks.

06.19.08

1900.5 – Maybe policy languages won’t kill the radio star

Posted in cognitive standards, language at 2:22 pm by JamesNeel

One of the things I harp on a lot is the impracticality of DARPA’s xG policy ontology solution as it has an unbounded order of complexity (see Table 13.1 in B. Fette, Cognitive Radio Technology). So I’ve been mostly ignoring the language standardization efforts (e.g., 1900.5 til now and MLM in the SDRF) because I thought they were never really going to get deployed.  

At the SDR Forum meeting in Portland, 1900.5 held a couple sessions, which I wasn’t originally too keen to sit in on and only ended up attending because a public safety sig CR session got canceled. While the actual session devolved into a ”what is a language?” exercise in intellectual onanism as I expected, I ended up speaking some with John Strassner (the lead on 1900.5) afterwards.

In addition to recommending a nice salmon dish, he said his vision for 1900.5 is a policy language that can be compiled and implemented on a radio. If that works out (and John seems to have the background for this to happen), then policy reasoning should be feasible to do in real-time on practical radios and my entire opinion of the utility of policy languages will have to change.

This was apparently the goal all along for the group, so perhaps I should’ve known this, but I previously had a very low opinion of the potential utility of a policy language so I wasn’t following closely – which I’ll have to change.

04.02.08

1900.2 approved

Posted in cognitive standards at 1:21 pm by JamesNeel

Updating this earlier post where the draft was approved out of the committee, Stephen Berger emailed on March 28 (I’ve been busy) to note that 1900.2 (Interference & Coexistence Analysis) has been approved by the IEEE Standards Board which means it should be published shortly.

02.22.08

Cognitive Radio Definitions

Posted in cognitive standards at 9:13 am by JamesNeel

Because a) I sounded like I knew what I was talking about and perhaps more importantly b) I had to get off the teleconference early so I couldn’t say no, I got assigned to revise the SDR Forum Cognitive Radio Working Group’s definition of cognitive radio and the surrounding discussion in a nomenclature document which should come out sometime soon.

Thinking this might be of interest to readers of this blog, I’ve reproduced my contribution in the following.

Cognitive radio refers to both a device and to an engineering paradigm for designing wireless systems. Because cognition is normally associated with human thought processes, the cognitive radio community has adopted several terms from human psychology to describe cognitive radio whose meaning is unclear in an engineering setting. To resolve this, the following also defines these related terms in a manner applicable to wireless engineering.

Cognitive Radio (design paradigm)

An approach to wireless engineering wherein the radio, radio network, or wireless system is endowed with cognition and agency to intelligently adapt operational aspects of the radio, radio network, or wireless system.

Cognition

The capacity to perceive, retain, and reason about information.

Typical types of information used in a cognitive radio include location, environmental information, and internal states.

Agency

The capacity to make and implement choices.

Intelligent

Exhibiting behavior consistent with a purposeful goal.

While a system could be cognitive without exhibiting agency (e.g., a brain in a jar), or could have cognition and agency without intelligence (e.g., a person who makes all of his/her choices by a flip of a coin), all three aspects are critical to the cognitive radio design paradigm.

Perception

The process of acquiring, classifying, and organizing information.

Note that there are many different potential sources from which and kinds of information that may be acquired. Some sources may be internal (e.g., a measurement of an amplifier bias current); some may be external (e.g., information from a networked database); some information may be about itself (e.g., the radio’s own location); and some information may be about other radios (e.g., the interference experienced by another radio).

Reason

The application of logic and analysis to information.

Using these definitions, the cognitive radio design paradigm can be equivalently defined as follows.

Cognitive Radio (design paradigm)

An approach to wireless engineering wherein the radio, radio network, or wireless system is endowed with the capacities to:

  • acquire, classify, and organize information (cognitive – perceive)
  • retain information (cognitive – retain)
  • apply logic and analysis to information (cognitive – reason)
  • make and implement choices (agency) about operational aspects of the radio, network, or wireless system in a manner consistent with a purposeful goal operational aspects of the radio, network, or wireless system (intelligent).

Because there are far too many ways that the cognitive radio paradigm can be applied to list all possible implementations, the following only defines the three classes of implementations most commonly discussed at the time this document was created.

Cognitive radio (device)

  1. A radio designed according to the cognitive radio engineering paradigm.
  2. Cognitive radio as defined in (2) that utilizes Software Defined Radio, Adaptive Radio, and other technologies
  3. A radio, radio network, or wireless system designed according to the cognitive radio engineering paradigm.
  4. A radio endowed with the capacities: to acquire, classify, retain, and organize information, to apply logic and analysis to information, and to make and implement choices about operational aspects of the radio in a manner consistent with a purposeful goal.

Note that cognitive radio does not explicitly refer to a specific realization of a radio. A mobile could be a cognitive radio; a base station could be a cognitive radio; a mesh node could be a cognitive radio; etc..

Cognitive network:

  1. A network designed according to the cognitive radio engineering paradigm.
  2. A network endowed with the capacities: to acquire, classify, retain, and organize information, to apply logic and analysis to information, and to make and implement choices about operational aspects of the network in a manner consistent with a purposeful goal.

Example: An enterprise WiFi network wherein “thin” access points take in sensing information which is then passed to a networked controller; which then assigns channels to the access points.

Note that the centralization of the capacities for cognition and agency is not critical to the concept of a cognitive network. Instead these capacities could be implemented as distributed processes.

Cognitive radio network: A network of cognitive radios

Example: An enterprise WiFi network wherein each access point is a cognitive radio.

It is important to note that having a capacity does not imply that the capability is always used. For instance a mobile cognitive radio might have its operation directed by a network at some times and be self-directed at other times. In all cases, the mobile cognitive radio remains a cognitive radio because it has the requisite capacities even when not actively exercised.

02.20.08

ETSI SDR/CR Standardization Effort

Posted in cognitive standards at 11:04 am by JamesNeel

ETSI announced that they’re starting a technical committee to examine standardization and development of SDR and cognitive radio. The first meeting of the committee will be March 19-20, 2008 at ETSI Headquarters, Sophia Antipolis in France.

01.28.08

Wondering about the lack of industry participation

Posted in cognitive standards at 10:30 am by JamesNeel

In this post, Morfster wonders why industry isn’t taking a more active interest in participating in ITU-R activities related to SDR/CR, particularly the responses to the ITU-R inquiry into cognitive radio.

My 2 cents (spelled out more fully in the comments) is because the perceived benefit is negligible, any incurred costs make participating a losing business proposition.

An immediate question is why do I blog then? Because a) I wanted a place to keep track of links to everything I thought was relevant to cognitive radio and a blog is a convenient format, b) it does drive some traffic to the company website, c) the cost is negligible (5-10 minutes a day of my time).

01.03.08

1900.2 Draft Approved

Posted in cognitive standards at 9:47 am by JamesNeel

According to an email from Stephen Berger yesterday, the draft ballot for 1900.2 was successful (96% approval, with 76% of eligible ballots returned). It still needs to to go through the IEEE Standards Board for approval and publication, but the draft is out of the group. Berger also noted that further 1900 activities may be subsumed into SCC41, but that will be determined at a later time.