january, 2005 doc.: ieee 802.11-05/0034r0 ieee - working group

doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0034r0IEEE P802.11 Wireless LANs
Date: 2005-01-17
Author(s): Name Company Address Phone email Tim Godfrey Conexant +1-913-664-2544 [email protected]
Abstract Minutes of the 802.11 full working group and joint wireless sessions.
Notice: This document has been prepared to assist IEEE 802.11. It is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein. Release: The contributor grants a free, irrevocable license to the IEEE to incorporate material contained in this contribution, and any modifications thereof, in the creation of an IEEE Standards publication; to copyright in the IEEE’s name any IEEE Standards publication even though it may include portions of this contribution; and at the IEEE’s sole discretion to permit others to reproduce in whole or in part the resulting IEEE Standards publication. The contributor also acknowledges and accepts that this contribution may be made public by IEEE 802.11. Patent Policy and Procedures: The contributor is familiar with the IEEE 802 Patent Policy and Procedures <http:// ieee802.org/guides/bylaws/sb-bylaws.pdf>, including the statement "IEEE standards may include the known use of patent(s), including patent applications, provided the IEEE receives assurance from the patent holder or applicant with respect to patents essential for compliance with both mandatory and optional portions of the standard." Early disclosure to the Working Group of patent information that might be relevant to the standard is essential to reduce the possibility for delays in the development process and increase the likelihood that the draft publication will be approved for publication. Please notify the Chair <[email protected]> as early as possible, in written or electronic form, if patented technology (or technology under patent application) might be incorporated into a draft standard being developed within the IEEE 802.11 Working Group. If you have questions, contact the IEEE Patent Committee Administrator at <[email protected]>.
Minutes page 1 Tim Godfrey, Conexant
Joint Wireless Plenary: January 17, 2005 1.1. Introduction
1.1.1. Meeting called to order by Stuart J. Kerry at 08:20AM. 1.1.2. The agenda of the 89th session of 802.11 is in doc: IEEE 11-04-
1172r2. 1.1.3. Secretary – Tim Godfrey 1.1.4. Officers and Chairs of 802.11:
Name Position Work Phone eMail IEEE 802.11 WG Chair Philips Semiconductors, Inc., 1109 McKay Drive, M/S 48A SJ, San Jose, CA 95131-1706, USA Fax:+1 (408) 474-5343 WG 1st Vice-Chair / Treasurer Policies & Treasury WG 2nd Vice-Chair / TGv Chair Attendance, Ballots, Documentation & Voting WG Secretary Minutes & Reports WG Technical Editor Standard & Amendment(s) Coordination Publicity Chair (P SC) Communications
Teik-Kheong "TK" Tan WNG SC Chair +1 (408) 474-5193 [email protected] John Fakatselis TGe Chair +1 (321) 327-6710 [email protected] Duncan Kitchin TGe Vice-Chair & ANA Lead +1 (503) 264-2727 [email protected] Richard H. Paine TGk Chair +1 (206) 854-8199 [email protected] Bob O'Hara TGm Chair +1 (408) 635-2025 [email protected] Bruce P. Kraemer TGn Chair +1 (321) 327-6704 [email protected] Lee Armstrong TGp Chair +1 (617) 244-9203 [email protected] Clint Chaplin TGr Chair +1 (408) 528-2766 [email protected] Donald E. Eastlake 3rd TGs Chair +1 (508) 786-7554 [email protected] Charles R. Wright TGT Chair +1 (978) 268-9202 [email protected] Stephen McCann TGu Chair +44 (1794) 833341 [email protected] Jesse Walker ADS SG Chair +1 (503) 712-1849 [email protected] Dorothy Stanley APF AHC Chair +1 (630) 979-1572 [email protected]
Al Petrick +1 (321) 235-3423 [email protected]
IEEE 802.11 WORKING GROUP OFFICERS Stuart J. Kerry +1 (408) 474-7356 [email protected]
Harry R. Worstell +1 (973) 236-6915 [email protected]
Tim Godfrey +1 (913) 664-2544 [email protected]
Nanci Vogtli +1 (215) 340-2226 [email protected]
Terry Cole +1 (512) 602-2454 [email protected]
January, 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0034r0
1.1.5. Stuart J. Kerry reviews the roles and responsibilities of the Working Group officers.
1.1.6. People attending for the first time at this meeting: 25 1.1.7. There are 361 people in the room.
1.2. Approval of the Agenda 1.2.1. The agenda is adopted by unanimous consent
1.3. Approval of Minutes 1.3.1. Any matters from the minutes? None 1.3.2. The minutes of Berlin are approved with Unanimous consent.
1.4. Key Working Group Events 1.4.1. Interim Sessions
1.4.1.1. May 2005: We cannot go to Sydney since the Hilton is not ready. We attempted to relocate to Beijing, but the logistics have not worked out in time. Tourhosts is looking for Australia, New Zealand, and Singapore for possible venues. We will know this week by Friday. Backup plan is the Hyatt in Rosemont, IL, near O’Hare.
1.4.1.2. January 2006 – Hawaii – Hilton Waikoloa Village 1.4.2. Financials – John Barr
1.4.2.1. Document 802.15 / ?? 1.4.2.2. There are $87K left in the account. 1.4.2.3. We planned for 700 attendees for this meeting, but we already have 713. We will
come out ahead.
1.5. IP Statements (Letters of Assurance) 1.5.1. Conexant has submitted an LOA regarding 802.11n. 1.5.2. Stuart is waiting for a confirmation from PatCom on their
acceptance. Stuart notes that Broadcom has also submitted an LOA on 802.11n.
1.5.3. Sun Microsystems is submitting an LOA on RBridges. 1.5.4. Stuart announces that he is waiting for PatCom acceptance of an
LOA from Mesh Networks. 1.6. Review of Policies and Procedures
1.6.1. Al Petrick presents document 04/424r4 to the body. 1.6.2. Review of working group officers and duties for all wireless working
groups. 1.6.3. Review of voting rights, participation requirements, and voting
token procedures. There is a new system for indicating voting rights – instead of tokens, there is a printed indication on the badge.
1.6.4. Review of operating policies and procedures, registration, payment of fees. Our P&P is in 04/510r0, which is posted on the web site. Roberts Rules are revision 10 (Gold Book)
1.6.5. Review of rules against photographs, tape recording, and media briefing.
1.6.6. Review of attendance recording process, and contact information updating procedures.
1.6.7. Review of process and requirements for gaining and keeping voting rights.
1.6.8. Membership representation and anti-trust laws are reviewed. 1.6.9. Al Petrick reads the following text to the body regarding IEEE
patent policy:
doc.: IEEE 802.11-04/424r4
General Agenda Information
6. Patents
IEEE standards may include the known use of essential patents, and patent applications, provided the IEEE receives assurance from the patent holder or applicant with respect to patents essential for compliance with both mandatory and optional portions of the standard. This assurance shall be provided without coercion and prior to approval of the standard (or reaffirmation when a patent becomes known after initial approval of the standard). This assurance shall be a letter that is in the form of either
a) A general disclaimer to the effect that the patentee will not enforce any of its present or future patent(s) whose use would be required to implement the proposed IEEE standard against any person or entity using the patent(s) to comply with the standard or
b) A statement that a license will be made available without compensation or under reasonable rates, with reasonable terms and conditions that are demonstrably free of any unfair discrimination
This assurance shall apply, at a minimum, from the date of the standard's approval to the date of the standard's withdrawal and is irrevocable during that period.
IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards
Approved by IEEE-SA Standards Board –, March 2003, July 2004
1.6.10.1. Stuart J. Kerry reads the following slide to the body:
1.6.10.2.
doc.: IEEE 802.11-04/424r4
At the December 2004 meeting of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Patent Committee (PatCom), Paul Nikolich (Chair, 802) on behalf of Stuart Kerry (Chair, 802.11)led discussion on an agenda item titled 'Discussion of P802.11n Protest'. You noted that some members of the P802.11n working group requested a clarification of policy from PatCom regarding what would be acceptable to discuss during a working group technical presentation, regarding patent information/statements.
PatCom is charged with providing oversight for the use of patents and patent information in IEEE Standards. PatCom is also charged with reviewing patent information submitted to the IEEE Standards Department to determine conformity with patent procedures and guidelines. As empowered by the IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws, PatCom has reviewed the information presented and rendered its decision by interpreting the policies and procedures of the IEEE and the IEEE-SA relevant to the issues.
In regards to the presentation of information to a standards development group, PatCom has decided the following:
1. After a patent letter of assurance (LoA) has been accepted by PatCom, it is allowable for a presenter to state that an LoA has been filed by a Patent Holder, accepted by PatCom, and listed in the online listing of LoAs at http://standards.ieee.org/db/patents/index.html
Anyone seeking a copy of the accepted LoA should contact the PatCom Administrator.
2. Discussion of the content of accepted, submitted, or proposed LoAs is prohibited.
3. Discussion of licensing terms and conditions is prohibited.
Patent Committee Ruling – January 6, 2005
1.6.10.3. Al Petrick reads the following slide to the body:
1.6.10.4.
doc.: IEEE 802.11-04/424r4
• Don’t discuss licensing terms or conditions
• Don’t discuss product pricing, territorial restrictions or market share
• Don’t discuss ongoing litigation or threatened litigation
• Don’t be silent if inappropriate topics are discussed… do formally object.
If you have questions, contact the IEEE Patent Committee Administrator at [email protected]
Approved by IEEE-SA Standards Board – December 2002
1.6.11. Stuart J. Kerry announces that the preceding Patent Policy is
hereby adopted by all 802 working groups. All other WG chairs (Bob Heile 802.15, Michael Lynch 802.18, Steve Shellhammer 802.19, and Jerry Upton 802.21, and AJ Rajkumar 802.22) all agree to abide by the Patcom guidelines.
