doc.: ieee 802.11-10/0013r16 · web view84, 90: no objection to resolution. 88: no objection to...

December 2010 doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0013r166

IEEE P802.11Wireless LANs

TGad Conference Call Minutes

Date: 2010-12-23

Author(s):Name Affiliation Address Phone email

Eldad Perahia Intel Corporation 2111 NE 25th AveHillsboro, OR 97124 503-712-8081 [email protected]

Vinko Erceg Broadcom [email protected] Yee MediaTek [email protected]

Carlos Cordeiro Intel Corporation 2111 NE 25th Ave

Hillsboro, OR 97124 [email protected]

Submission page 1 Eldad Perahia, Intel

AbstractTGad conference call minutes for 2010.


1 Conference Call Times

Date Start Time End TimeJanuary 7, 2010 10 AM Eastern Time 12 PM Eastern TimeFebruary 25, 2010 10 AM Eastern Time 12 PM Eastern TimeApril 29, 2010 10 AM Eastern Time 12 PM Eastern TimeJuly 1, 2010 10 AM Eastern Time 12 PM Eastern TimeJuly 22, 2010 10 AM Eastern Time 12 PM Eastern TimeAug 5, 2010 10 AM Eastern Time 12 PM Eastern TimeAug 12, 2010 8 PM Eastern Time 10 PM Eastern TimeAug 19, 2010 10 AM Eastern Time 12:05 PM Eastern

TimeAug 26, 2010 8 PM Eastern Time 10 PM Eastern TimeSept 2, 2010 10 AM Eastern Time 12 PM Eastern TimeOct 14, 2010 10 AM Eastern Time 12 PM Eastern TimeOct 28, 2010 10 AM Eastern Time 12 PM Eastern TimeNov 18, 2010 10 AM Eastern Time 12 PM Eastern TimeDec 2, 2010 8 PM Eastern Time 10 PM Eastern TimeDec 9, 2010 10 AM Eastern Time 12 PM Eastern TimeDec 16, 2010 8 PM Eastern Time 10 PM Eastern TimeDec 23, 2010 10 AM Eastern Time 12 PM Eastern Time


December 2010 doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0013r1662 Minutes from January 7, 2010 Conference Call

2.1 Agenda

Check to see if anyone is not familiar with the IEEE patent policy http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.pdf Attendance by email• Presentations

– Channel Model discussion– 11-10/0011r0, Radio over Fiber for an optimal 60 GHz Home Area Network– 11-09/1317r1, Internet Traffic Modeling, Sai Nandagopalan

2.2 Patent Policy No one was not familiar with the IEEE patent policy.No essential patent disclosure

2.3 Channel modeling Preparing human blockage statistics (TU Braunschwieg) for fading in Los Angeles

o PDF of depth and PDF of number of taps affected Conference channel model being updated

o Pathlosso Is now complete, no TBDs

Living room being updatedo Statistical results from NICT on inter-cluster parameters addedo Pathloss will be done by LA meeting

Enterprise cubicleo Inter and intra cluster almost done, will be presented in LA meeting

Complete document should be ready by LA Continue discussion with NICT on polarization and inter cluster parameters Question: What are Cubicle environment assumptions?

o Ray tracing plus reflection measurements used Question: what are the positions?

o AP on ceiling, devices in cube Question: how is blocking being included, since normalization is being performed in Matlab?

o Need to be discussed Question: independent channel instantiation for packet?

o yes


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


2.4 09/1317r1 Question: HTTP parameters taken from references from slide 9? references are old Taken from references and simulators like NS2 and Opnet, also what LTE and Wimax using Question: What issues of TCP that will differentiate proposals?

o Transfer timeo Stabalization time

2.5 10/0011r0 Question: Slide 20 says optimizes global efficiency, but system operates as one AP over the whole home. Wouldn’t AP/room be more

efficient? Question: What additional delays does the system incur with RF/optical conversions?

o Delay is dependent on length of the fiber, and not an issue based on 802.15.3c/ECMA

3 Minutes from February 25, 2010 Conference Call

3.1 Agenda


– 11-10/0242r0, SCR Synchronization, John Stine


3.3 10/0242r0 Question: What happens two systems with two references move closer together?

