doc.: ieee 802.11-11/0073r0 web viewminutes of tgmb jan 2011 in los angeles date: 2011-01-17....

January 2011 doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0073r0

IEEE P802.11Wireless LANs

Minutes of TGmb Jan 2011 in Los Angeles

Date: 2011-01-17

Author(s):Name Affiliation Address Phone email

Jon Rosdahl CSR 10871 N 5750 WHighland, UT 84003 +1-801-492-4023 [email protected]

Minutes page 1 John Doe, Somwhere Company

AbstractMinutes for TGmb from IEEE Interim Session January 17-21, 2011


1 TGmb Monday, January 17, 20111.1. Called to order at 1:30pm by the TGmb Chair, Dorothy Stanely, Aruba Networks.1.2. Review Proposed Agenda in 11-11/12r0

1.2.1.Add PHY Mask Change topic to Wed PM21.2.2.Add Key Descriptor Value Topic to Wed PM1

1.3. No objection to adopt agenda in 11-11/12r11.4. Review Patent Policy and Meeting Guidelines

1.4.1.https://development.standards.ieee.org/myproject/Public/mytools/mob/slideset.ppt 1.4.2.No Patent issues were announced.

1.5. Approval of Previous Meeting Minutes1.5.1.11-10-1111r1, 11-10-1131r0 and 11-1416r21.5.2.Unanimous Approval for minutes

1.6. Review Editor Report – 11-11/0042r01.6.1.Michael Montemurro gave report in Adrian’s absence.1.6.2.Approx 108 comments left to resolve.1.6.3.D6.05 is ready to post.1.6.4.Review the Roll-in Status

1.6.4.1. TGz changes – Menzo has a presentation that will be targeted to Wed PM1.1.6.5.Editor’s notes were added to highlight issues that need more thought and review

1.6.5.1. 11z had 311.6.5.2. 11p had 21.6.5.3. Comment resoutions have 11 (mainly 10.3 related).

1.6.6.Editorial Resolutions needing discussion1.6.6.1. CID 10369. Includes 3 “will” to “shall” changes. Dissent from one reviewer to the

editor’s proposal is recorded in the Edit Notes.1.6.6.2. CID 10449. A resolution is proposed by the editor. However one review proposed

an alternate resolution shown in the Ad-hoc Notes. 1.6.6.3. CID 10451. A resolution is proposed that declines to make any editorial fix-ups in

Annex H (SDL). However, TGmb should decide whether “is not maintained” at the top of Annex H applies to editorial as well as technical changes.

1.6.7.TG Look at cited CIDs:1.6.7.1. CID 10369 -- Identify the disputed locations and discuss concerns. The TG made the

following proposals:1.6.7.1.1. In 12.10.3 (D6.03 977.3) revert to use “shall”1.6.7.1.2. In 12.11.3.1 (D6.03 980.64) convert to use “shall”1.6.7.1.3. In 13.6.5.2.2 (D6.03 1005.16) no change.1.6.7.1.4. In 13.6.5.6.1 (D6.03 1006.65) no change.1.6.7.1.5. In 13.6.5.6.2 (D6.03 1007.09) no change.1.6.7.1.6. In 13.6.5.6.2 (D6.03 1007.10) no change.1.6.7.1.7. In 13.6.5.7.1 (D6.03 1007.31) no change.1.6.7.1.8. In 13.6.5.8.1 (D6.03 1008.12) no change.1.6.7.1.9. In 13.6.5.8.4 (D6.03 1008.38) no change.1.6.7.1.10. In 13.6.5.10.2 (D6.03 1009.28) no change1.6.7.1.11. In 13.6.5.10.2 (D6.03 1009.29) no change1.6.7.1.12. In 13.6.5.10.4 (D6.03 1009.41) no change1.6.7.1.13. In 13.7.10 (D6.03 1016.28) convert to use “shall be converted”.1.6.7.1.14. In 13.8.2 (D6.03 1020.59, 1020.60 and 1020.61) change to use “Shall”1.6.7.1.15. In 13.8.2 (D6.03 1021.33) change to “shall be no less than”1.6.7.1.16. In 14.3.4 (D6.03 1033.62) change to “shall initiate”1.6.7.1.17. In 15.2.7 (D6.03 1055.21)

1.6.7.1.17.1. Discussion of options to resolve issue.


https://development.standards.ieee.org/myproject/Public/mytools/mob/slideset.ppt


1.6.7.1.17.2. Option 1: Replace cited sentence with “The CCA from the DSSS-PHY shall indicate a busy medium for the intended duration of the transmitted packet.

1.6.7.1.17.3. Option 2: DSSS-PHY shall issue a PHY-CCA.indicate(BUSY) for the intended duration of the transmitted packet”

1.6.7.1.17.4. Option 3: “The DSS-PHY shall ensure tha thte CCA indicates...”1.6.7.1.17.5. TG agrees to option 3, and also apply this direction to 1055.21

and 1055.31.1.6.7.1.18. In 15.2.7 (D6.03 1055.25 and 1055.28) change to “shall not be issued”1.6.7.1.19. In 17.3.5.5 (D6.03 1142.31 and 1142.32) change to “shall be set”1.6.7.1.20. In 17.3.12 (D6.03 1164.10, 1164.28, 1164.33 and 1164.36)

1.6.7.1.20.1. This sentence should look similar to what we did in 15.2.7.1.6.7.1.20.2. 1164.10 Change Sentence “Shall ensure that the CCA

indicates…”1.6.7.1.20.3. Similarly in 1164.28 “shall ensure that the CCA indicate…”1.6.7.1.20.4. 1164.33 and 1164.36 Similar to 1055.25, change “shall not be

issued..”1.6.7.1.21. In 18.7.3.3 D6.03 1200.11) change to “shall be over”.

1.6.7.2. Review of CID 104491.6.7.2.1. Change the note as noted in the editor’s notes: the new note would read

“NOTE--The FCC regulation grandfathers the regulatory status of 36 satellite earth stations, meaning that they retain their primary status, and that any new ones will have secondary status.”