1.6.12. Returning to document 04/424r4, Al Petrick reviews the IEEE copyright policy.
1.6.13. Review of IEEE meeting etiquette. 1.7. Logistics
1.7.1. The meeting schedule and daily agendas are available at the URL on the back of everyone’s badge.
1.7.2. We will have box lunches today at the lower level of the conference center.
1.7.3. 802.15.4b and 802.20, and 802.21 will meet at 2pm today. 1.7.4. Social reception is at the Monterey Bay aquarium.
1.8. WG Objectives 1.8.1. 802.22 – Carl Stephenson
1.8.1.1. Will discuss reply comments on TV band NPRM. Follow through with organization of WG: timeline, outlines, requirements, selection process. Looking for Secretary and Technical Editor.
1.8.2. 802.21 – Ajay Rajkumar 1.8.2.1. Media Independent Handover. Documents on separate server, will use paper
attendance lists. In the process of presenting proposals. There will be 12 updated proposals. Will have joint session with 802.11u.
1.8.3. 802.20 – Jerry Upton 1.8.3.1. Objectives – consensus on evaluation criteria, models, and selection process.
1.8.4. 802.19 – Steve Shellhammer
1.8.4.1. Coexistence TAG. The new 802 P&P contains provisions for wireless coexistence. The 5 Criteria specifies the creation of a coexistence assurance document to be circulated with the first draft. The 802.19 TAG will have one vote on all wireless standards. This week, there will be submissions on the Coex Assurance guidance documents. There will be a joint meeting with 802.11n in the 802.11n room.
1.8.4.2. How does this impact drafts in process? Paul Nicolich’s intention is to have the requirement apply immediately.
1.8.5. Visitors at this meeting 1.8.5.1. Paul Nicolich, 802 chair, 1.8.5.2. Karen Kinney, Associate Managing Director of IEEE Standards Association
1.8.6. 802.18 – Mike Lynch 1.8.6.1. 802 radio regulatory TAG. Comments were filed to the FCC regarding use of TV
bands by unlicensed devices. At this meeting we will create reply comments. Will work in cooperation with 802.22 on these reply comments.
1.8.7. 802.15 – Bob Heile 1.8.7.1. There are 253 voters in 802.15. There are 31 nearly voters. There are 148
aspirant voters. 1.8.7.2. 802.15.1a – Tom Seip. Bluetooth V1.2. Have passed WG LB and Sponsor ballot.
There is one issue getting through RevCom. 1.8.7.3. SG 1b – Tom Seip. Looking at continuing with Bluetooth maintaining synchrony.
The IEEE is not wanting to be a follower rather than parallel participant. Will discuss how to become more parallel.
1.8.7.4. TG 3a – Bob Heile – in downselect cycle. Will be hearing response from failed confirmation vote. There will be a second confirmation vote on Wednesday AM.
1.8.7.5. TG 3b – John Barr. Working on amendment on 802.15.3. Draft is on private site in review. Hope to release for WG Letter Ballot this week.
1.8.7.6. SG 3c – Reed Fisher. MMwave alt PHY. Will work on requirements document, and channel model subgroup.
1.8.7.7. TG 4a – Pat Kinney. Alternate PHY for 802.15.4. Giving ranging information, robustness, and mobility. We will have proposals for baseline. There are 45 responses to CFP. There will be 25 proposals to be reviewed.
1.8.7.8. TG 4b – Rob Poor – Revision to clarify 802.15.4 and add PHY enhancements. Planning on LB at next meeting. Alternate PHY at sub-GHz frequencies.
1.8.7.9. TG5 Mesh Jon Booth. Close to issuing CFP. Will finalize downselect process. 1.8.7.10. 802.15 is considering a conformance PAR for 802.15.3-2003. Will
release PAR for approval in March. 1.8.8. 802.11 – Stuart J. Kerry
1.8.8.1. WG Voters update. 491 voters. 1.8.8.2. Review of 802.11 Agenda in 04-1172r2.
1.8.8.2.1. Stuart reviews the agenda for 802.11 during the week. 1.8.8.2.2. Stuart updates the group on the documentation server. There will be a
demonstration of potential new software from Accent Technologies. Have shown to the CAC and other chairs.
1.8.8.3. Discussion 1.8.8.3.1. 802.3 wishes to make a presentation . Will change agenda on
Wednesday 1.8.8.4. Approval of the Agenda
1.8.8.4.1. Approved by Unanimous consent. 1.8.8.5. Matters from the minutes of 802.11 in San Antonio?
1.8.8.5.1. None 1.8.8.5.2. San Antonio Minutes for November 2004 are Approved by Unanimous
consent 1.8.8.6. Policies and Procedures
1.8.8.6.1. New items will be presented on Friday. 1.8.8.6.2. Al Petrick will prepare timelines for all Task Groups.
1.8.8.7. Documentation Update: The server has been unable to reset document numbers for 2005, but this has been fixed.
1.8.8.8. WNG report – one session Monday evening. Update on European DVB, and one on 802.21.
1.8.8.9. TGe – completed sponsor ballot recirculation. 95% approval. Will address some comments. If necessary will conduct additional recirculations.
1.8.8.10. TGk – will finish LB 71 comment resolution. Will try for another LB this week. Still resolving difficult comments. Will continue teleconferences.
1.8.8.11. TGm – will address single interpretation request on the 802.11-1999 PHY PLCP header. Will also continue the process of addressing the issues identified for the revision draft. Objective to have a WG LB in March. Will meet with APF SG.
1.8.8.12. ANA: Stuart Announces that Bob O’Hara is taking over the ANA function within TGm. Duncan Kitchin is stepping down. The group thanks Duncan Kitchin for his work.
1.8.8.13. TGn – Will receive proposals technical presentations. Will have downselect vote on Thursday. Meetings start today at 4pm. Planning for a vice chair election this evening. Candidates will give a presentation this evening. 1.8.8.13.1. Stuart J. Kerry notes that nominees should identify themselves to Stuart
J. Kerry or Bruce Kraemer beforehand. 1.8.8.13.2. Will have a joint session with 802.19 on Thursday AM.
1.8.8.14. TGp – Will resolve comments from email on random MAC address. Will have a draft amendment, which will be reviewed this week.
1.8.8.15. TGr – agenda is in document 1629. There are 8 proposals. They will be presented, then there will be a “rejection ballot”. Down-select vote is on Thursday.
1.8.8.16. TGs – will issue CFP from this meeting. Will have technical presentations, and debate procedural issues.
1.8.8.17. TGT – wireless performance. Will elect secretary, approve requirements document, and describe organization of draft.
1.8.8.18. TGu – WIEN. First meeting as TG. Agenda in document 1617. Will select secretary. Will look at requirements generation, and scenarios. Will have joint session with 802.21.
1.8.8.19. TGv – WNM. First session as TG. Looking for permanent chair. Nominations are open. Will vote on Wednesday. Will look at issues. Will work with ADS SG on security issues. TGv does not meet Wednesday AM.
1.8.8.20. ADS SG – Advanced Security. Two meeting slots. Goals are to complete PAR and 5C. Will discuss name of TG to prevent market confusion. JTC1 SC6 Ad Hoc is meeting Wednesday AM. Will complete a response regarding the Chinese WAPI submission. 1.8.8.20.1. Stuart J. Kerry notes that 802.11 is willing to incorporate WAPI in the
standard. We welcome any input to enhance our standard. 1.8.8.20.2. Stuart J. Kerry announces that we are looking for a liaison from 802.11 to
ISO JTC1 SC6. Our WG needs representation. 1.8.8.21. APF Ad Hoc – Access Point Functionality; improving description. Will
incorporate changes in TGm draft. Will discuss text to be provided to TGm. Requests members to review three documents: 04/1225r4, 05/1606, 04/1573. Goal is to make the definition of an AP more understandable.
1.8.9. Joint Publicity committee – Nancy Vogtli 1.8.9.1.1. Will have one meeting this session. Will identify activities appropriate for
press releases. Will focus on web site updates and streamlining the process for keeping them current. Will create calendar of events of interest to the industry.
1.9. Anti Trust 1.9.1. Bob Heile reads the following text to the body:
ANTI-TRUST STATEMENT Each Member acknowledges that the Members are committed to fostering competition in the development of new products and services. The Members further acknowledge that they may compete with one another in various lines of business and that it is therefore imperative that they and their representatives act in a manner which does not violate any applicable antitrust laws and regulations. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Members acknowledge that the Members will not discuss issues relating to product pricing, methods or channels of product distribution, any division of markets, or allocation of customers or any other topic which should not be discussed among competitors. Accordingly, each Member hereby assumes responsibility to provide appropriate legal counsel to its representatives acting under the IEEE regarding the importance of limiting their discussions to subjects that
1.10. Logistics 1.10.1. Bob Heile requests if any members have change in plans to attend
social, please inform the meeting planners. We need to provide an accurate number.
1.10.2. 802.15 will convene in Pacific Grove 1.11. Recess at 10:00am
2. Wednesday Plenary Session 2.1. Opening
2.1.1. The meeting is called to order at 10:45am by Stuart J. Kerry. 2.1.2. There are 327 voting members present. We have a quorum 2.1.3. Announcements
2.1.3.1. A Letter of Assurance from Winbond has been received regarding 802.11n. Only a photocopy has been received. The original needs to be sent to Patcom. Stuart will submit.
2.1.3.2. The CAC will meet tomorrow evening 2.1.3.3. There about 493 potential voting members at this session.
2.1.4. Modifications to the agenda are reviewed. Additional items for new reports are added. Added appointment for TGv chair, and new documentation management system.
2.1.5. Further modifications from the floor: 2.1.5.1. The agenda shows the CAC meeting on Thursday AM, Changed to 7:00PM
2.2. Approval of Agenda
2.2.1. The modified agenda is approved with Unanimous consent. 2.3. Liaison Reports
2.3.1. 802.11 to 802.18 – Denis Kuahara 2.3.1.1.1. Working on comments on TV band sharing with unlicensed users. Had
joint meeting with 802.22. There are no comments to the FCC that are impacting the 802. position. There will be no further comments. There will be a consultation from the UK. Stuart J. Kerry requests Denis to report to the 802.11 reflector. Denis will notify which 802.18 document number is available.