4 Minutes from April 29, 2010 Conference Call Vinko chairing meeting.

4.1 Agenda





– 11-10/0489r0, PHY Performance evaluation with 60GHz WLAN channel models, Alexander Maltsev– 11-10/0490r0, Intra cluster response model and parameter for the enterprise cubicle environments at 60GHz, Hirokazu Sawada


4.3 10/0489r0 PER vs. SNR curves, beamforming adaptation used (for maximum power), OFDM simulation, normalization per channel snapshot.

Comparison of AWGN curves to omni-directional and directional-directional antenna cases for different channel models. Q/A

o James: is modulation and coding from some proposal ? Alexander: standard coding

o James: is it soft decision decoder? Can you give more detail Alexander: standard coding, I can send you the information Kato-san: answer is in one of the slides

o Martin: did you assume equalization? Alexander: yes

o Brian: differences are because normalization influences the results Alexander: yes, antenna gain is not accounted for, differences would be larger in reality

o Brian: flat channel? Alexander: no, there is intercluster interference creating frequency selectivity

o Vinko: what kind of equalization did you use? Alexander: per tone equalization

o Kato-san: question about beam adaptation: how do you normalize? Alexander: evaluation methodology uses normalization per each channel impulse response

o Nokia: same channel impulse response per packet? How may packets? Alexander: yes, 10000 packets

o Kato-san: in slide 10, I see that performance is close to LOS performance for omni and directional case Alexander: this is because of normalization and intracluster parameters

o James: your differences are because of the fading on each tone Vinko: yes, because of the frequency selectivity




4.4 10/0242r0 Measurements were presented and impulse responses, reflection from walls and metal frame and metal pipe, strong reflections from metal

surfaces Q/A

o Vinko: very interesting, how many locations don’t have metal reflections? Kato-san: answer is in slide 10

o James: did you adjust angle of antenna to point into direction of reflection, are they facing the ceiling?o James: there is no reflection from plaster board?

Sawada-san: yes, no reflectiono Vinko: both pipe and metal frame are metal but reflection is much different

Kato-san: this is because of the metal shape o Vinko: pipe disperses the signalo Alexander: thank you very much for measurement and parameters , let’s discuss off line which parameters to use, maybe some

averaging is needed Kato-san: agreed

o Vinko: I would also like to thank you for the measurements and results, we can now complete the channel modelso Cisco: directional antenna was used?

Sawada-san: antenna is described on slide 17

End of call, ended at 8:10am PDT

5 Minutes from July 1, 2010 Conference Call Vinko chairing meeting.

5.1 Agenda

Check to see if anyone is not familiar with the IEEE patent policy http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.pdf Attendance by email• Comment resolution spreadsheet discussion, 11-10-0717r1


5.3 10/0717r1 Presenter: Carlos Cordeiro




Carlos went over the spreadsheet organization: column meaning, filtering, type of comments, etc. Work needs to be done regarding grouping. Beamforming may need subgroups. Coexistence has only 3 comments so that grouping is not necessary for this category.

Thomas: Is there a limit on number of comments for each sub group? Carlos: it is very hard to put a number on it. 20-30 comments per group seems reasonable. Anyone can bring submissions. Groups of

people can work on comment resolution. Kapseok: classification of the groups seems fine. Comment 54 in General group is a mistake, I would like to delete the comment. Carlos: you can withdraw the comment. Vinko: please send a “withdraw CID #” notice to the TGad reflector for record keeping. Kapseok: I propose comment group PHY subgroups: SC, OFDM, common preamble, and control PHY. Carlos: next week we can work on grouping and ask for submissions. Avinash: does every comment need to be represented by a presentation? Carlos: not all, some of them may be done in the meeting, if they are simple enough. Assaf: editor may resolve editorial comments.

There were no additional questions, conference call ended at 7:45am PST.

6 Minutes from July 22, 2010 Conference Call

6.1 Agenda

Check to see if anyone is not familiar with the IEEE patent policy http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.pdf Attendance by email• Comment resolution of Assaf’s assigned CIDs


6.3 10/0944r0 Presenter: Assaf CIDs:

o 3: no objection to resolutiono 405

Modify to “figure 30” discussion on aggregation and block ack no objection to resolution

o 406




Modified grammar no objection to resolution

o 407: no objection to resolutiono 408: no objection to resolutiono 412: no objection to resolutiono 413: move to 10/0894o 414: no objection to resolutiono 416: no objection to resolutiono 417: no objection to resolutiono 56: no objection to resolutiono 418: no objection to resolutiono 346: no objection to resolution