1.6.7.3. Review of CID 104511.6.7.3.1. The Task group agrees, and will maintain the current Disagree Resolution. –

No change.1.6.8.Approved Resolutions needing review CID 10112

1.6.8.1. Does the replacement text indicate an end to the sentence?1.6.8.2. It is ok as in 6.04. (page 21).1.6.8.3. It is ok as in 6.05 (page 21).1.6.8.4. Confirmed that 6.05 looks ok…at least today.

1.6.9.Planning discussion on Impact of TGs1.6.9.1. Unlikely to get sources prior to approval.1.6.9.2. Planning time is concerned. 1.6.9.3. Also concern with the style as professional editor that looked at TGs is different from

the one from TGmb1.6.9.4. Also if we delay to March 2012, there is an issue with other TGs that would be trying

to finish and dependant on TGmb.1.6.10. Review the Motions in the report.

1.6.10.1. Motion 1 is on the editorial tab -- 40 Accept, 17 Principal, 11 Disagree, 1 Unresolvable

1.6.10.2. Motion 2 is on the Terminology tab -- 140 Accept, 60 Principal, 6 Disagree1.7. Recessed 3:30pm



2 TGmb PM2 -- Monday, 17 January 20112.1. Called to order at 4:10pm by Dorothy Stanely.2.2. Review the status of TG.2.3. Review Agenda for this timeslot:

2.3.1.See Doc: 11-11/12r22.4. Motion 106: -Move to Approve comment resolutions in 11-10-1455-03-000m-revmb-sponsor-

ballot-editor-comments on the “Editorials” and “Terminology” tab.“Editorial tab = 40 Accept, 17 Principal, 11 Disagree, 1 Unresolvable“Terminology” tab =140 Accept, 60 Principal, 6 Disagree

2.4.1.Moved: Michael Montemurro 2nd: Stuart Kerry2.4.2.Motion passed unanimously 8-0-0.

2.5. That resolves the Editor’s report2.6. Clause 10.3 --

2.6.1.There was a submission 11-10/1364r1 was approved in November and now we need to resolve the specific comments in the database.

2.6.2.For CIDs 10094, 10095, 10096, 10097, 10098, 10099, 10100, 10102, 10008, 10104, 10103, 10126,10127, 10101,10145, and 10119

2.6.2.1. Proposed resolution: Accept in Principle Adopt the changes in https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/10/11-10-1364-01-000m-subclause-10-3-clean-up-proposal.docx.

2.6.2.2. Move all to ready for Motion2.6.3.For CID 10084, and CID 10144

2.6.3.1. Proposed resolution: Disagree, Adopt the changes in https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/10/11-10-1364-01-000m-subclause-10-3-clean-up-proposal.docx

2.6.3.2. Move all to ready for Motion2.7. Review Other MAC Comments

2.7.1.CID 10031 and 100322.7.1.1. Submission from Mathew Fischer

2.7.2.CID 10180—Peter E2.7.3.CID 10082 – Dan Harkins scheduled for PM12.7.4.Only 4 comments left.

2.8. Gen comment review:2.8.1.Minutes taken by Micheal M for Jon. – Thanks!!!2.8.2.Resolution to WDS comments:

2.8.2.1. CID 101572.8.2.1.1. TGs introduced a work-around for this issue.2.8.2.1.2. - If TGs addressed the issue, why should 11mb.2.8.2.1.3. - The proposed change does not address the issue. It just changes the term

WDS.2.8.2.1.4. - Resolution: "Disagree. The CRC discussed the issue and does not agree

with making the proposed change. Deleting the definition and references to WDS will not solve the cited issue."

2.8.2.1.5. - Set adhoc status to "Ready for Motion".2.8.2.2. - CID 10158, 10159

2.8.2.2.1. - Resolution: "Disagree. The CRC discussed the issue and does not agree with making the proposed change."

2.8.2.2.2. - Set adhoc status to "Ready for Motion".2.8.2.3. - CID 10161,10162,10163, 10164, 10165, 10166, 10167


https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/10/11-10-1364-01-000m-subclause-10-3-clean-up-proposal.docx





2.8.2.3.1. - Resolution: "Disagree. This clause is not being maintained or modified. The CRC and the WG have made the decision not to maintain the clause going forward."

2.8.2.3.2. - Set adhoc status to "Ready for Motion". 2.8.3.- Youhan Kim has withdrawn 10154.

2.8.3.1. - Resolution: "Unresolvable. The commentor has withdrawn the comment. Jan 17, 2011."

2.8.3.2. - Set adhoc status to "Ready for Motion".2.8.4.- CID 10004

2.8.4.1. - Resolution: "Accept"2.8.4.2. - Set adhoc status to "Ready for Motion".

2.8.5.- CID 100482.8.5.1. - Resolution: "Disagree. The use of the word "peer" is defined in ISO 7498, which is

used as the IEEE 802.11 basic reference model. (see 4.8)2.8.5.2. - Set adhoc status to "Ready for Motion".

2.8.6.- CID 100522.8.6.1. - Resolution: "Accept in Principle. "Replace "A boolean expression constructed by

combining item-references using the boolean operator OR: the value of the predicate is true if one or more of the items is marked as supported, and is falseotherwise."with"An expression constructed by combining item-references using the boolean operators OR and AND, with or without the use of parenthetical groupings: the value of the predicate is true if the expression evaluates to true and is false otherwise."

2.8.6.2. - Set adhoc status to "Ready for Motion"2.8.7.- CID 10037

2.8.7.1. - Resolution: "Agree"2.8.7.2. - Mark "Ready for Motion"

2.8.8.- CID 100472.8.8.1. - Similar to 10048.2.8.8.2. - Resolution: "Disagree. The use of the word "peer" is defined in ISO 7498, which is

used as the IEEE 802.11 basic reference model. (see 4.8)"2.8.8.3. - Mark "Ready for Motion"

2.8.9.- CID 100062.8.9.1. - Resolution: "During the preparation of the new revision, CID 1157 (see document

11-10/1284r2) was adopted. The resolutionh removed the VSPECIFIC.Confirm."2.8.9.2. - Mark "Ready for motion"

2.8.10. - CID 104442.8.10.1. - Resolution: "Accept in Principle. The IF-MIB was added in order to allow the

MIB to compile."2.8.10.2. - Mark "Ready for motion"

2.8.11. - CID 100622.8.11.1. discussed the comment, and the general concensus was that we would disagree,

but the specifics were not completed before we ran out of time.2.9. Recess at 6pm



3 TGmb Tuesday, January 18, 2011 Evening3.1. Called to order 7:34pm by Dorothy Stanley3.2. Review Comment Status and Agenda for timeslot.