2.3.2. 802.11 to 802.19 2.3.2.1.1. Position vacant – looking for volunteer. See Stuart, Al, or Harry if
interested. 2.3.3. 802.11 to 802.22 – Peter Ecclesine
2.3.3.1.1. Report in document 05/0052. No reply to FCC NPRM. Snap server at 10.0.1.18 for documents during meetings. FCC expected to issue R&O in May- June timeframe. 802.22 proposals in July 05. Hoping for first draft in Jan 06. Will discuss functional requirements and co-existence with TV devices.
2.3.4. 802.11 to 802 Architecture – Andrew Myles 2.3.4.1.1. The architecture group meets before plenary sessions to better align WG
projects and 802 architecture. There will be a meeting before the Atlanta Plenary meeting. Andrew will send an update to the reflector.
2.3.5. 802.11 to 802.3 – Michael Teener 2.3.5.1.1. Residential Ethernet. What is the wired backbone for home and CES?
There isn’t QoS on Ethernet. There will be non-standard “hacks” to address QoS. Propose to add Isochronous services to 802.3 Ethernet. Need to address synchronization, latency, and low cost. Will provide bounded jitter (0) with 250uS per switch latency, and guaranteed session bandwidth. Take advantage of 1394 services over Ethernet. Currently in Study Group status. Architecture issue with 802.1d. Need to coordinate with 802.11 QoS to provide end-to-end capability.
2.3.5.1.2. Document number? Tom Seip will get a document number and post it. 2.3.6. 802.11 to WiFi Alliance – Bill Carney
2.3.6.1.1. No report, no questions 2.3.7. 802.11 to IETF – Dorothy Stanley
2.3.7.1.1. Document 05/0024. Review of EAP documents – new draft on network discovery and selection. EAP Keying: We have been asked to provide requirement re 802.11. Additional work is still needed. Benchmarking Methodology WG: BMWG members request access to 802.11t documents, including drafts. Radius Extensions. A new draft has been created. A request to review IAB draft on link indications. TGu will create comments to go back to the IAB on this.
2.3.8. 802.11 to JEDEC JC61 – Tim Wakeley 2.3.8.1.1. Document 05/1626r0. Working on rev 1 of JESD96. Considering an
optional TXclock line. Working on standard for interoperability and compatibility. The FCC NPRM on partition modules – close to having modules to test.
2.3.9. 802.11 to MMAC – Inoue-san 2.3.9.1.1. Document 05/0051. Have working groups for various standards such as
802.11, UWB, and 1394. 802.11 WG maintains ARIB Standard T71. T71 version 2 update will include 802.11j, and new spectrum allocations.
2.3.10. 802.11 from ISO JTC1 SC6 – Jesse Walker 2.3.10.1.1. Ad Hoc met this morning to draft a response to the JTC1 China
submission. Document 05/0043. Will bring to a vote on Friday. Planning to write a position paper. Requests that the body consider (to accommodate China) a Singapore or New Zealand location.
2.3.10.1.2. Stuart notes that Singapore is out because the meeting fee is over $900 US.
2.3.10.1.3. Member feels that having an international meeting is important. 2.3.10.1.4. The two front runners are Chicago, or Cairns Australia. 2.3.10.1.5. At the JTC1 meeting – feels that it is important to locate in Asia. Could
we ask the Singapore government to help? The available space is the issue. 2.3.10.1.6. Feels the cost issue is overstated. The registration is just one component
of the total cost. 2.3.10.1.7. Stuart states that we are an international body, and personally supports
international venues. 2.3.10.1.8. Straw Poll – Chicago or Cairns? – one vote per person 2.3.10.1.9. Stuart states that Cairns is the front runner.
2.3.11. Open position for 802.11 to JTC1 SC6 2.3.11.1.1. Stuart appoints Alex Chang
2.4. Old Business 2.4.1. Bonneville final report – Al Petrick
2.4.1.1. Report in document ???? 2.4.1.2. Objective was to consider how to improve the process of creating standards in
802.11. There have been a number of meetings behind the scenes. 2.4.1.3. Areas to work on: Architecture, PAR process, templates, educations of chairs on
P&P, streamlining standards process itself. 2.4.1.4. Developed secretaries guidelines document 2.4.1.5. Developed comment resolution guidelines 2.4.1.6. Developed better up-front procedures for starting new TGs. 2.4.1.7. Become more consistent with our P&P document. 2.4.1.8. Will make recommendations for changes to P&P for March plenary. 2.4.1.9. Stuart J. Kerry states that this group will hibernate until the next time work has
accumulated. 2.4.2. Secretaries Guidelines – Harry Worstell
2.4.2.1. Will issue next session (March). Derived from a parliamentarian guidelines, adapted for 802.11. Input is needed by next week before the final version is issued.
2.4.2.2. There is no official document available yet. Harry will send an email to the WG. 2.4.3. Technical Editor Report – Terry Cole
2.4.3.1. Document 05/0044 2.4.3.2. There are no new publications coming out. 2.4.3.3. Term of 802.11 standards. Not a problem until after 802.11-ma is approved. 2.4.3.4. 802.11f (aka 802.11.1) – open for comments as a trial use standard. Will
investigate if any comments have been received before March meeting. If there are no comments, 802.11.1 will be submitted for approval.
2.4.3.5. Discussion 2.4.3.5.1. 802.11f no comments may mean that nobody cares. Can we determine if
there is any interest? There is no way out from trial use. It will be published unless it is formally withdrawn.
2.4.3.5.2. What is the procedure to withdraw? We don’t know – will follow up with IEEE staff.
2.4.3.5.3. Since 802.11f is a trial recommended practice, does that matter? 2.4.3.5.4. Terry Cole to follow up with IEEE SA and determine options for dealing
with 802.11f/802.11.1. 2.4.3.5.5. Roll-up editions. 802.11-2003 edition is available for purchase.
802.11ma revision contains 11g, h, i, and j. 2.4.4. Task Group U Chair
2.4.4.1. We do not have a recommendation from TGu.
2.4.4.2. Defer until Friday 2.4.5. Update on documentation software
2.4.5.1. In September, we were directed to improve our documentation system. We are looking for available solutions.
2.4.5.2. Demonstration of possible system from Accent Technologies. Harry Worstell has been driving this process of evaluation.
2.4.5.3. Peter Crystal and Bob Henly from Accent Technologies demonstrate their document management software.
2.4.5.4. System provides full search, of document content as well as whole documents. 2.4.5.5. Discussion:
2.4.5.5.1. Supports various browsers. Does not require ActiveX. 2.4.5.5.2. Can we still access the whole document library by FTP? Can you bypass
the whole system and access all documents? Not currently. 2.4.5.5.3. What happens if 1000 people access this at one time? Can our current
servers support it? Not sure what IEEE has today, but it will work on standard web servers. Accent says it will work. Stuart says working on our servers will be required as part of the quote.
2.4.5.5.4. FTP access is required for downloading and synchronizing all documents. Straw poll – who uses FTP for synchronization? Over 100. FTP access is a requirement.
2.4.5.5.5. FTP is also good for sorting – what other sorting facilities will be offered in this software. The list view has a few columns that can be sorted on.
2.4.5.5.6. The document names are truncated in a way that hides the textual portions of the filenames? The interface is easy to adjust.
2.4.5.5.7. Recommend that the user be given the choice to start with number or text field.
2.4.5.5.8. What about mirroring of documents between the meeting site and the Internet server? Tentatively – not sure if we can synchronize documents. Maybe once a day. Really need real-time updates.
2.4.5.5.9. In previous incarnations of this product, there have been problems with firewalls? Has that been fixed? This is a new product. It is part of another product line. There are no known problems with firewalls. Does it work with SP2? Yes.
2.4.5.5.10. Appears to be better and more workable than what we now have. 2.4.5.5.11. There are known problems with Java Applets with firewalls. 2.4.5.5.12. What about other formats? Framemaker? The system will support any
file format – but extended features may be missing. 2.4.5.5.13. There is also a calendar embedded to display events. 2.4.5.5.14. Stuart J. Kerry notes that we are working with 3 vendors. This is one
options. Other WGs and TAGs are also looking at this. We are also looking at attendance and agenda maintenance.
2.4.5.5.15. Is the event scheduling function time-zone aware? The dates are stored in GMT, so local time translation is possible.
2.4.5.5.16. Stuart J. Kerry reviews the process for expenses from the Treasury, involving the WG, and 802 ExCom.
2.4.5.5.17. Can we get the WiKi function? Take off-line. 2.4.5.5.18. We are working on a future system for letter ballots on-line, and
eventually voting.
2.5. New Business 2.5.1. The ADS Study Group has completed the PAR and 5C (04/1214,
and 05/1649). Requesting review before motion on Friday. 2.5.2. TGe announces that we changed the fixed agenda item today for
draft approval. It is no longer fixed, and will happen this afternoon. 2.6. Recess at 12:30
3. Closing Plenary Session. Friday, January 21, 2005 3.1. Opening
3.1.1. The meeting is called to order at 8:00 by Stuart J. Kerry. 3.1.2. Agenda in 04/1172r5 3.1.3. There are 165 people in the room
3.2. Modify and Approve Agenda 3.2.1. Review of changes between agenda r4 and r5 3.2.2. Any further modifications? None 3.2.3. The agenda is approved with Unanimous consent
3.3. Announcements 3.3.1. CAC deadlines: Minutes Monday next week, Reports today, Web
Site updates due next Wednesday 3.3.2. The next meeting agenda will be posted 30 days before the next
meeting 3.3.3. Letters of Assurance
3.3.3.1.1. Are there any new Letters of Assurance? None 3.3.4. We have 813 people registered this week for the meeting (all
working groups). 460 were 802.11. That is a record. 3.3.5. Wednesday morning we had a voting pool of 491 members, we had
327 present. We had a quorum. 3.4. Objectives, Activities, and Plans
3.4.1. WG Reports 3.4.1.1. Documentation Update – Accent Technologies assures us they can support FTP.
We are working to fix the document numbering problem where the 04 numbers continued to increment into 2005. We expect the new software to allow us to fix this.