Will upload 10/944r1 to server

6.4 10/0894r0 Presenter: Assaf CIDs:

o 447: no objection to resolutiono 448

change to counter, and refer to CID 73 no objection to resolution

o 449: no objection to resolutiono 353: remove from this document, assigned to Danielo 316

discussion on where operations occur in TXOP and how to start TXOP add “is deleted” to resolution no objection to resolution

o 58 & 59: no objection to resolutiono 317

Fixed grammar no objection to resolution

o 318 & 319 Fixed grammar no objection to resolution

o 461: no objection to resolutiono 438: no objection to resolutiono 386 & 413



Padam: BRP is iterative, any limit to # of iterations Assaf: no limit Padam: should there be a limit Assaf: may difficult to define, and not related to this comment MIDC can be done two difference ways, split into two no objection to resolution

7 Minutes from Aug 5, 2010 Conference Call

7.1 Agenda

Check to see if anyone is not familiar with the IEEE patent policy http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.pdf Attendance by email• Comment resolution of Solomon’s assigned CIDs, documents 10/947r0, 10/948r1


7.3 10/0947r0 Presenter: Solomon CIDs:

o 112, 113 Spelling correction No objection to resolution

o 141: No objection to resolutiono 232: No objection to resolutiono 247: No objection to resolutiono 378: already resolved, remove from documento 382: remove from document, refer 10/948

10/947r1 has all updates, will be motion in Hawaii

7.4 10/0948r1 Presenter: Solomon CIDs:

o 382 Copy resolution text from 10/947 and add to resolution here




No objection to resolutiono 91: No objection to resolutiono 384

Change to “cluster” No objection to resolution

o 385: No objection to resolutiono 387: No objection to resolutiono 388: No objection to resolutiono 435:

Toyoda-san: split IE into two? Solomon: if max size exceeded, send additional IE Carlos: yes, can split No objection to resolution

o 439: No objection to resolutiono 454: No objection to resolutiono 465, 466:

Avinash: resolution to 466 complicates resolution to 465; worried about use of TID subfield and compressed bitmap subfield and no reserved bit left

Solomon/Carlos: figure out new method in future for future need Added CID 465 to this document with resolution referring to CID 466, avoiding conflicting resolutions No objection to resolution

o 471: No objection to resolutiono 472: No objection to resolutiono 473:

Fix spelling No objection to resolution

o 475: No objection to resolutiono 476: No objection to resolutiono 479: No objection to resolutiono 480: No objection to resolution

10/948r2 has all updates, will motioned in Hawaii

CIDs 330, 331 already resolved by 10/914r0 in San Diego, awaiting motion in Hawaii.


December 2010 doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0013r1668 Minutes from Aug 12, 2010 Conference Call

8.1 Agenda

Check to see if anyone is not familiar with the IEEE patent policy http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.pdf Attendance by email• Comment resolution:

– Carlos, Sai, Thomas Derham– 10/977r1, 10/978r1, 10/981r0

–


8.3 10/0978r1 Presenter: Carlos CID 348

o Question on Support column: users choiceo Will revisit again in Hawaii to give people more time to review

8.4 10/0977r1 Presenter: Carlos CIDs:

o 323: No objection to resolutiono 422: No objection to resolutiono 445: No objection to resolutiono 326: No objection to resolutiono 328: No objection to resolutiono 332:

Question/discussion about moving STT 1 to 0 vs switching state; use of “move” not clear Change resolution to counter, inserting “other than set to zero” No objection to resolution

o 333: question about initial shall in procedure No objection to resolution




o 375: No objection to resolutiono 433:

Do you need to establish connection in both bands before transfer? Implementation issue whether to bring up radio in other band first or after, protocol allows both

No normative text about STA roles new band in clause 11 Change resolution to Counter, insert such language in 11.31.1

No objection to resolutiono 175: left openo 13: No objection to resolutiono 100:

discussion regarding complexity to AP for allocation period to be function of BI if odd BI are used response is that how scheduler handles this is implementation depend

would like rounding involved to keep schedule interval nice number Sai and Brian will work offline to craft resolution

CIDs not reviewed yet: 288, 58, 59, 316, 317, 440, 445, 289, 290, 291, 312, 314, 321, 340, 374, 381, 427, 434, 452, 453, 464, 465, 477, 481, 482

Limit Security discussion to first hour in next meeting and continue Carlos/Sai CID’s in second hour; no objection