3.2.1. See Doc: 11-11/12r23.2.2.https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/11/11-11-0012-02-000m-january-2011-agenda.ppt 3.2.3.no objection to planned agenda.

3.3. Motion 107: Move to Approve comment resolutions in 11-10-1434-02-000m-GEN_Adhoc_Sponsor_Ballot_Comment_Resolutions.xls on the “Proposed Dec 3”, “Gen Motion 1", and “Gen Motion 2” tab.

“Proposed Dec 3" tab = 6 Accept, 10 Principal, 2 Disagree, 1 Unresolvable"Gen Motion 1" tab = 2 Accept, 2 Principal, 11 Disagree"Gen Motion 2" tab = 2 Disagree

3.3.1.Moved: Jon Rosdahl , 2nd Harry Worstell3.3.2.Motion Passed, Unamimous – 4-0-0

3.4. Review: CID 10032 and 10031 3.4.1.proposed resolution in 11-11/138r03.4.2.Reviewed document3.4.3.Proposed Resolution for both:3.4.4.AGREE IN PRINCIPLE (GEN: 2011-01-19 03:43:38Z) Incorporate the changes in

https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/11/11-11-0138-00-000m-receive-buffer-operations-cid-10031-10032.docx.

3.4.5.Mark ready for motion – Gen Motion tab 33.5. Review 18 Gen Proposed Resolutions.

3.5.1.Thanks to Mike for taking minutes.3.5.2.- CID 10108

3.5.2.1. - Resolution: "Disagree -- The QoS Capability element is in Beacon Frames without the EDCA Parameter Set. Because it does include the EDCA Parameter Set update count, then the beacon is able to indicate which EDCA Paramenter set is currently in use. This makes the Beacon consistent in indicating which EDCA information is current."

3.5.3.CID 100813.5.3.1. - Postpone until Wednesday at 1pm.

- Agreement to accept proposed resolution with "Private Use" changed to "experimental private use".

3.5.4.CID 100163.5.4.1. - Resolution: "Disagree. The value of the field is being specified.

3.5.5.CID 100713.5.5.1. Resolution: "Agree in Principle, move padding prior to scrambling in the cited figure.

Move the "Bit Padding if needed" block to after the "Tail Bit" after the PSDU block."

3.5.6.CID 100723.5.6.1. Resolution: "Agree in Principle, move padding prior to scrambling in the cited

figure. Move the "Bit Padding if needed" block to after the "Tail bit" block after the PSDU in figure 17-19

3.5.7.CID 100733.5.7.1. Resolution: "Clause numbers change over time as the standard is amended and

revised."3.5.8.CID 10116

3.5.8.1. - Resolution: "changes to section 19.3.12.1 are:- Figure 20-15 to also show the spatial mapping matrix for sounding Q_A [at STA A], Q_B [at STA B].- Statement


https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/11/11-11-0138-00-000m-receive-buffer-operations-cid-10031-10032.docx


https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/11/11-11-0012-02-000m-january-2011-agenda.ppt


o 'STA B sends the quantized estimates of H(tilde)_AB,k to STA A' [802.11mb-d6.0, p1172, line 29] to be changed too 'STA B sends the quantized estimates of H(tilde)_AB,k*Q_A,k to STA A'The note cited in 19.3.12.2 is "NOTE—When a non-identity matrix is used for QA, k, STA A is responsible for accounting for the spatial mapping in its local channel estimate as well as in the quantized CSI fed back since the channel feedback received in step c) is actually H ˜AB k , QA k and not ˜AB, k. Furthermore, since QB, k is defined in 19.3.13.3 (Sounding PPDU for calibration), additional steps can be taken in STA A to remove the effect of QB, k when computing the correction matrix KA, k."

STA A is responsible for accounting for the spatial mapping, as well as, the quantized CSI feedback. No change is needed."

- Move to Gen Motion Tab 4 – unlikely to be unanimous.3.5.9. CID 10075

3.5.9.1. - Resolution: "Agree in Principle. See CID 10071 and 10072."3.5.10. - CID 10076

3.5.10.1. - Resolution: "Agree in Principle. See CID 10071 and 10072."3.5.11. CID 10074

3.5.11.1. - Resolution: "Agree in Principle: Delete Eq 19-95 and change the text for N_SYM with the following: N_SYM is defined in Equation (19-32) for BCC and Equation (19-41) for LDPC."

3.5.12. CID 100803.5.13. Resolution: "Agree. The MIB has been compiled without any errors."

- Leave this comment off of "ready to motion"3.5.14. CID 10125

- Resolution: "AGREE IN PRINCIPLE (GEN: 2011-01-19 05:30:10Z) - Change description of all of these MIB variables to "This is a control variable. It is written by an external management entity or by the SME. Changes take effect as soon as practical in the implementation"

3.6. We have about 60 comments left to go.3.7. Recessed TGmb 9:30pm

4 TGmb Wednesday, January 19, 2011 PM14.1. Called to order 1:30pm by Dorothy Stanley4.2. Review Comment Status and Agenda for timeslot.

4.2.1. See Doc: 11-11/12r24.2.2.https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/11/11-11-0012-02-000m-january-2011-agenda.ppt 4.2.3.no objection to planned agenda.

4.3. Motion 108: Move to Approve comment resolutions in 11-10-1347-03-000m-mac-adhoc-sponsor-ballot-comment-resolutions.xls on the “MAC Motion D” tab.

– “MAC Motion D" tab = 6 Accept, 26 Principal, 3 Disagree

4.3.1.Moved: Jon Rosdahl , 2nd Harry Worstell4.3.2.Motion Passed: 5 yes -0 no -2 abstain.