3.4.1.2. Discussion 3.4.1.2.1. Objections to changing document numbers.
3.4.1.3. WG Policies and Procedures – Al Petrick 3.4.1.3.1. Document 05/0094r0. Summary of policies and procedure changes since
March 2004. 3.4.1.3.2. In March, there will be an updated P&P document. 3.4.1.3.3. Current P&P are in document 510r0. 3.4.1.3.4. Al reviews the specific changes that have been made in this update. 3.4.1.3.5. Process for updating proposed changes: Al will present this again in
March. At the July Plenary session we will vote them into effect. 3.4.1.3.6. Next Meetings 3.4.1.3.7. The Atlanta Hyatt is now sold out – there are nearby alternatives. 3.4.1.3.8. The May meeting in Cairns Australia is going ahead. 3.4.1.3.9. The backup location for May is now Huntington Beach, California. 3.4.1.3.10. Discussion
3.4.1.3.10.1. What is the criteria for hotels? Can we describe this in a document so the membership can provide suggestions also? Stuart will look into this.
3.4.1.3.10.2. When will the May location be fixed? Very soon This week or next.
3.4.1.4. Task Group Timeline Planning – Document 05/0091r0
3.4.1.4.1. This document shows the current active task groups and their milestones of ballots and completion.
3.4.1.5. WG Editor – was done on Wednesday 3.4.1.6. ANA Lead – No Update
3.4.2. Standing Committee Reports 3.4.2.1. Publicity – Nancy Vogtli 3.4.2.2. Document 05/0027 3.4.2.3. Had a session on Tuesday jointly with 802.15. Discussed press releases, and the
TGu and TGv announcements. 3.4.2.4. Discussed logistics for keeping the website updated. Chairs will provide updates
by the Wednesday following meetings 3.4.2.5. There are no new press releases. 3.4.2.6. 802.15 will generate a calendar of events for the industry. 3.4.2.7. WNG – TK Tan 3.4.2.8. Document 05/1636r1 3.4.2.9. Updates on European DVB and 802.21 3.4.2.10. Presentations on management frame subtypes and network
characteristics for AP selection 3.4.2.11. Call for presentations for next generation requirements is open. 3.4.2.12. Stuart notes that since we don’t have a joint wireless plenary in Plenary
meetings, WNG will have an additional slot. 3.4.2.13. Stuart has made an arrangement with 802.21 and 802.22 to access their
private documents. 3.4.3. Task Group Reports
3.4.3.1. TGe – John Fakatselis 3.4.3.1.1. Report in document 05/1598 3.4.3.1.2. We have 95% acceptance on the latest recirculation 3.4.3.1.3. We expect to reverse one or two no votes in the next recirculation. 3.4.3.1.4. We will have motion for an additional recirculation 3.4.3.1.5. There will be an ad-hoc the week of 2/25 in Florham Park, NJ to resolve
any comments from the next recirculation 3.4.3.2. TGk – Richard Paine
3.4.3.2.1. Document 05/0086 3.4.3.2.2. Have resolved all comments on previous draft. 3.4.3.2.3. There will be motion to conduct a letter ballot on the new draft. 3.4.3.2.4. Have resolved about 400 comments. 3.4.3.2.5. Will continue weekly teleconferences 3.4.3.2.6. Next meeting will be LB comment resolution 3.4.3.2.7. Discussion
3.4.3.2.7.1. Don’t all the comments have to be resolved before a new LB? There were some miscellaneous comments that are not resolved, but we need a new ballot. It is not a recirc. The first ballot didn’t get 75%.
3.4.3.3. TGm – Bob O’Hara 3.4.3.3.1. Document 05/1647, report and minutes 3.4.3.3.2. Goals were to address interpretation request, and have joint meeting
with APF Ad Hoc. And continue develop updates to the 802.11 revision. 3.4.3.3.3. There was a motion to adopt the response to the interpretation request.
There will be a motion to adopt this response. 3.4.3.3.4. Adopted resolutions to 24 work items from tracking spreadsheet. Added
one new item. Now 93% complete. 3.4.3.3.5. New tracking spreadsheet 05/0022r0. 3.4.3.3.6. A new 802.11-ma draft will be produced (version 0.6)
3.4.3.3.7. At next session, 11ma will integrate content from APF Ad Hoc, work on draft, and issue for Letter Ballot.
3.4.3.3.8. Discussion 3.4.3.3.8.1. There was an issue in TGn regarding reserved bits. There was
no formal action to forward it to TGm. How is that done? Bob states that the interpretation request it the proper procedure, done by email or on the 802.11 web site. If there is a particular item for the revision draft, it can be brought directly to the chair.
3.4.3.4. TGn – Bruce Kraemer 3.4.3.4.1. Document 05/0082 3.4.3.4.2. Completed activities that were planned for the week. There are now two
remaining proposals after the mergers and down-selection vote. 3.4.3.4.3. There were technical and comparison presentations. 3.4.3.4.4. Ballot results from downselect:
3.4.3.4.5.
Consider # Consider %
Proposal MITMOT
Proposal TGnSync
Proposal WWiSE
23 9.62
132 55.23
84 35.15
3.4.3.4.6. Thanks to the MitMot and Qualcomm teams that and their contributions 3.4.3.4.7. In March the goal is to have one more down-select vote after
presentations and Q&A. We will attempt a confirmation vote if time allows. 3.4.3.5. TGp – Lee Armstrong
3.4.3.5.1. Document 05/0090 3.4.3.5.2. Responded to random MAC address – resolved as a non-issued, since
the addresses are locally administered. 3.4.3.5.3. MAC enhancements were considered, and adopted a cancel transmit
primitive. 3.4.3.5.4. A draft was reviewed and discussed. There will be additional changes,
and action items are assigned to provide updates to the editor. There will be a new draft version prior to the March meeting.
3.4.3.5.5. Discussion 3.4.3.5.5.1. What is the document number for the draft? It is in the members
area. 3.4.3.6. TGr – Clint Chaplin
3.4.3.6.1. Document 05/1620 3.4.3.6.2. There were 8 proposals at the start of this week. There was a rejection
vote yesterday. 3.4.3.6.3. Ballot results:
• Written Ballot: The TG will eliminate this proposal from further consideration. Ballot Ballot Ballot Ballot
• Presentation Yes No Abstain Yes % • TAP (Transition Acceleration Protocol) 21 87 12 19.44% • AP Scanning 79 24 15 76.70% • Multiple Concurrent Associations 77 26 15 74.76% • Seamless BSS Transition Protocol 62 36 19 63.27% • Proposal for Fast Inter-BBS Transitions 75 26 16 74.26% • Fast BSS-Transition Tunnel 77 26 16 74.76% • PEKM 59 47 12 55.66% • Just-In-Time 2 Phase Association 13 102 4 11.30%
3.4.3.6.4. The proposals TAP and Just In Time made it through the process.
3.4.3.6.5. There are two proposals moving forward to March. 3.4.3.6.6. Minutes in document 05/1620
3.4.3.7. TGs – Donald Eastlake 3.4.3.7.1. Document 05/62r1 3.4.3.7.2. The call for proposals has been issued 04/1430r12 3.4.3.7.3. Proposals to be presented in July 2005
3.4.3.8. TGt – Charles Wright 3.4.3.8.1. Document 05/1639r3 3.4.3.8.2. Still looking for permanent secretary 3.4.3.8.3. Did not accept requirements or proposals for document structure. The
group is not ready to tie these down quite yet. 3.4.3.8.4. Had presentation on terminology and definitions. 3.4.3.8.5. There will be teleconferences.
3.4.3.9. TGu – Stephen McCann 3.4.3.9.1. Document 05/0085r0 3.4.3.9.2. Elected Secretary, had presentations, joint meeting with 802.21 3.4.3.9.3. Decided to have two teleconferences before the March meeting 3.4.3.9.4. Determined which 802.21 requirements will impact 802.11u. 3.4.3.9.5. In March will continue drafting requirements, scenarios, and response to
IAB. 3.4.3.9.6. Discussion
3.4.3.9.6.1. The body should acknowledge the secretary. Who was it? Tom Shank from Panasonic
3.4.3.10. TGv – Harry Worstell 3.4.3.10.1. Report in document 05/0088 3.4.3.10.2. Objectives were to determine what TGv wanted to do, and start on
requirements document. 3.4.3.10.3. Had 3 presentations. 3.4.3.10.4. Concluded that addressing security issues are premature. We will list
issues as the TGv draft comes together. Then the PAR will be changed to only deal with those specific issues.
3.4.3.10.5. There was one candidate for chair – Pat Calhoun. The TG recommends to the WG to affirm Pat Calhoun.
3.4.3.10.6. For March meeting, will conduct more presentations on scenarios and direction of group. Start requirements document.
3.4.3.10.7. Harry thanks everyone for the support as acting chair in getting this TG started.
3.4.3.10.8. Affirmation of chair. Stuart J. Kerry appoints Pat Calhoun as the TGv Chair. The membership approves by acclamation.
3.4.4. Report from 802.18 – Denis Kuahara 3.4.4.1.1. Document 11-05-63r1 3.4.4.1.2. Ofcom presentations on spectrum cap at 7% and changes for UWB.