8.5 10/0981r0 Presenter: Thomas CIDs 98:

o If a STA sets Other_AID, but receives unknown AID, whats the behaviour Probably need to add a description on what to do in that case

o How does a STA know these other STAs are there? All STAs info is in BI

o Might not be in BIo Assumption is STA would know AIDs of STA in overlapping SPo Thomas and Chris Hansen will work offline on compromise and present in Hawaii


9.1 Agenda


– Dan Harkin, 10/899r2,




– Carlos, 10/977r3– Naveen, CID 371, 372 in 10/0946r0


9.3 10/0899r2 Presenter: Dan Harkin Dan asked if any of the 14 individuals who voted against addressing the PSK problem during the strawpoll in San Diego are present on

this call to explain the reasons behind their opposition. Solomon: Yes I was one of the opposers. I agree with the problem but do not think this is a problem for TGad to solve. Dan: TGad should not add to the problem of PSK. Yong: is it sufficient to remove the PSK id from the beacon? Dan: Yes. Dan: It is my opinion that TGad should only add GCMP and nothing about key exchange. Paul Lambert: agrees with Dan on the problem. Carlos: in the interest of time, can you describe what changes are needed in the draft? Dan: Looking at D0.1 of the TGad draft, in section 8.4.1.2.1. PSK should be removed. TGad should be agnostic about authentication and

PSK authentication is already in the base spec. SK: 8.4.1.2.1 is about 802.1x, why are you saying PSK should be removed? Dan: Again, TGad should be able to use any authentication that the base spec provides. Carlos: there are other places in the spec where changes will be needed. Dan: In addition to removing PSK in 8.4.1.2.1, we should also identify other places in the draft which should be changed. Also, in 8.4.7,

PSK ID is used here and should be removed. Yong: it should be ok to include the PSK in the Probe frames. Dan: there are online tools for cracking PSK, having the PSK in the Probe frame is just as bad. Yong: agrees that such an attack is feasible. John Barr: PBSS is not a mode found in the base spec and PSK authentication is not addressed. Dan: That’s right, other places in the spec needs to be changed but TGad can still reuse existing PSK authentication mechanisms. Dan: CIDs 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 121, 122 are PSK related and can be resolved with the above suggested resolution.

o James: Is Dan comfortable with the enhanced recognitionof the PSK problem shown in this call and will work to develop a Countered resolution for these comments based on the discussion today?

o Dan: Yes.o Volunteers to work with Dan to come up with a resolution: John Barr, Yong

Dan: CID 120 is not PSK related and deals with the 802.1x state machine.o Yong: the major reason to use the EAPOL-Start msg is to avoid redundant handshake and authentication.o Dan: I understand the motivation, but...o Yong: maybe Dan can provide a resolution for this comment based on the improved understanding.



o Dan: I am more than happy to help Yong to come up with the resolution.o Conclusion: Yong and Dan will remain the assignees of this CID and will work to come up with a resolution.

9.4 10/0977r3 Presenter: Carlos Cordeiro, Sai Continue from where we left off from the last call. CIDs:

o (Sai) 100: Proposes to Reject. No objection to resolution.o (Sai) 288: Proposes to Reject. No objection to resolution.o (Sai) 289: Proposes to Reject. No objection to resolution.o (Sai) 290: Proposes to Reject. No objection to resolution.o (Sai) 291: Proposes to Reject. No objection to resolution.o (Sai) 314: Proposes to Accept. No objection to resolution.o (Sai) 340: Proposes to Reject. No objection to resolution.o (Sai) 312: Proposes to Reject. No objection to resolution.o (Sai) 374: Proposes to Reject. No objection to resolution.o (Sai) 381: Proposes to Counter. No objection to resolution.o (Sai) 427:

Solomon: this should be rejected instead of accepted. Carlos: explains that there is a problem with table 7-26 in 802.11mb Carlos: the question is whether we should correct the table or the TGad spec text. Carlos: This is really an editorial thing. Is the commenter (Toyoda) ok with Counter with the TGad editor to work it out

with the TGmb editor. Toyoda: Yes.

o (Sai) 434: Toyoda (Commenter): the comment is in regard to Fig. 62. Carlos: Toyoda-san is correct. Change the resolution from COUNTER to ACCEPT. No objection to resolution.

o (Sai) 452: Proposes to Reject. No objection to resolution.o Call extended by 10 minutes.o (Sai) 453: Proposes to Accept. No objection to resolution.o (Sai) 464: Proposes to Accept. No objection to resolution.o (Sai) 481: Proposes to Reject. No objection to resolution.o (Sai) 482: Proposes to Reject. No objection to resolution.