4.4. CID 100804.4.1.Adrian has been contacted, and his recommendation was to agree, he has done some work

to identify the errors from the compiler in MIB4.5. CID 10081

4.5.1.Discussion started from last night, we thought that some extra discussion was needed.4.5.2. The need for the vendor specific authentication protocol was discussed.4.5.3.Proposed Resolution: AGREE IN PRINCIPLE (GEN: 2011-01-19 21:49:29Z) Change from

"Authentication algorithm number = 2: Fast BSS Transition All other values of




authentication number are reserved." to "Authentication algorithm number = 2: Fast BSS Transition Authentication algorithm number = 65535: Vendor Specific use: (use of the value implies that a Vendor Specific IE is included with more information) All other values of authentication number are reserved."

Also add an entry to dot11AuthenticationAlgorithm in the MIB for the Vendor Specific use.Also update the descriptions.

4.6. Key Descriptor Value discussion:4.6.1.Review of 11-10/1071r1 and 11-10/856r0

4.6.1.1. Discussion on how backward compatibility was done.4.7. 11z roll-up issues:

4.7.1.From the Editor Report “power-saving terminology (Use of “BU”) was highlighted as a technical issue by reviewers. Menzo Wentink is preparing a submission showing changes necessary.”

4.8. Review document 11-11/155r14.8.1.Proposed edits to 10.2.1.14 and 10.2.1.15 – “TDLS Peer Power Save Mode” and “Peer U-

APSD Behavior at the PU sleep STA”4.8.2.Concern with changing the definition of MMPDU. 4.8.3.A new revision without changing the MMPDU definition will be generated.4.8.4.Ok with a definition of QoS Frame.4.8.5.A change identified where two paragraphs used “with” where one should have been

“without” was identified to fix with this change as well.4.8.6.New revision of doc (11-11/155r2) to be posted.

4.9. CID 10081 4.9.1. The intent of vendor specific authentication algorithm is not experimental.4.9.2. - Proposed resolution "Accept in Principle. Change from "Authentication algorithm

number = 2: Fast BSS Transition All other values of authentication number are reserved." to "Authentication algorithm number = 2: Fast BSS Transition Authentication algorithm number = 65535: Vendor Specific use: (use of the value implies that a Vendor Specific IE is included with more information) All other values of authentication number are reserved."

4.9.3. - The resolution should also update the MIB to include the new authentication algorithm type.

4.9.4. - Modify the resolution to include the vendor specific authentication algorithm type.4.9.5. - The authentication algorithm value in the MIB should be set too 4.9.6. - Add the following at the end of the resolution "Also add an entry to

dot11AuthenticationAlgorithm in the MIB for Vendor Specific use. Also update the descriptions."

4.9.7. - add to comment group "GEN Motion 5"

4.10. CID 10082 4.10.1. - Presentation of document 11-10/0856r0 by Dan Harkins, Aruba Networks.4.10.2. - Proposed text is given in 11-10/1071r1.4.10.3. - Proposed Resolution: "Accept"4.10.4. - add to comment group "GEN Motion 5"

4.11. CID 10125 4.11.1. - Mark Hamilton will propose a resolution to this comment tomorrow.4.11.2. - the question is "What does the RM Neighbor report do?"4.11.3. - It looks as if this attribute is used by the SME for local storage. It could be written from

the outside.4.11.4. - this attribute is not available to an external device.4.11.5. - this should be a local variable. It should be written by a local entity or the SME.4.11.6. - local variable is the best fit at this point.



4.11.7. - revisit this comment tomorrow during AM1.

4.12. CID 10447 4.12.1. - One alternative would be to deprecate the IEEE 802.11F MIB entries.4.12.2. - This comment refers to IEEE 802.1F4.12.3. - We need to know the current replacement for IEEE 802.1F. Trish from IEEE will check

for a valid reference.4.12.4. - revisit this comment for tomorrow.

4.13. CID 10009 4.13.1. - Proposed resolution "Draft P802.11-Revmb/D6.0 contained the results from the TGmb

maintainance on Std 802.11-2007 as well as the roll-up of 11k, r, y, w, and n. Published amendments will be rolled in as they become available in recirculations. Annex I and J were combined, and duplication of regulatory rules were removed."

4.13.2. - Move to Gen Motion 5.4.14. CID 10010 4.15. - Proposed resolution "Draft P802.11-Revmb/D6.0 contained the results from the TGmb

maintainance on Std 802.11-2007 as well as the roll-up of 11k, r, y, w, and n. Published amendments will be rolled in as they become available in recirculations. Annex I and J were combined, and duplication of regulatory rules were removed."

4.16. - Move to Gen Motion 5.4.17. CID 10169 and 10168

4.17.1. - Proposed resolution "Agree"4.17.2. - Mike to chck with Rich.

4.18. CID 10455 4.18.1. - Only QoS STA's can be used OCB.4.18.2. - Proposed Resolution: Change (D6.0 486.51) "QoS STAs associated in a QoS BSS

maintain one modulo-4096"to"A STA operating as a QoS STA maintains one module-4096"and There's also a minor fix-up: "or A-MSDU" needs to be added after MSDU in D6.0 at 486.55 and 486.58"

4.18.3. - Move to Gen Motion 5. 4.19. CID 10205

4.19.1. - Proposed Resolution: "Agree --Leave the arrow and take out the horizontal line.”4.19.2. - Move to Gen Motion 5

4.20. Recessed at 3:30pm



5 TGmb Wednesday, January 19, 2011 PM25.1. Called to order 4:02pm by Dorothy Stanley5.2. Review Comment Status and Agenda for timeslot.

5.2.1. See Doc: 11-11/12r25.2.2.Documents for discussion have been uploaded: 11-11/170r0; 11-11/159r1; 11-11/160r0;

5.3. Review 11-11/160r05.3.1.11n Spectrum Mask Alignment5.3.2.11a has 40db mask, and 11n had 45db mask, so we should unify the mask at 5Ghz for 11a,

11n and 11ac for all operation in 5Ghz. Having different masks cause more work than necessary.

5.3.3. comments:5.3.3.1. Concern that there may be Radar regulatory issues that motivated the increase, and

we may want to wait to make this change.5.3.3.2. Not enough vetting has been done and not enough extended review.5.3.3.3. Some concern that we have a new standard and we should not just change it.

5.3.4.Straw-poll: Only for 5 GHz band, do you support aligning the 11n spectral mask specifications with 11a and 11ac, which would require modifying the 11n mask level from -45dBr to -40dBr?