Ofcom consultations will be finalized in March. 3.4.4.1.3. Discussion 3.4.4.1.4. What is the limitation that Ofcom is suggesting? They want to cap the
unlicensed spectrum to about 7%. 3.4.4.1.5. What is the 7% a percentage of? The document will contain the
information. It is on the 802.18 server. 3.4.4.1.6. Denis will forward the details to the 802.11 reflector
3.5. Old Business (Special Orders) 3.5.1. WG Generic Motions
3.5.1.1. Move to empower TG teleconferences 3.5.1.1.1. Moved Harry Worstell 3.5.1.1.2. Second Guido Hiertz
3.5.1.2. Vote: Approved by Unanimous consent 3.5.2. TGe Motions
3.5.2.1. Believing that sponsor ballot comment responses in 11-05-1580R5 and the document mentioned below satisfy IEEE-SA rules for sponsor ballot recirculation, Authorize a SB recirculation of 802.11e draft 13.0 to conclude no later than 02/15/2005. 3.5.2.1.1. Moved John Fakatselis on behalf of TGe 3.5.2.1.2. Discussion
3.5.2.1.2.1. None 3.5.2.1.3. Vote: Approved by Unanimous consent
3.5.2.2. TGe announces an ad-hoc meeting to be held 2/25 in Florham Park, NJ. 3.5.3. TGk Motions
3.5.3.1. Move to authorize a 40-day Letter Ballot of 802.11 TGk draft 2.0 to conclude no later than 3/15/05. 3.5.3.1.1. Moved by Richard Paine on behalf of the Task Group. 3.5.3.1.2. Task group vote was 16/0/1 3.5.3.1.3. Vote: Motion approved with Unanimous consent
3.5.3.2. This will be LB73 3.5.4. TGm Motions
3.5.4.1. Moved: to adopt document 11-05/1648r0 as the response to the interpretation request and forward it to the 802.11 working group for approval (The standard is unambiguous in this case. A PHY implementing clause 19 shall set bit B2 in the Service field, as required by 19.3.2.1 in all transmissions. A PHY implementing clause 15 that is dependent upon a particular value in a reserved field for its correct operation is not compliant with the standard. All implementations must ignore values of reserved fields upon reception. The editor of the standard will be instructed to remove the sentence “The value of X'00' signifies IEEE 802.11(r) device compliance.” from clause 15.2.3.4). 3.5.4.1.1. Moved Bob O’Hara on behalf of TGm
3.5.4.1.1.1. The task group approved this Unanimously 3.5.4.1.2. Vote: Motion approved with Unanimous consent
3.5.5. ADS Study Group Report – Jesse Walker 3.5.5.1. Report in document 05/0083 3.5.5.2. Completed PAR and 5C this week. 3.5.5.3. PAR: IEEE 11-04-1214r5 5 Criteria: IEEE 11-05-1649r0 3.5.5.4. The group passed a motion to change the name of the SG to “Protected
Management Frames” to match the name in the PAR. 3.5.5.5. For Atlanta, plan to renew SG, work on requirements, proposals, and down-
select procedure. Start hearing proposals. 3.5.5.6. Discussion 3.5.5.7. Will the name be the PMF study group in Atlanta? The WG chair recommends
the SG keep its own name. But the work of the Task Group will be on Protected Management Frames. The SG chair agrees.
3.5.6. ADS Motions 3.5.6.1. Move to approve the PAR document IEEE 802.11-04/1245r5, and 5 Criteria
document IEEE 802.11-05/1649r0, for the ADS Study Group, and forward to ExCom for Approval 3.5.6.1.1. Moved Jesse Walker on behalf of ADS SG
3.5.6.1.1.1. SG vote was 23-0-4. 3.5.6.1.1.2. The documents have been on the server for 4 hours.
3.5.6.1.2. Second Clint Chaplin 3.5.6.1.3. Vote: Motion passes 106 : 0 : 2
3.5.7. APF Ad Hoc Report – Dorothy Stanley
3.5.7.1. Report in document 05/0078 3.5.7.2. Decided to submit APF text as a submission to TGm. 3.5.7.3. Discussed what parts to put in TGm and what documents will be references. 3.5.7.4. Will present about 10 pages to TGm in March. 3.5.7.5. Will have 3 teleconferences. 3.5.7.6. The group will end after the March meeting.
3.5.8. JTC1/SC6 Ad Hoc report and motion – Jesse Walker 3.5.8.1. Report in document 05/0084r0 3.5.8.2. Letter in document 05/0043r0. 3.5.8.3. Motion: Move to approve the letter in document IEEE 802.11-05/0043r0, to
forward to JTC1/SC6 and China’s JTC1/SC6 Delegation 3.5.8.3.1. Moved Jesse Walker 3.5.8.3.2. Second Harry Worstell 3.5.8.3.3. Vote: motion passes 79 : 0 : 2
3.6. New Business 3.6.1. TGn
3.6.1.1. Bruce Kraemer announces that TGn has elected Sheung Li as Vice chair. The body recognizes him and thanks him for his effort. The WG chair recognizes and accepts Sheung.
3.6.1.2. TGn announces that nominations for Technical Editor are open. 3.6.2. TGr
3.6.2.1. Clint Chaplin announces that there were many good ideas presented to TGr. The body acknowledges all the good work that was done.
3.7. Other Business 3.7.1. Discussion from the floor
3.7.1.1. Procedural Question. The attendance server does not allow anyone to sign in for the second half of this meeting. Will the total number of sessions be adjusted? Stuart states that in future sessions signing in for the first will add the second.
3.7.1.2. The procedure for getting on the reflector is not publicly visible. Since members must ask to join, there is confusion on how to join. Stuart announces that the web site has a link for “reflector request” in the templates area. Will try to make it more obvious. How about an announcement to the general reflector? Harry will make an announcement to the general reflector. URL for the information:
3.7.1.3. Where are drafts that are available during the session? They are not on the local FTP server. Harry says that he didn’t have a chance. In the future, he will open up that area.
3.7.1.4. Straw Poll – Who would like to come back to this property in Monterey? The majority would like to come back.
3.7.1.5. Harry Worstell announces he has now added the category of “potential voters” for those who have met the attendance requirements. If you have sent the email you are potential. If you haven’t sent the request email, you are “nearly voter”. Don’t forget to send the request email to become a voter and to be added to the reflectors.
3.8. Next Meeting 3.8.1. March 13-18, 2005 in Atlanta 3.8.2. Document for March agenda 04/1576
3.9. Adjourn 3.9.1. The meeting is adjourned at 9:48am
References:
Abdelilah Youssef Aboba Bernard Aboul-Magd Osama Abraham Santosh Adachi Tomoko Agre Jonathan Ahmadi Sassan Ahn Joo Hyun Aldana Carlos Alexander Thomas Andresen Steinar Andrews Scott Andrus David Anholt Micha Aoki Mikio Ariyavisitakul Sirikiat Lek Arkko Jari Armstrong Lee Arnett Larry Asai Yusuke Asami Shigeyuki Aso Keigo Astrin Arthur Audeh Malik Backes Floyd Bae Jinseok Bagby David Bahr Michael Baker Dennis Bangolae Sangeetha Barber Simon Bari Farooq Barnwell Richard Basson Gal Batra Anuj Baysal Burak Belfiore Carlos Bendersky Daniel Benveniste Mathilde Berry Don Bhandaru Nehru Bjerke Bjorn Black Simon Blaney Timothy
Bresee Tom Brown Les Buttar Alistair Calhoun Pat Cam-Winget Nancy Canpolat Necati Carson Pat Carson Peter Cash Broady Chakraborty Sourav Chaplin Clint Chen Chien-Hung Chen Jeng-Hong Chen Michael Chen Wei-Peng Chen Yi-Ming Cheng Alexander Cheng Hong Chin Kevin Chindapol Aik Choi Young Gon Chong Chia-Chin Chu Liwen Chu Wei-Lee Ciotti Frank Coffey John Cook Charles Cooklev Todor Crowley Steven Daly Brian Davari Shahram de Courville Marc de Vegt Rolf Demel Sabine Deng Juinn-Horng deVries Jeremy Dickey Susan Dielacher Franz Doi Yoshiharu Dorsey John Douglas Brett DuMas Phillip Durand Roger Dure Sebastien
Duryee Guy Eastlake Donald Ecclesine Peter Eckard Richard Edney Jonathan Egan John Elbakoury Hesham Emeott Stephen Emmelmann Marc Engwer Darwin Epstein Joe Epstein Leonid Erceg Vinko Eroz Mustafa Faccin Stefano Falk Lars Faulkner Mike Fechtel Stefan Fedyk Donald Feinberg Paul Feldman Alex Fettweis Gerhard Fischer Matthew Fisher Wayne Foegelle Michael Ford Brian Frei Randy Fremont Benoit Gallizio Edoardo Gardner James Ghazi Vafa Gifford Ian Godfrey Tim Goettemoeller Mike Golden Stuart Gong Michelle Gonia Patrick Goren Yuval Grandhi Sudheer Gravenstein Martin Gray Gordon Green Larry Groeting Wolfgang Gu Daqing
Gunduzhan Emre Guo Jianlin Gyugyi Paul Ha Kilsik Haensgen Gregg Hahn Dongwoon Hall Robert Hansen Christopher Hares Susan Haslestad Thomas Hassan Amer Hasty William Hattig Myron Hauser James Hayakawa Yutaka Hayase Shigenori Hedberg David Heinze Eric Henderson Gregory Hepworth Eleanor Heubaum Karl Hiertz Guido Hillman Garth Hinsz Christopher Hirano Jun Hoghooghi Michael Holt Keith Honary Hooman Hosur Srinath Housley Russell Howley Frank Hsu Terng-Yin Hu Wendong Hunter David Hwang Hyo Sun Inoue Yasuhiko Ishida Kazuhito Ishii Yoshiyuki Ito Takumi Iyer Lakshmi Jacobsen Eric Jain Raj Jang KyungHun Jelle Thomas
Jeon Ho-In Jeon Taehyun Jetcheva Jorjeta Ji Lusheng Johnson Todd Jokela Jari Jones Ben Jones VK Joon Si Jung Jose Bobby Kado Youiti Kain Carl Kakani Naveen Kandala Srinivas Kangude Shantanu Karnik Pankaj Kasher Assaf Kato Masato Kent Jeremy Ketchum John Kezys Vytas Khieu Andrew Kim Byoung-Jo Kim Dongho Kim Jaeyoel Kim JinKyeong Kim Joonsuk Kim Kyeongsoo Kim Minsoo Kim Tae-eun Kim Youngsoo Kimhi Ziv Kishimoto Shigeo Kneckt Jarkko Kobayashi Mark Koh Benjamin Kolze Thomas Krishnan Gopal Kruys Jan Kuehnel Thomas Kumar Rajneesh Kuo Chun-Chun Kurihara Tom Kvarnstrom Bo