We are out of time and Naveen will not be able to present 10/946r0 (CID 371, 372) as requested.

CIDs not yet reviewed by Sai: 321, 477


December 2010 doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0013r166 CID 465 has already been addressed in 10/948r2 For the next TGad call on 8/26, we will cover:

o CIDs 321, 477 (Sai)o CIDs 156, 353, 368 (Daniel)o CIDs 159, 225, 256 (Brian)o CID 368 (Kapseok)o CIDs 371, 372 (Naveen)


10.1Agenda


– CIDs 159, 225, 256 (Brian) – CID 368 (Kapseok) – CIDs 371, 372 (Naveen) – CIDs 321, 477 (Sai) – K. Maruhashi – Peter E.– Carlos

10.2Patent Policy No one was not familiar with the IEEE patent policy.No essential patent disclosure

10.310/0983r0 Presenter: Brian Hart CIDs

o 159, 256: no objection to resolutiono 225: no objection to resolution

10.410/0995r3 Presenter: Kapseok Chang CID 368




o Any changes to figure 128? No

o Change is in PHY MIB, shouldn’t it be in MAC MIB as relay is a MAC feature?o Perhaps value should be a constant and not MIB variableo Carlos to work with Kapseok o CID still open

10.510/0946r0 Presenter: Naveen Kakani CIDs

o 371, 372: no objection to resolution

10.610/1010r0 Presenter: Sai CIDs

o 321: no objection to resolutiono 477: no objection to resolution

10.710/1004r0 Presenter: K. Maruhashi CID 487 (partial resolution) Draft changes clarifying BF text No objection to draft changes in 10/1004r0

10.810/1002r0 Presenter: Peter Ecclesine CID 487 (partial resolution) Draft changes clarifying Multi-band supported rates and channels No objection to draft changes in 10/1002r0

10.910/1005r0 Presenter: Carlos Cordeiro CID 487 (partial resolution) Draft changes clarifying miscellaneous paragraphs

o P201L32: ", it should transmit an Announce frame to the responder in an AT period",o P174L30, 9.23.7.2: it makes more sense for the PCP/AP to transmit the last Grant frame to the source of the SP.



o P216L23, 9.25.5.3: the language can be improved and made clearer.o 9.25: the BF protocol has been designed (in terms of bit-field sizes, such as CDOWN, L-RX, etc.) to support a maximum number

of antennas, maxium sectors per antenna, etc. This should be clearly stated, so that the reader knows what those are.o 21.7: Need to clarify how STAs can find out each other's capabilities so that it can use the LP SC PHY.o 9.23.3: The use of CCA in the AT needs to be clarified. Does the PCP/AP employ CCA during the AT?

No objection to draft changes in 10/1005r0

10.10 10/1013r0 Presenter: Sai CID 487 (partial resolution) Draft changes clarifying 9.4,9.23.7.1, 11.2.3 and 7.2.1.11

o Editorial change to second resolution: remove “pdf line numbers” from paragraph, create 10/1013r0o Fix grammar “…transmission of the another MSDU…”, remove “the”

No objection to draft changes in 10/1013r1

10.11 Next week agenda o Liwen Chu, CID 84, 88, 89, 90, 91o Chaochun Wang, CID 175o James Yee, CID 487, 389

11 Minutes from September 2, 2010 Conference Call

11.1Agenda


– Liwen Chu; CID 84, 88, 89, 90, 91; 10/1007r2– Chaochun Wang; CID 175; 10/999r0– James Yee; CID 389; 10/1014r0– Kapseok Chang; CID 368; 10/995r5– Brad Lynch; CID 345; 10/1029r0– James Yee; CID 487; 10/1012r0– Solomon Trainin; CID 487; 10/1019r0– Chris Hansen; CID 487; 10/1026r0– Assaf Kasher; CID 487; 10/1031r1– SK; CID 487; 10/1023r0





11.310/1007r2 Presenter: Liwen Chu CIDs:

o 84, 90: no objection to resolutiono 88: no objection to resolutiono 89: no objection to resolutiono 91:

Does deleted line in pseudo-code related to “received_frame(TA)” change normative behaviour? Do not need TA in timer Change seems correct, but needs to be done in other places to match Sai will work with Liwen; Liwen present update in Hawaii