5.3.4.1. Yes: 12 No 5: A:35.4. Review 11-11/170r0

5.4.1. NDP transmission ordering5.4.2.addressing CID 10140 and 10156 5.4.3. Review the proposed text changes.5.4.4.no questions5.4.5.Proposed resolutions for CID 10140 and 10156 would be to incorporate the changes in 11-

11/170r1.5.5. Comment on HT PHY Changes

5.5.1. Oppose a change of this type being done during this time, would like to let this occur in a more wide spread diligence.

5.5.2.Chair reviewed the process of how a change can be made to the revision.5.5.3.More time for discussion was requested to try to align concensus.5.5.4.PM1 Thursday would be the time to disucss the spectral mask.

5.6. CID 10027, 10070, 10078, 10086, 10092, 10152, and 101555.6.1.Review 2nd set of comments in 11-11/159r15.6.2.Mask flatness

5.6.2.1. This proposal is again trying to align with expected TGac values.5.6.3.Comments

5.6.3.1. Concern that the reasons for the flatness is there, and the compensation at the receiver, the non-linearity in the system will dominate. Some scenerios are outdoor which has a different case from the indoor case where the multipath is dominate.

5.6.3.1.1. Increase power compensates for the relaxing of the tolerances.5.6.3.2. When ever multipath is not dominate, or when you have a long distance transmission,

the tolerance being looser is not a good thing.5.6.3.3. Argument to relax the tolerance does not always require the power to be higher, so a

similar power with the lower limits may cause trouble5.6.3.4. The limits in 11a and 11n are similar here, and 11ac is the outlyer, and so using the

argument from the other topic that was used to say that the outlyer should change…so in this case the 11ac should change….disagreement on whether this was a valid argument.

5.6.3.5. Strawpoll: Do you support the Spectral Mask Flatness requirements as shown in 11-11/0159r1?

5.6.3.5.1. yes: 11 No 5: A: 55.7. CID 10089 and 10088

5.7.1. Review 3rd set of comments in 11-11/159r1



5.7.2.Tx Mask Limits – Absolute Values.5.7.3.In this case 11a, 11n , 11ac all align, and so we should reject this.5.7.4.Proposed resolution: Reject – 11a, 11n and now 11ac are consistent in specifying these

numbers, so that changes to 11n only are not necessary or desirable. This change would significantly increase the noise floor with the mask relaxation.

5.7.5.Move to Gen Motion 55.8. More Gen Adhoc comments

5.8.1.Thanks Mike for taking notes again:5.8.2. CID 10066

5.8.2.1. - Proposed resolution. "Agree. Add " and MAC management information" after "user information" at 2.09"

5.8.2.2. - Move to GEN Motion 55.8.3. CID 10065

5.8.3.1. - Proposed reolution "Disagree. These are not terms, but names of frames. They are fully described in Clause 8. It is not necessary to provide an entry in the definitions for every named frame type."


5.8.4.1. - Proposed resolution "Principle. Replace: "These sounding PPDUs should be sent within a single TXOP." with "These sounding PPDUs need to be sent within a single TXOP in order to minimize the change in the channel during this procedure."


5.8.5.1. - Proposed Resolution "Disagree. The definition in 3.2 is normative, duplication here would be unnecessary and harmful.Note to the commenter - the discussion on what types of management frame should be buffered was lengthy. It is inappropriate to reproduce the justification of those types in the standard"

5.8.5.2. - Move to GEN Motion 55.8.6.CID 10399

5.8.6.1. - Proposed Resolution "Principle. Preauthentication is defined in 11.4.8.2. However, additional introductory material may make this more accessible.Add an introductory para in 11.4.8.2: ""Preauthentication allows a STA to perform RSN authentication with an AP prior to attempting (re)association. This can reduce the time that the IEEE 802.1X port is not valid.""


5.8.7.1. - Proposed Resolution. "Principle. Replace: ""NOTE 1—If the RSN element check for Message 2 or Message 3 fails, IEEE Std 802.1X-2004 should log an error and deauthenticate the peer."" with ""If the RSN element check for Message 2 or Message 3 fails, the SME should log an error and deauthenticate the peer."""

5.8.7.2. - Move to GEN Motion 55.8.8.CID 10411

5.8.8.1. - Proposed Resolution. "Principle. Delete Note 2."5.8.8.2. - Move to GEN Motion 5

5.8.9.CID 101355.8.9.1. - Propose Resolution. "Disagree. The standard is agnostic about the type of device

that represents a STA. A change to any other identifiable type of user equipment (e.g. cellphone, set-top-box/TV, vending machine, sports shoe/sneaker, T-shirt ...) will be equally inapplicable to the remaining types of user equipment, so no benefit would be gained by making that change."

5.8.9.2. - Move to GEN Motion 5


http://11.4.8.2/


5.8.10. CID 104145.8.10.1. - Proposed resolution. "Principal. Remove "NOTE 1-"5.8.10.2. - Move to GEN Motion 5

5.8.11. CID 104155.8.11.1. - Proposed Resolution. "Principal. Remove "NOTE 2-"5.8.11.2. - Move to GEN Motion 5

5.8.12. CID 101115.8.12.1. - Proposed Resolution. ""Principal, change any ""MPDU or MMPDU"" as

follows: 488.60: ""frame containing all or part of an MSDU or MMPDU""488.60: reword "" ... response to the transmission of a frame containing all or part of an MSDU or MMPDU,""489.01: ""frame containing all or part of an MSDU or MMPDU"" 824.11: reword ""... the reception of frames containing all or part of an MSDU or MMPDU""."


5.8.13. CID 101055.8.13.1. - Proposed Resolution: "AGREE IN PRINCIPLE (GEN: 2011-01-20 01:40:36Z)

D6.04 546.29: Change "QoS Parameters" to "EDCA Parameters"D6.04 721.60: Replace: "The AP uses the parameters in the TCLAS elements to filter the MSDUs belonging to this TS so that they can be delivered with the QoS parameters that have been set up for the TS."With"The AP uses the parameters in the TCLAS elements to filter the MSDUs belonging to this TS for delivery as part of the TS."