Kwak Joseph Kwon Edwin Landt Jeremy Lauer Joseph Lawson Scott Leach David Lee Dongjun Lee Insun Lee Jihoon Lee Jungwon Lee Sung-Won Lefkowitz Martin Lemberger Uriel Levy Joseph Li Feng Li Guoqing Li Pen Li Sheung Li Wei Li Wenzhen Lin Huashih Liu Changming Liu Der-Zheng Liu I-Ru Liu Jun Liu Yong Livshitz Michael Lo Dennis Loc Peter Lojko Peter Lou Hui-Ling Lyons Daniel Ma Zhaofeng Malek Majid Malinen Jouni Mani Mahalingam Marshall William Maruyama Naotaka Matache Adina Matsuo Ryoko Matta Sudheer Mattela Venkat Maufer Thomas Mayer Bob
McCann Stephen McFarland William McNamara Darren Mcnew Justin Medvedev Irina Mehta Pratik Merrill Mark Metzler Benjamin Meylan Arnaud Middleton Andrae Miller Robert Min Seungwook Mittelsteadt Cimarron Miyanaga Yoshikazu Mlinarsky Fanny Molisch Andreas Montemurro Michael Moreton Mike Morioka Hitoshi Morioka Yuichi Morley Steven Muck Markus Mujtaba Syed Myles Andrew Nabar Rohit Nakamura Tetsuya Nakao Seigo Nanda Sanjiv Narasimhan Partha Ngo Chiu Nitsche Gunnar Niu Huaning Noens Richard Nozaki Masanori Oakes Ivan Ogawa Masakatsu O'Hara Bob Ojard Eric Olson Timothy O'Nan Jon Orihashi Masayuki Ovadia Shlomo Oyama Satoshi Paine Richard
Paljug Michael Palm Stephen Panish Paul Parameswaran Subra Pare Thomas Park Jong-ae Parsa Kourosh Peleg Yaron Perahia Eldad Perez Costa Xavier Petranovich Jim Pirzada Fahd Pitarresi Joe Ponnuswamy Subbu Poojary Neeraj Portaro James Ptasinski Henry Pundari Mohan Qi Emily Qian Lu Raab Jim Rabaeijs Alain Rahman Shah Raissinia Ali Ramzan Zulfikar Rangwala Noman Rawlins Rudy Rayment Stephen Repice Joseph Reuss Edward Robar Terry Roine Per Torstein Rosca Justinian Rosdahl Jon Roy Richard Rude Michael Rudolf Marian Saed Aryan Saito Kenji Sakakura Takashi Sakoda Kazuyuki Sampath Hemanth Sandhu Sumeet Sarca Octavian
Sargologos Nicholas Sasaoka Naoto Sastry Ambatipudi Satapati Suresh Sato Kazuma Saxena Monica Sayrafian Kamran Scarpa Vincenzo Schlaak Damon Schultz Donald Shao Huai-Rong Sharma Neeraj Sharma Suman Shen BZ (Ba-Zhong) Sherlock Ian Sherman Matthew Shimada Shusaku Shono Takashi Shyy D. J. Siep Thomas Simons John Simpson Floyd Singh Balraj Skidmore Roger Smith Matt Sood Kapil Soomro Amjad Soranno Robert Stacey Robert Stafford Robert Stanley Dorothy Stefani Larry Stephens Adrian Stephenson David Stevens Fabrice Stibor Lothar Stolpman Victor Strutt Guenael Sun Winston Surineni Shravan Suzuki Hideyuki Takagi Eiji Takagi Masahiro Takahashi Seiichiro
Takeda Daisuke TAMAKI Tsuyoshi Tan Siew Yoon Tanahashi Mike Tanaka Hideki Tanaka Yasuhiro Tang Kevin Tao Jeffrey Taori Rakesh Tavares Clifford Taylor Henry Thornycroft Peter Thrasher Jerry Tokubo Eric Tolpin Alexander Tomici John Towell Tim Trachewsky Jason Trainin Solomon Tsien Chih Ueda Kenji Van Erven Niels van Waes Nico Varas Fabian Vaysburg Dimitry Venkatesan Ganesh Victor Dalton Vlantis George Vleugels Katelijn Vogtli Nanci Wakeley Timothy Walker Jesse Ward Dennis Ware Christopher Watanabe Fujio Wells Bryan Wentink Menzo Weytjens Filip Whetten Dennis Whitesell Stephen Wilson James Wilson Richard Winters Jack Wong Marcus
Wong Timothy woodyatt james Wright Charles Wu Yan Xhafa Ariton Yagi Akiyoshi Yamada Katsuhiko Yamamoto Takeshi Yamaura Tomoya Yang Eric Yang Jen-Shun Yang Jiun Yang Liuyang Yang Sook Hyun Yao Zhonghui Yeh Wen-Chang Yong Su-Khiong Young Christopher Yurtkuran Erol Zaks Artur Zegelin Chris Zhang Bing Zhang Jinyun Zhang Ning Zhou Wenhui Zhu Jeffrey Zillmann Peter Zuniga Juan Carlos Zweig Johnny
January 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0019
IEEE P802.11 Wireless LANs
Monterey, CA January, 2005
Date: 2005-01-17
Author(s): Name Company Address Phone email R. R. Miller AT&T 180 Park Ave, Florham Park NJ 973-236-6920 [email protected]
Abstract This document records minutes of the 802.11e Task Group meeting of January, 2005 at Monterey, California.
Submission page 1 R. R. Miller, AT&T
Notice: This document has been prepared to assist IEEE 802.11. It is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein. Release: The contributor grants a free, irrevocable license to the IEEE to incorporate material contained in this contribution, and any modifications thereof, in the creation of an IEEE Standards publication; to copyright in the IEEE’s name any IEEE Standards publication even though it may include portions of this contribution; and at the IEEE’s sole discretion to permit others to reproduce in whole or in part the resulting IEEE Standards publication. The contributor also acknowledges and accepts that this contribution may be made public by IEEE 802.11. Patent Policy and Procedures: The contributor is familiar with the IEEE 802 Patent Policy and Procedures <http:// ieee802.org/guides/bylaws/sb-bylaws.pdf>, including the statement "IEEE standards may include the known use of patent(s), including patent applications, provided the IEEE receives assurance from the patent holder or applicant with respect to patents essential for compliance with both mandatory and optional portions of the standard." Early disclosure to the Working Group of patent information that might be relevant to the standard is essential to reduce the possibility for delays in the development process and increase the likelihood that the draft publication will be approved for publication. Please notify the Chair <[email protected]> as early as possible, in written or electronic form, if patented technology (or technology under patent application) might be incorporated into a draft standard being developed within the IEEE 802.11 Working Group. If you have questions, contact the IEEE Patent Committee Administrator at <[email protected]>.
1. Monday Morning Session, January 17, 2005
1.2. Opening
1.2.1. Call to order 1.2.1.1. JohnF (John Fakatselis): I call the meeting to order. 1.2.1.2. Meeting convened at 10:37 am.
1.3. Process
1.3.1. Review of Agenda 1.3.1.1. JohnF: This meeting we have scheduled sessions Monday 10:30 am to 9:30
pm. We shall begin with approving the agenda, reviewing minutes, conducting technical discussions and comment resolutions, leading to the next draft. Then, Tuesday we shall continue with two slots, and Wednesday is our final day. Basically we shall meet all day until 6:00 pm. That’s the proposed agenda.
1.3.1.2. Srini: Can we make the last two items non-fixed? 1.3.1.3. JohnF: Let’s make them non-fixed. I need to have someone change this on
the official web site rows 45-49. On Wednesday, I shall announce that this is non-fixed. Are there any comments on the agenda?
1.3.2. Approval of the agenda 1.3.2.1. JohnF: Is there any objection to adopting the agenda as shown? None.
Hearing none, the agenda is approved. We shall now follow the agenda.
1.3.3. Review Objectives for the Session 1.3.3.1. JohnF: Let me review the objectives of the session. We shall work on the
recirculation ballot comments to see if it makes sense to go to a new recirculation. Srini, would you give us the status of last recirculation?
1.3.3.2. Srini: We still have 5 “no” voters, with 35 comments 15 of which are technical. Eight are new technical comments. The comments are shown in 1580r0.
1.3.3.3. JohnF: Did anyone talk to you about any previous comments? 1.3.3.4. Srini: No. 1.3.3.5. JohnF: Stuart said that someone would talk to you about some previous
comments. We have 95% approval, only 5 no voters. Can you name them? 1.3.3.6. Srini: Stuart, O’Hara, Del Prado, Soomro, Palm. 1.3.3.7. JohnF: Are there any questions regarding last recirculation? None.
1.3.4. Rules and Status Review for New Members 1.3.4.1. JohnF: For the next item I’d like to review policies and rules. Do we have any
new people attending for the first time? Several. The process we use is Robert’s Rules of Order for discipline. Only voting members can vote, however my policy is that non-voters can participate in debates. You can be recognized if you could like to comment. If you have a motion, approach a voting member to bring a motion on your behalf. If you would like to know procedure, interrupt me and I shall help. Srini, can you review the last actions of the group?
January 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0019
1.3.4.2. Srini: The last meeting summary is that we went to recirculation. We closed on Dec 23, with same number of no voters. More than 20 comments were logged, many editorial.
1.3.4.3. JohnF: Are there questions?
1.3.5. Approval of Minutes from Last Session 1.3.5.1. JohnF: The next item is approval of the minutes. Are there any questions on
the minutes submitted from the last meeting in San Antonio? Is there any objection to accepting the minutes? No. Hearing none, the minutes are approved.