Resolution to CID already exists in 10/948r2 (reject) Solomon is agrees in general with solution in 10/1007r2 Reclassify CID 91 as open

11.410/999r0 Presenter: Chaochun Wang CID 175

o Replacing shalls with is in Clause 7, is there corresponding normative language in other clauses? yes

o no objection to resolution

11.510/1014r0 Presenter: James Yee CID 389: no objection to resolution

11.610/995r5 Presenter: Kapseok Chang CID 368: no objection to resolution



11.710/1029r0 Presenter: Brad Lynch CID 345: no objection to resolution

11.810/1012r0 Presenter: James Yee CID 487

o Propose Beacon and Handover related changes for clauses 7.4.13.9, 11.30.2.1, 11.1.2.1b, and 11.1.6o No objection to draft changes in 10/1012r0

11.910/1019r0 Presenter: Solomon Trainin CID 487

o clarifications on sub clauses 9.23.6.5.1, 7.2.4.1, 7.3.2.95, 9.23, 9.23.4, 9.23.6, 9.23.6.2, 9.23.7, 9.23.7.1, 9.23.7.2, 9.23.3o No objection to draft changes in 10/1019r0

11.10 10/1026r0 Presenter: Chris Hansen CID 487:

o Clarifications on Packet Formats increase length of STF change 16-QAM for gray coded; new text on Tx EVM extended AGC beam refinement to help with settling

o No objection to draft changes in 10/1026r0

11.11 10/1031r0 Presenter: Assaf Kasher CID 487

o clarification of some BF text as resolutions to CID 487o page and line numbers refer to D0.1o fix document header with correct document number, becoming r1o No objection to draft changes in 10/1031r1



11.12 10/1023r0 Presenter: SK Yong CID 487

o clarifications on Clause 7.3.2.91 and 8.4.7o “clarification 2”could impact changes in Clause 8 by Dan/Yongo “clarification 2” removed in r1o SK will inform Dan/Yong of necessary clarificationo No objection to draft changes in 10/1023r1

12 Minutes from October 14, 2010 Conference Call

12.1Agenda

Check to see if anyone is not familiar with the IEEE patent policy http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.pdf Attendance by email• Submissions: “Multiple MAC addresses”, 10/1199 and 10/1200


12.310/1199r0 Presenter: Solomon Trainin Modify reference model to include connection between PLME SAP and SME Modification to 11.35.1, r1 will be uploaded to server after call

13 Minutes from October 28, 2010 Conference Call

13.1Agenda

Check to see if anyone is not familiar with the IEEE patent policy http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.pdf Attendance by email• Review of LB 168 results and comments






13.3LB 168 Results 163 affirmative votes = 87.2 % affirmative 24 total negative votes = 12.8 % negative Motion passed! Comment database: 10/1220r0

o # of comments = 1229 PHY = 65 MAC = 915 BF = 58 Other = 191

o 499 Technical comments Next steps:

o Get assignees for all Tech comments James: Coex James, Chao-Chun: some MAC Chris: Beam-BRP Need to contact Assaf, Solomon, Daniel, Sai, etc. Carlos: send email to reflector soliciting volunteers

o Hopefully have some submissions for Dallaso Timeline states Recirculation Ballot in May

stretch goal in March Discussion on renumbering of clauses and alignment of TGad draft with TGmb

14 Minutes from November 18, 2010 Conference Call

14.1Agenda

Check to see if anyone is not familiar with the IEEE patent policy http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.pdf Attendance by email• Comment resolution, 10/1220r6

14.2Patent Policy No one was not familiar with the IEEE patent policy.



December 2010 doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0013r166No essential patent disclosure

14.310/1220r6 CID 1159; no objection 651; no objection 129; no objection 452; no objection 454; no objection 455

o Change to disagreeo no objection

936; no objection 158; no objection 170; no objection 617; no objection 628; no objection 942; no objection 34; no objection 950; no objection 547; no objection 430; no objection 124; no objection 634; no objection 955;

o Change to agree in principleo no objection

553; o Change to agree in principleo no objection

532;o Change to agree in principleo no objection

556; no objection 991

o Change resolution texto No objection

494o Discussion



o no objection 1157; no objection 1009; no objection 1011; no objection 1185; no objection 260;

o Addition to resolution texto no objection

261; no objection 262; no objection 265; no objection 268; no objection 284

o Discussion & modification to resolution texto no objection

185; no objection 189; no objection 194; no objection 197; no objection 199;

o Modification to resolution and resolution texto no objection

200; no objection 201; no objection 216; no objection 218; no objection 235; no objection 85; no objection 86; no objection 87; no objection 88; no objection 291; no objection 1045; no objection 1047; no objection 1060; no objection 319

o Discussiono no objection

320; no objection



321; no objection 323; no objection 322; no objection 324; no objection 326; no objection 327; no objection