5.8.14. CID 10021, 10022 - Dorothy will ask Adrian to look at these comments

5.8.15. CID 100795.8.15.1. - The normative text is later in the clause. This cited text is a repeat of a later

normative behaviour.5.8.15.2. - Proposed resolution. "Accept in principle. Change "two encoders shall be" to

"two encoders are" and include a reference to 19.6 at the end of the sentence."5.8.15.3. - Move to GEN Motion

5.9. Recess until Thursday at 8am.



6 TGmb Thursday, January 20, 2011 AM16.1. Call to order at 8:04am6.2. - Operating classes comments

6.2.1.CID 101106.2.1.1. Errors are on columns 6, 7, 10, and 11.6.2.1.2. The Fix is to change Table E1, classes 6 and 7 to refer to 103. classes 10 and 11 to

refer to 101. 101 should be pointing at 10 and 11, and 103 should be pointing to 6 and 7.

6.2.1.3. In table E1, change the second column to 103 in rows 6 and 7. 6.2.1.4. In table E1, change the second column to 101 in rows 10 and 11."6.2.1.5. In Table E4, change the row 101 from E-1-6,7 to E-1-10,11 and change row 103

from E-1-10,11 to E-1-6,7.6.2.1.6. Also drop out the k in the Channel Set Column on row 103.6.2.1.7. Proposed Resolution "AGREE IN PRINCIPLE (GEN: 2011-01-20 16:15:48Z)

Table E-1 Changes: Row 6 and 7 change from 101 to 103 in the second column.

Row 10 and 11 change from 103 to 101 in the second column.Table E-4 Changes:

Row 101 Change from E-1-6, 7 to E-1-10, 11Row 103 Change from E-1-10, 11 to E-1-6, 7Row 103 Delete the "k" from the Channel Set Column entry."

6.2.1.8. Move to Gen Motion 6

6.2.2. CID 10002 6.2.2.1. - We can't remove the row.6.2.2.2. - Proposed resolution "Disagree. The reason that there are operating classes that

seem to have duplication is historic. We cannot combine the classes as they did have some differential emissions masks when the table was originally created. When we removed the Transmit behaviours from the tables, the operating classes look identical."

6.2.2.3. Move to GEN Motion 6

6.2.3.CID 10003 6.2.3.1. - We cannot remove the row.6.2.3.2. - Same resolution as 10002.6.2.3.3. - Move to GEN Motion 6

6.2.4.CID 10170 6.2.4.1. - The standard is silent on regulatory behaviour. Regulatory behavior should not be

part of the standard.6.2.4.2. - Proposed resolution "AGREE (GEN: 2011-01-20 16:26:20Z) Remove

"DynamicFrequencySelectionBehavior" from behavior limits sets of Operating Classes 2, 4, 23, 24, 28 and 29 in Table E-1."


6.2.5.CID 10174 6.2.5.1. - Proposed resolution "AGREE (GEN: 2011-01-20 16:27:06Z) Remove

"TransmitPowerControlBehavior" from behavior limits sets of Operating Classes 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 in Table E-2."




6.2.6. CID 10171 6.2.6.1. - Proposed resolution "AGREE (GEN: 2011-01-20 16:27:41Z) Remove

"DynamicFrequencySelectionBehavior" from behavior limits sets of Operating Classes 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 17 in Table E-2"



TransmitPowerControlBehavior from behavior limits sets of Operating Classes 32, 34, 37, 39, 42, 44 and 58 in Table E-3


6.2.8.CID 10172 6.2.8.1. - Proposed resolution "AGREE (GEN: 2011-01-20 16:30:42Z) - Remove

"DynamicFrequencySelectionBehavior" from behavior limits sets of Operating Classes 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45 and 58 in Table E-3."


6.2.9. CID 10109 6.2.9.1. - Proposed resolution "AGREE (GEN: 2011-01-20 16:38:57Z) Remove from Table

E-4 global operating class 84 entries in Non-Global Operating Class(es): "E-3-46,47,48,49,50"



"DynamicFrequencySelectionBehavior" from behavior limits sets of Operating Classes 118, 119, 120, 121, 122 and 123 in Table E-4."



TransmitPowerControlBehavior from behavior limits sets of Operating Classes 118, 119, 120, 121, 122 and 123 in Table E-4."


6.3. CID 10169 6.3.1.- Proposed resolution "Agree"6.3.2. - Move to GEN Motion 6

6.4. CID 10168 6.4.1.- Proposed resolution "Agree"6.4.2.- Move to GEN Motion 6

6.5. CID 10062 6.5.1.- An enumerated integer in a MIB attribute cannot be set to 0.

- Proposed resolution: " DISAGREE (GEN: 2011-01-20 16:46:45Z) MIB enumerations cannot start at zero. A Change in clause 8.4.1.1 values would cause an interoperability issue."

6.5.2. - Move to GEN Motion 6



6.6. CID 10063 6.6.1.- Proposed resolution "DISAGREE (GEN: 2011-01-20 16:46:45Z) MIB enumerations

cannot start at zero. A Change in clause 8.4.1.1 values would cause an interoperability issue."


6.7. CID 10125 6.7.1.- Proposed resolution "Disagree. "Status variable is the best fit given the currrent set of

descriptors in use by 802.11 MIB."6.7.2. - Move to GEN Motion 66.7.3. - The architecture group should consider this case.

6.8. CID 10447 6.8.1.- Still no updates from IEEE staff.

- If there is no response from staff by today's PM1 session, Disagree with the comment with a reason "updated reference could not be found."

6.9. CID 10091 6.9.1.- Proposed resolution "DISAGREE (GEN: 2011-01-20 17:05:51Z) Describing

Mathematical equations in a consistent manner is important. The proposed changes do not seem to resolve the inconsistencies in the draft, and would not make the resultant equations easier to read."

6.9.2.- Move to GEN Motion 6

6.10. CID 10149 6.10.1. - This was fixed by CID 10118.

- Proposed resolution "AGREE IN PRINCIPLE (GEN: 2011-01-20 17:18:01Z) -- CID 10118 has made the following change: "delete "and return a Link Measurement Report with the Incapable bit in the Measurement Report Mode field set to 1""


6.11. CID 10050 6.11.1. - Proposed resolution "DISAGREE (GEN: 2011-01-20 17:34:32Z) The full action field

description is in each frame to assist the reader to understand the overall frame format without having to reference back several layers of hierarchy."