1.3.6. Call for Papers 1.3.6.1. JohnF: The next item is a call for papers. Then we shall discuss how to
handle comment resolutions. Are there any papers which address resolutions? Hearing none, are there any other papers relevant to TGe activities. Hearing none, I would like to begin the resolution process.
1.3.7. Discussion of Comment Resolution Process 1.3.7.1. JohnF: Let’s talk about handling comments. What I would like to see is to
have a few people work on the comments, craft resolutions in an ad-hoc meeting, and then present them in a reconvened in a formal meeting to approve the ad-hoc output. The number of comments is so small, we may be able to proceed with one motion. I would like to operate ad-hoc so that everyone can participate at the same level, and because voting requirements can be a little more lax allowing it to be faster by being informal. However, we shall have a formal approval process. Is there any objection to the plan? Are there any suggestions for an alternate process? None. Hearing none, we shall proceed. We shall assign Srini as ad-hoc group leader. He may decide to divide the comments, or not. Is that OK, Srini?
1.3.7.2. Srini: Yes 1.3.7.3. JohnF: I am going to recess the formal meeting for the ad-hoc group, so that
Srini can begin. I am going to resolve the comment received at the CAC meeting yesterday. One or more individuals thought that we did not give enough attention to comments received in the past.
1.4. Closing
1.4.1. Recess 1.4.1.1. JohnF: That said, is there any objection to recess for the ad-hoc group by
anyone? None. Hearing no objection, we shall recess until 1:30 pm when we will reconvene formally. OK? No objections noted. Therefore we are recessed.
1.4.1.2. Recess at 10:55 am.
2. Monday Afternoon Session, January 17, 2005
2.2. Opening
2.2.1. Call to order 2.2.1.1. JohnF (John Fakatselis): I call the meeting to order. 2.2.1.2. Meeting convened at 1:30 pm.
January 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0019
2.3. Process
2.3.1. Comment Resolution 2.3.1.1. JohnF: Srini, what is the current status? 2.3.1.2. Srini: The ad-hoc has resolved 27 comments, with 8 remaining. 2.3.1.3. JohnF: Let us recess for the remaining comments. I will try to locate
Bob O’Hara to help with resolution of his comments.
2.4. Closing
2.4.1. Recess 2.4.1.1. JohnF: Is there any objection to recess for the ad-hoc group? None.
Hearing none, we are recessed until 2:00 pm. 2.4.1.2. Recess at 1:32 pm
2.5. Opening
2.6. Process
2.6.1. Comment Resolution 2.6.1.1. JohnF: We shall put the ad-hoc’s comment resolutions on the server
so that they can be acted upon as a block vote. The remaining ones will be shown in 1580r1. Mathilde, when would you like to discuss your comment?
2.6.1.2. Mathilde: Later. 2.6.1.3. JohnF: OK we’ll wait. 2.6.1.4. Srini: Let us discuss the Surplus Bandwidth Allowance, Soomro/2.
The suggested text proposed by JohnK/Srini is “Comment declined. The surplus bandwidth allowance was added to the list of mandatory parameters precisely to ensure that there is a guarantee of medium access as conveyed by TSPEC to account for the fact that the channel is wireless, and so under at least some normal conditions, stream throughput and latency requirements are met even though the channel is error-prone. Furthermore, the SBA specifies medium access requirements, not stream requirements per se. The fact that the SBA is unique in wireless protocols merely speaks to the fact that 802.11e has considered aspects of wireless protocols that other standards have not”.
2.6.1.5. JohnF: Is there any discussion on the motion to accept? 2.6.1.6. Discussion. Concerns [BobM] regarding the mapping between stream
content and the SBA, in light of growth of media types and inference requirements to generate SBA.
2.6.1.7. JohnF: Call the question 2.6.1.8. JohnF: We shall vote, voters only please. All in favor of accepting the
resolution. The vote is 9-3-1, the vote passes and the comment is accepted.
January 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0019
2.7. Closing
2.7.1. Recess 2.7.1.1. JohnF: Since the other comments require individuals not in the room, I
propose a short recess. Is there any objection to recess until 2:30? Seeing none we are recessed.
2.7.1.2. Recess at 2:20 pm.
2.8. Opening
2.8.1. Call to order 2.8.1.1. JohnF (John Fakatselis): As it is 2:30, I call the meeting to order. 2.8.1.2. Meeting convened at 2:30 pm.
2.9. Process
2.9.1. Comment Resolution 2.9.1.1. JohnF: It was brought to my attention that the previous vote may have
led some to be confused. Is there anyone who wishes to repeat the vote due to confusion regarding the previous vote? The confusion resulted from chair saying “9 for, 3 against”, interpreted by some as 9- 4-3 vote. Does anyone want to have another vote? No. Shall we accept the previous vote as 9-3-1, not 9-4-3? No objections. Very well, the vote stands. What is the next comment?
2.9.1.2. Srini: O’Hara/1 2.9.1.3. Discussion regarding validity of comments. Comments appear to
address the commenter’s previously proposed solution. 2.9.1.4. JohnF: We have no procedural encumbrance which directs us to
reject or accept. Let’s forget about technicalities, and look at the essence of the comment. The commenter will keep protesting until we address the comment.
2.9.1.5. JohnK: It should be necessary to take into account probability for “no” votes if we consider all comments, and we should be attempting to complete our work with dispatch.
2.9.1.6. TomS: We should be addressing the technical value of O’Hara’s comment.
2.9.1.7. JohnF: So let’s forget about the procedural process and address the technical merit of the comments.
2.9.1.8. Srini: There are proposed resolutions to all of these comments which were supplied last time.
2.9.1.9. JohnF: Let’s have a straw poll to see how many would like to address the comments as technical rather than procedural. Straw poll vote 3- 8-1.
2.9.1.10. Discussion 2.9.1.11. Point of order [unknown] – I heard a comment disparaging members.
I believe I heard a reference to “terrorism” regarding these comments. 2.9.1.12. JohnK: Apologies, no intent to insult anyone. 2.9.1.13. Srini: the technical responses previously developed by the group are
shown in 1394r2. 2.9.1.14. JohnK: I shall file a protest. We are giving treatment to a particular
commenter based on what we think he is going to do, rather than
January 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0019
pursuing a speedy conclusion to the standard, which is required of us as part of the standards process. It opens a Pandora’s box.
2.9.1.15. JohnF: Let us proceed with other comments. Soomro/4 2.9.1.16. Srini: No one can understand the comment. 2.9.1.17. BobM: We sent an e-mail, but no response received as yet. 2.9.1.18. JohnF: Is there any objection to accommodate Mathilde’s request to
postpone her comment discussion? 2.9.1.19. TomKuehnel: Yes. We are using valuable resources. Members have
duties other than TGe. 2.9.1.20. JohnF: I will see if I can find Mathilde and if she can proceed. May I
call a short recess? No objection.
2.10. Closing
2.10.1. Recess 2.10.1.1. JohnF: Is there any objection to 5 minute recess? No. We are
recessed. 2.10.1.2. Recess at 3:04 pm
2.11. Opening
2.12. Process
2.12.1. Comment Resolution 2.12.1.1. JohnF: Let us resume the discussion of comment resolution of the
remaining comments. 2.12.1.2. TomS: It is important to remain consistent, so that commenters are
treated equally in terms of reconsideration of comments. 2.12.1.3. JohnF: I believe this has been the case. Let’s address TomK’s
request to have Mathilde proceed. 2.12.1.4. Mathilde: I have been talking to several people about the issue of
multiple NAVs, and have simplified the approach. I want to give people the opportunity to view a solution that could make HCCA as good as EDCA in dense, voice-intensive applications. The solution is simple and optional.
2.12.1.5. JohnF: The group is ready to consider the comment. You could move to postpone or table. For postponing to a specified time, it is open for debate. If you choose to table, it is non-debatable, but it is not guaranteed as to time of action.
2.12.1.6. Point of Information, Srini: It appears that this comment is on non- changed text. It is either a re-cycled comment or a comment on non- changed text.
2.12.1.7. JohnF: I am trying to guide the commenter on a course of action. 2.12.1.8. Mathilde: My purpose is to expose people to the idea. Is it possible
to choose a time when people can get together to learn about the concept?
2.12.1.9. JohnF: Tomorrow we have 1:30 pm.
January 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0019
2.12.1.10. Mathilde: I move to postpone the comment resolution for Benveniste/1 until 1:30 pm on Tuesday Jan 18.
2.12.1.11. Point of information, TomK: Do you want to discuss technical or legal issues?
2.12.1.12. Mathilde: Technical. 2.12.1.13. TomK: The discussion has been whether the comment is out of
order, rather than the technical merit of the suggestion. 2.12.1.14. JohnF: Irrelevant to the discussion. Do I hear a second. 2.12.1.15. BobM Seconds 2.12.1.16. JohnF: Is there discussion? 2.12.1.17. JohnK: I have looked at 1074. It severely impacts the existing text. I
speak against postponing. 2.12.1.18. Mathilde: We are in this situation because the matter has been rushed
through. I want to alert people so that it is not rushed through. 2.12.1.19. Discussion 2.12.1.20. Srini: We have 4 more hours today. We should use the time
productively. I would like to speak against this. I call the question 2.12.1.21. JohnK seconds 2.12.1.22. JohnF: Is there any objection to calling the question? None. The vote
to postpone requires a majority. The vote is 3-8-1. The motion to postpone fails. Do I have a resolution for the comment?
2.12.1.23. TomKuehnel: I propose to reject the comment. 2.12.1.24. Discussion 2.12.1.25. TomK: There is a valid issue regarding overlapping BSSs. I do not
believe that this solves the general problem. I believe it also may generate more “no” votes. I also believe that this gives credence to the O’Hara reconsideration issue.
2.12.1.26. JohnK: The resolution can say that it involves non-changed text, for example, “Comment rejected: The comment addresses non- changed text. Furthermore, if this comment were to be accepted, this would leave the condition of single-NAV operation undefined.”