15 Minutes from December 2, 2010 Conference Call

15.1Agenda

Check to see if anyone is not familiar with the IEEE patent policy http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.pdf Attendance by email• D1.0 comment resolution part 2, 10/1412r1• Comment resolution, 10/1220r7


15.310/1412r1 Addressing CID 125 and 177 No objection to resolution

15.410/1220r7 CID 127; no objection 1214; no objection 934; no objection 650; no objection 1106

o Defer for submission 459

o Defer for submission 476

o Defer for submission




519; no objection 512; no objection 603; no objection 573; no objection 574; no objection 167, 155

o Discussion on definitionso Add DBand to termo Need to change “source STA” to “source DBand STA” and “destination STA” to “destination DBand STA” in speco no objection

930; no objection 610; no objection 1177; no objection 609; no objection 578; no objection 453; no objection 157, 169

o Rename CBP to CBAPo no objection

456; no objection 618; no objection 7

o Defer for submission 1170; no objection 8

o Defer for submission 9; no objection 1171; no objection 935; no objection 612; no objection 613

o Discussion on channel spacing termo Modification to resolution texto no objection

614; no objection 1174; no objection 616

o Modification to resolution text



o no objection 938; no objection 615; no objection 587; no objection 1175; no objection 528; no objection 939; no objection 940; no objection 632; no objection 1111; no objection 457; no objection 1161; no objection 36

o Discussion on adding figure for control frameo Modified resolution texto no objection


16.1Agenda

Check to see if anyone is not familiar with the IEEE patent policy http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.pdf Attendance by email• Comment resolution, 10/1419r0• Comment resolution, 10/1417r1• Comment resolution, 10/1435r1• Comment resolution, 10/1220r8


16.310/1419r0 Addressing CID 177 No objection to resolution




16.410/1417r1 CIDs: 589, 619, 37, 38, 590, 40, 41, 10, 458, 591, 944, 478, 1223, 120, 946, 431, 956, 957, 958 No objection to the resolution of any of the CIDs


16.610/1220r8 CIDs: 14, 161, 173, 1044, 1046, 644, 1048, 1049, 1050, 1051, 1053, 1054, 1055, 1056, 1057 No objection to resolutions of any of the CIDs:


17.1Agenda

Check to see if anyone is not familiar with the IEEE patent policy http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.pdf Attendance by email• Comment resolution, 10/1449r0, Julan Hsu• Comment resolution, 10/1453r1, Sai Nandagopalan• Comment resolution, 10/1454r1, James Yee



17.410/1453r1 Addressing CID 177




comments:o 21.7.1.3.2 replaces 21.7.1.2.3.1 and 21.7.1.2.3.2o What is definition of identity block code?o What is 21.7.1.3.2.6?o Change reference to 21.7.1.3.1.3 to 21.7.1.3.3o 21.7.1.3.2.5 replaces 21.7.3.2.4o Define acronym SPCo Check whether MCS 31 datarate is 2502 as in D1.0 or 2503o Fix PICS item mmWaveP2.5.4o Update pending with new document number

17.510/1454r1 Addressing CID 341, 342, 1064, 1066, 376, 378, 341

o Comments: when implicit handover is triggered it should fail gracefully. Has this been prototyped? Counter suggestion was to remove implicit handover, or provide prototyping evidence

o To be discussed further in Los Angeles 342

o Comments Inconsistency between handover and PCP carrying same BSSID Changing BSSID has security re-keying implication 7.1.3.3.3 BSSID field states “The value of this field in a PBSS is the MAC address contained in the PCP of the

PBSS”o More work to be done on resolution

1064o No objection to resolution

1065o Discussion

Completion of beamforming doesn’t seem to be reported to PCP Need more time

1066o More work needs to be done on resolution to define MIB variable


378



o No objection to resolution

Discussion on cancelling Dec 23 and/or Dec 30 calls. Will discuss with editor to determine the amount of resolutions in queue.