6.12. CID 10051 6.12.1. - The values for the result codes differ in each defined DSE enablement action frame.

- The description of the fields are the same, but the description is different. - Proposed resolution "DISAGREE (GEN: 2011-01-20 17:44:25Z) There are "Reason Result Code field values" tables for each of the DSE frame definitions. The values are defined uniquely to the specific frame. This was the design choice made in 11y amendment. This is not a new convention. This is not ambiguous."

6.12.2. - Move to GEN Motion 6.

6.13. Motion 109: Move to approve comment resolutions in 11-10-1434-04-000m-Gen_AdHoc_Sponsor_Ballot_Comment_Resolutions.xls on the “Gen Motion 3” tab and “Gen Motion 5” tab, and incorporate the text changes indicated in 11-11-0155-02 [Related to P802.11z roll-in]

6.13.1. move Stephen McCann 2nd Harry Worstell6.13.2. Motion Passes: 7-0-0

6.14. Discussion on Gen Motion 4 tab needs some more time.6.15. Recessed at 10:00am



7 TGmb Thursday, January 20, 2011 PM17.1. Called to order by Dorothy Stanley at 1:32pm

7.1.1.Introductions and affiliations were made7.2. Review proposed Agenda for this timeslot.7.3. Review Current status of PHY comments.

7.3.1.PHY comments have a new document revisions7.3.1.1. 11-11/160r1 would like to be presented.7.3.1.2. 11-11-159r2 has some additional authors added.

7.4. Review of 11-11/160r1:7.4.1.Review quickly to bring the group up-to-speed.7.4.2.Noted that the ETSI EN 301 893 Mask has a -40dBi also.7.4.3.Outdoor Point to Point interference is a potential issue.

7.4.3.1. The issue was detecting radar not the adjacent Channel problem.7.4.4.FCC may define xy dBm/MHz, but it is not finalized.7.4.5.Debate on the need to make the change now or later7.4.6.Discussion on the effects of the change and ACI.7.4.7.Some preference is to push the industry to -45dBm instead of relaxing.

7.4.7.1. Getting more power is nice, but not with these masks.

7.5. Motion 110: Approve comment resolutions for CIDs 10028, 10077, 10087, 10093, 10153, (spectral Mask Limit).as indicated in 11-11-0159-02-revmb-sb-spectrl-mask-cids-proposed-resolution.doc

7.5.1.Moved: Vinko Erceg, 2nd Eldad Perahia7.5.2.Motion Passes -- 25-8-1

7.6. Discussion on the Spectral Mask Flatness7.6.1.Review text changes in 11-11/159r27.6.2.Ideally, there is a desire to remove the limit entirely, but as a compromise, relax it by 2dB in

each case is proposed.7.6.3.Oppostion to the proposal is due to concern that current deployed devices are having trouble

equalizing non-flat signals. So this is a concern with new devices not interoperating with exiting devices.

7.6.4.Beamforming in a higher end products, and is not germane to this topic.7.6.5.Getting more power and distorting the channel may cause trouble with deployed products.7.6.6.Practical matter, we have not tested this corner case.7.6.7.11b does not have a spectral spectrum flatness, and unsure why it is in 11a.

7.7. Motion 111: Approve comment resolutions for CIDs 10027, 10070, 10086, 10092, 10152, 10155 (Spectral mask flatness) as indicated in 11-11-0159-02-000m-revmb-sb-spectral-mask-cids-proposed-resolutions.doc

7.7.1.moved: Vinko Erceg, 2nd Eldad Perahia7.7.2.Motion 25-8-1

7.8. Thanks to Mike M. for taking notes7.9. CID 10116

7.9.1.- This comment was in response to a change in a previous LB comment.7.9.2. - There are many changes to be made to address the commentor’s issue. A submission

would be required.7.9.3. - The commentor simply wants the figure to match the text.7.9.4. - The figure does not include Spatial mapping for simplity. The text describing the figure

states so.7.9.5. - The entire section is descriptive and simplified, not normative.



7.9.6. Proposed resolution: "DISAGREE (GEN: 2011-01-19 05:12:41Z) The clause is informative, and the sentence "Spatial mapping matrices QA, k and QB, k are assumed to be identity matrices here for simplicity of illustration." This applies to both the figure and to the following example equations.

The note cited in 19.3.12.2 is "NOTE—When a non-identity matrix is used for QA, k, STA A is responsible for accounting for the spatial mapping in its local channel estimate as well as in the quantized CSI fed back since the channel feedback received in step c) is actually H ˜AB k , QA k and not ˜AB, k. Furthermore, since QB, k is defined in 19.3.13.3 (Sounding PPDU for calibration), additional steps can be taken in STA A to remove the effect of QB, k when computing the correction matrix KA, k."

STA A is responsible for accounting for the spatial mapping, as well as, the quantized CSI feedback. No change is needed"

7.9.7.Move to Gen Motion 7

7.10. CID 10143 7.10.1. - Proposed resolution: "DISAGREE (GEN: 2011-01-20 22:50:56Z) Normative behaviour

must be described for the addition of the Extended Capabilities element value. How the SSID is originally set would also need additional requirements described in order to make the requested change."

7.10.2. - Using extended capabilities bits might not be the way to do this.7.10.3. - Move to GEN Motion 7.

7.11. CID 10021 7.11.1. - Adrian provided a proposed resolution.7.11.2. - Proposed resolution "Agree in principle. Replace: “The BAR Ack Policy subfield of the

BAR Control field has the meaning shown in Table 8-14 (BAR Ack Policy subfield).” at 252.01 with: “For BlockAckReq frames sent under Delayed and HT-Delayed agreements the BAR Ack Policy subfield of the BAR Control field has the meaning shown in Table 8-14 (BAR Ack Policy subfield). For BlockAckReq frames sent under other types of agreement, the BAR Ack Policy subfield is reserved."


7.12. CID 10022 7.12.1. - Adrian provided a proposed resolution.7.12.2. Proposed Resolution: "AGREE IN PRINCIPLE (GEN: 2011-01-20 22:56:23Z) Agree in

principle. Replace: “The BA Ack Policy subfield of the BA Control field has the meaning shown in Table 8-16 (BA Ack Policy subfield).” at 255.01 with: “For BlockAck frames sent under Delayed and HT-Delayed agreements the BA Ack Policy subfield of the BA Control field has the meaning shown in Table 8-16 (BA Ack Policy subfield). For BlockAck frames sent under other types of agreement, the BA Ack Policy subfield is reserved.”


7.13. CID 10049 - The commentor does not have a proposal with text changes.7.14. - Proposed resolution "DISAGREE (GEN: 2011-01-20 22:57:58Z) The CRC is not

certain how to resolve this. The commentor may bring more detail in a submission at a later time."




7.15. CID 10045 7.15.1. - Proposed resolution "DISAGREE (GEN: 2011-01-20 23:00:42Z) The Commentor does

not clarify what would be need to resolve the issue. The commentor may bring more detail in a submission at a later time."


7.16. CID 10047 7.16.1. - Trish indicated that there is no replacement and a footnote can be added to indicate that

the standard has been withdrawn.7.16.2. - Proposed resolution "Accept in Principle. Add a footnote to indicate that IEEE 802.1F

has been withdrawn".

7.17. MOTION 112: Move to Approve comment resolutions in 11-10/1434r5 on the GEN Motion 6 tab.

7.17.1. Moved: Stephen McCann 2nd: Roger Durand.7.17.2. Result: 9-0-3. Motion passes.

7.18. Teleconferences7.18.1. - Adrian will prepare D7.0. His target is to start a 15 day recirc in early Feb.7.18.2. - Schedule a teleconference for Feb 25th at 10am ET.

7.19. Taskgroup Timelines. 7.19.1. Discussion on effects from 11s addition.7.19.2. The end date for the Revision 802.11REVmb will be March 2012.

7.20. Motion 113: Move to Approve comment resolutions in 11-10/1434r6 on the GEN Motion 4 tab and GEN Motion 7 tab.

7.20.1. Moved: Michael Montemurro 2nd:: Jon Rosdahl.7.20.2. Result: 9-0-3. Motion passes.

7.21. Motion 114: Having approved comment resolutions for all of the comments received from the initial Sponsor Ballot on P802.11REVmb D6.0, Instruct the editor to prepare Draft 7.0 incorporating these resolutions and, Approve a 15 day Sponsor Recirculation Ballot asking the question "Should P802.11REVmb D7.0 be forwarded to RevCOM?

7.21.1. Moved: Jon Rosdahl 2nd : Stephen McCann7.21.2. Result: 11-0-0. Motion passes.

7.22. Action Item: Jon to post final spreadsheet and send Database to Adrian for editing.7.23. Adjourned 3:26pm



References:

Meeting Agenda Files:https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/11/11-11-0012-04-000m-january-2011-agenda.ppthttps://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/11/11-11-0012-03-000m-january-2011-agenda.ppthttps://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/11/11-11-0012-02-000m-january-2011-agenda.ppthttps://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/11/11-11-0012-01-000m-january-2011-agenda.ppthttps://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/11/11-11-0012-00-000m-january-2011-agenda.ppt

Previous Meeting Minutes Approved this meeting:https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/10/11-10-1416-02-000m-con-call-notes-dec-2010-jan-2011.dochttps://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/10/11-10-1111-01-000m-minutes-of-tgmb-sept-2010-waikoloa.doc

TGmb Closing Report :https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/11/11-11-0194-00-000m-january-2011-closing-report.ppt

Gen Adhoc Comment files:https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/10/11-10-1434-07-000m-gen-adhoc-sponsor-ballot-comment-resolutions.xlshttps://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/10/11-10-1434-06-000m-gen-adhoc-sponsor-ballot-comment-resolutions.xlshttps://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/10/11-10-1434-05-000m-gen-adhoc-sponsor-ballot-comment-resolutions.xlshttps://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/10/11-10-1434-04-000m-gen-adhoc-sponsor-ballot-comment-resolutions.xlshttps://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/10/11-10-1434-03-000m-gen-adhoc-sponsor-ballot-comment-resolutions.xls

Mac Adhoc Comment Fileshttps://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/10/11-10-1347-03-000m-mac-adhoc-sponsor-ballot-comment-resolutions.xls

PHY presentation files:https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/11/11-11-0160-01-000m-11n-spectrum-mask-alignment.ppthttps://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/11/11-11-0159-02-000m-revmb-sb-spectral-mask-cids-proposed-resolutions.dochttps://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/11/11-11-0170-01-000m-revmb-sb-ndp-sequence-cids-proposed-resolution.dochttps://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/11/11-11-0159-01-000m-revmb-sb-spectral-mask-cids-proposed-resolutions.dochttps://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/11/11-11-0160-00-000m-11n-spectrum-mask-alignment.ppt

TGz roll-up editorial correction:https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/11/11-11-0155-02-000m-revmb-11z-roll-up-editorial-edits.doc

Receive Buffer Operations:https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/11/11-11-0138-00-000m-receive-buffer-operations-cid-10031-10032.docx




https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/11/11-11-0155-02-000m-revmb-11z-roll-up-editorial-edits.doc

https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/11/11-11-0160-00-000m-11n-spectrum-mask-alignment.ppt

https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/11/11-11-0159-01-000m-revmb-sb-spectral-mask-cids-proposed-resolutions.doc


https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/11/11-11-0170-01-000m-revmb-sb-ndp-sequence-cids-proposed-resolution.doc

https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/11/11-11-0170-01-000m-revmb-sb-ndp-sequence-cids-proposed-resolution.doc



https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/11/11-11-0160-01-000m-11n-spectrum-mask-alignment.ppt

https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/10/11-10-1347-03-000m-mac-adhoc-sponsor-ballot-comment-resolutions.xls

https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/10/11-10-1347-03-000m-mac-adhoc-sponsor-ballot-comment-resolutions.xls

https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/10/11-10-1434-03-000m-gen-adhoc-sponsor-ballot-comment-resolutions.xls










https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/11/11-11-0194-00-000m-january-2011-closing-report.ppt

https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/10/11-10-1111-01-000m-minutes-of-tgmb-sept-2010-waikoloa.doc

https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/10/11-10-1416-02-000m-con-call-notes-dec-2010-jan-2011.doc