18.1Agenda

Check to see if anyone is not familiar with the IEEE patent policy http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.pdf Attendance by email• Comment resolution, 10/1460r0, Sai Nandagopalan• Security comment resolution, 10/1461r0, Yong Liu• Max MSDU length, 10/1459r0, Solomon Trainin• Comment resolution, 10/1220r9, Carlos Cordeiro



18.410/1461r0 Security CIDs 941, 1215, 1163, 641, 972, 974, 975, 1217, 977, 533, 557, 534, 978, 979, 535, 536 941

o Proposing to rejecto No objection to resolution

1215o Proposing to rejecto No objection to resolution

1163o Leave open

641




o Proposing to rejecto No objection to resolution


974o Proposing to accept in principleo Spec changes in bottom of documento No objection to resolution

975o Carlos will make changes in Clause 10 to add new primitives in conjunction with other CIDo No objection to resolution


977o No need for MLME interface for multi-band supporto Proposing to rejecto No objection to resolution

533o FT is supported, but not for multi-bando Proposing to rejecto No objection to resolution

557, 534o No objection to resolution


535o Will accept in principle and add note clarifying operation in Dband


Also discussion on CID 639 Is commenter correct that only 1 octet is necessary? Seems that no Propose to reject No objection to resolution Resolution will be in 10/1220r10



18.510/1459r0 Addressing CID 177 Comments

o Is there inconsistency max MSDU size in security subclause?o no

No objection to resolution

18.610/1220r9 CID 476

o No objection to resolution 945










o Additional explanation included in resolutiono No objection to resolution








19 Attendance Participant Jan 7 Feb

25Apr 29

July 1

July22

Aug 5

Aug 12

Aug 19

Aug 26

Sept 2

Oct 14

Oct 28

Nov 18

Dec 2 Dec 9 Dec 16

Dec 23

Larry Averitt (Intel) xJohn Barr (NICT) x x x x x x x xTed Booth (Sony) x x x x x x x x x x x xGeorge Bumiller (RIM)

x x x x x x x x x x

Philippe Chambelin (Technicolor)

x

Kapseok Chang (ETRI)

x x x x x

Carlos Cordeiro (Intel) x x x x x x x x x x x xJohn Dorsey (Apple) xLee Drennan (Buffalo Technology)

x x x x

Thomas DERHAM (France Telecom (Orange Labs Tokyo, Japan))

x x x

Chunjie Duan (Mitsubishi Electric Corp)

x

Peter Ecclesine (Cisco)

x

Vinko Erceg (Broadcom)

x x x x

Sudheer Grandhi (InterDigital)

x x x x x x x x x x x x

Mark Grodzinsky x


December 2010 doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0013r166(Wilocity)Joffray Guillory(France Telecom / Orange Labs)

x

Christopher Hansen (Broadcom)

x x x x x x x x x x

Dan Harkins (Aruba) xBrian Hart (Cisco) x x x x x x x x x x xJulan Hsu (Samsung) xMartin Jacob (TU Braunschwieg)

x x

Avinash Jain (Qualcomm)

x x

Padam Kafle (Nokia) x x x xNaveen Kakani (Nokia)

x x x x

Assaf Kasher (Intel) x x x x x xShu Kato (NICT) x x x xPaul Lambert (Marvell)

x

Yong Liu (Marvell) xPeter Loc () xBrad Lynch (Peraso Technologies)

x x x

Alexander Maltsev (Intel)

x

K. Maruhashi (NEC) xRoman Maslennikov (University of Nizhny Novgorod)

x

George Miller xSai Nandagopalan (Broadcom)

x x x x x x

Sai Nandagopalan (Tensorcom)

x

Eldad Perahia (Intel) x x x x x x x x x x x x xSandrine ROBLOT(France Telecom / Orange Labs)

x

Hirokazu Sawada (Tohoku University)

x x x


December 2010 doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0013r166Michael Sim (Panasonic)

x

Adrian Stephens (Intel)

x

John Stine (Self) x xSolomon Trainin (Intel)

x x x x x x x

Hossein Taghavi (Qualcomm)

x x x x x x

Ichihiko Toyoda (NTT)

x x x x x x x x x x

Chao-Chun Wang (MediaTek)

x x x x x

James Yee (Mediatek) x x x x x x x x x x xSK Yong (Marvell) x x x xXin Zhang (NICT) x x x x xAmichai Sanderich (Wilocity)

x


doc.: ieee 802.11-10/0013r16 · web view84, 90: no objection to resolution. 88: no objection to...

Documents