2.12.1.27. TomS: There is another basis for protest. A suggestion has been made and acted upon. You have now considered this one, leaving O’Hara’s open for reconsideration.
2.13. Closing
2.13.1. Recess 2.13.1.1. Orders of the day. 2.13.1.2. Recess at 3:30 pm
2.14. Opening
2.14.1. Call to order 2.14.1.1. JohnF (John Fakatselis): I call the meeting to order. 2.14.1.2. Meeting called to order at 4:05 pm
January 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0019
2.15. Process
2.15.1. Comment Resolution 2.15.1.1. JohnF: We shall continue where we left off. Is there someone else
who wants to take up resolutions? 2.15.1.2. JohnK: Would like to go back to proposed resolution to Mathilde’s
comment. 2.15.1.3. Any suggestions or modifications? No. 2.15.1.4. I submit the previously captured response. 2.15.1.5. Second Srini 2.15.1.6. Is there any objection to accepting this resolution? None. The
comment resolution is accepted unanimously. 2.15.1.7. Mathilde: Please request the secretary to note that I voted for the
motion. 2.15.1.8. JohnF: So we still have Bob O’Hara’s comments and Amjad’s. 2.15.1.9. I have asked Paul Nikolich to join us, and he says he can do so
about 5:00pm.
2.16. Closing
2.16.1. Recess 2.16.1.1. I would like to recess until Paul arrives, then. Is there any
objection? None. Hearing none, we are recessed.
2.17. Opening
2.17.1. Call to order 2.17.1.1. JohnF (John Fakatselis): I call the meeting to order. 2.17.1.2. Meeting reconvened at 4:40 pm. 2.17.1.3. JohnF: I would like to review for those assembled (including Harry
Worstell, Bob Miller, Srini, John Kowalski and others). We have been discussing comments and stand at 95% approval. One of the “no” voters, O’Hara, said his comments weren’t properly considered. At the last meeting the group exercised the right to reject comments not associated with changes. The group looked at the comments, the judgment was that no normative text changes would occur. There was also an issue of consistency, as the same process was used with other commenters. So the O’Hara comments were considered void. O’Hara sent word that he was not happy with the response. I had a discussion with the group. I believe that Bob O’Hara will protest, but could not convince the group to look at Bob’s comments and give a response different from the ones last time. The group felt that it was necessary to be consistent so as not to allow anyone to open an area that has been closed, thereby extending the process for those who want to add last-minute changes. This would lengthen the process. The group, therefore, feels that it does not advocate reconsideration of Bob’s comments. [To Paul] I need your advice.
2.17.1.4. Paul: Have you recirculated Bob’s comments? 2.17.1.5. Srini: We recirculated once and now would recirculate again.
However this time there would be no technical responses. 2.17.1.6. Paul: Are there other technical changes that produced edits to the
draft?
January 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0019
2.17.1.7. Srini: Yes 2.17.1.8. Paul: You need to make sure that any valid “no” vote is subjected to
consideration by the group. As long as no one changes their vote as a result of Bob’s vote, then the process ends. It is not necessary to reach 100% agreement.
2.17.1.9. JohnF: Bob’s point is that you didn’t really look at his comments. The group feels that no response was appropriate because they did not deal with changes which had been previously cleared by the membership.
2.17.1.10. Paul: Did you add in the language that Bob will have an opportunity to have those changes addressed as part of corrigendum or maintenance requests? There is an opportunity for the areas he is interested in to be changed.
2.17.1.11. JohnF: I pointed this out to the group, but the group declined to add these comments. We could put it in this time, although we didn’t include it for the last recirculation draft.
2.17.1.12. JohnK: If we allow this once, it can be used again. It would open a flood of similar behavior.
2.17.1.13. JohnF: Let’s look at the comments. 2.17.1.14. Srini: O’Hara/1. The intention was that the format should be Big
Endian (explicitly defined), also length of the field was 255 and he wanted 254. We accepted the comments in the ad-hoc group, in some cases offering alternate resolutions.
2.17.1.15. Paul: On the length issue, you accepted it in principle? 2.17.1.16. Srini: Yes, but the task group voted not to accept it as it did not refer
to changed text. Another was a comment on a MIB object. The MIB object was previously approved and part of the standard, but he suggested that some changes were necessary because the MIB was incomplete. Again, although something might be beneficially added, no one commented on it in several recirculations, implying that it was closed. We actually copied the MIB from 802.11h, so in that in a sense we are no worse than that amendment. Despite that, I made a contribution that would have made the addition. However, the group felt that adding it would not be appropriate at the time.
2.17.1.17. Paul: So has the group considered going beyond this and saying we could address these in a maintenance PAR, since it is too late in this process? The group could say that it intends to start a maintenance PAR to address this issue. Would a new project have to be started?
2.17.1.18. Srini: No, our understanding is that it would not be necessary to open a PAR.
2.17.1.19. Paul: Remember a task group is not the same as the PAR. You should ask Bob if that would be acceptable, since it follows the technical and procedural needs.
2.17.1.20. JohnF: I did mention the maintenance group linkage, but we can do it again. We can say that we recognize that some of the comments are valid and that it would be appropriate to queue changes into a maintenance PAR as quickly as possible.
2.17.1.21. Paul: It’s important to convince Bob that the group will undertake immediate action to address the issue. You need to take it to Bob. It appears you have followed the rules. He wants to make sure that the quality of the document is high, but the process must necessarily converge.
2.17.1.22. JohnF: Especially when it is 95%. During the recirculations we did not have any other responses to Bob’s suggestions, apparently honoring the concept that the commented issue had already been
January 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0019
closed. We wanted you to hear the task group side, and request your counsel. Thank you for your assistance. We feel your suggestions have been valuable.
2.18. Closing
2.18.1. Recess 2.18.1.1. JohnF: Since we have finished this business, is there any objection to
recess for the day? None. Hearing none we are recessed. See you tomorrow at 10:30 am.
2.18.1.2. Recessed at 5:20 pm.
3. Tuesday Morning Session, January 18, 2005
3.2. Opening
3.2.1. Call to order 3.2.1.1. JohnF (John Fakatselis): I call the meeting to order. 3.2.1.2. Meeting convened at 10:35 am.
3.3. Process
3.3.1. Comment Resolution
3.3.1.1. JohnF: I’d like to give a quick sync-up. We just completed a recirculations with about 5 “no” voters. We are “steady state”, not changing. We got a lot less comments, however. We’ve addressed all of them in an ad-hoc fashion, and we have a document, 1580r2, that captures them. I’d like you to review quietly this document to attempt to approve them as the formal response of the task group. I ask if anyone wants to pull out any of the resolutions. For those comments you can offer an alternative or we can further discuss. We had some discussion yesterday regarding Mr. O’Hara’s comments. Those comments, when originally submitted, referred to text that had not changed. We formed responses, but the comments were eventually rejected on the grounds that they were out of order. However, the group acknowledged that the comments treated issues that were valid technically. Yesterday, the group remained fixed in its decision to reject the comments on procedural grounds. I invited Paul Nikolich to discuss the question and provide counsel. He said that he understood why the comments were treated as they were, but it would be appropriate to consider the comments due to technical merit. So that is where we are. Today, Bob has agreed to join us. I would like him to give his view, and we would like to explore middle ground. Bob, would you like to comment?
3.3.1.2. O’Hara: The issues raised on recirculation 3 have an impact on the quality of the document including interoperability issues with other amendments that treat the action frame. It is not clear that any implementation prior would be able to properly skip the TCLASS element and parse properly. The more important issue is that I take issue with the statement that the task group has been consistent when treating comments which refer to non-changed text. There are many examples in recirculations 1 and 2 where the consistency was
January 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0019
not apparent. My point on the last recirculations is that the rules must be followed consistently, and I talked to Mr. Nikolich regarding this. He was concerned. I can point out perhaps 30 examples where consistency was not evident on the first recirculations. Although “e” is clearly approaching completion, I do not want it to rush to complete the document sacrificing quality. If most of our companies were to issue a product and immediately announce areas where the product was broken, it sends a bad message to the market. I believe things should be fixed before they are issued. I urge the task group to take a look at the rejected comments to make sure that they’ve been consistent. RevCom and ExCom will apply a microscope to the process issues. I know that in the Sunday chair’s advisory council, Stuart was not satisfied with “e” responses and felt that the comments should be more thoroughly addressed. We need to ensure that when the standard goes to RevCom it is not the first one to be returned to the task group.
3.3.1.3. JohnF: Srini, do you have any comments? 3.3.1.4. Srini: On the first recirculations, we may not have applied the process
entirely consistently, but in the later recirculations we have. I think we have been sensitive to the issues, but perhaps we could have done more. I have gone back and looked at the comments, and perhaps we should take Bob’s advice and make appropriate modifications. It seems we should assure balloters that we are trying to follow the procedure and provide a quality product.
3.3.1.5. JohnF: We may choose to make exceptions that would enable reconsideration. Do you have an accurate count of comments rejected on the basis that text has not changed?
3.3.1.6. Srini: 13, by my count. 3.3.1.7. O’Hara: On the last, there were 3 balloters with 8 or 9 comments. 3.3.1.8. JohnF: With that, I think I should not rule them out of order. We
should take all of the comments in that class and reconsider them. That is one possibility. I shall not rule without the input of the group, however.
3.3.1.9. JohnK: There have been no data come to light to say that anything shown in the comments would affect interoperability. The fact is that we do have an obligation to see the standard published ASAP. I am skeptical that if we keep reconsidering we will hazard completion in a timely way. It is our prerogative whether or not to address them. I feel that threats of RevCom action are not appropriate.
3.3.1.10. Mathilde: I believe that if we are going to do a standard, we should do it right. Would Having a new sponsor ballot now confuse or improve the situation?
3.3.1.11. JohnF: I think that would not be appropriate. Let’s either reexamine the comments or decide not to. I’d like to hear some more discussion about risks of these decisions.
3.3.1.12. Adrian: I respect Bob’s directions and believe we have to come to market with interoperable products. But I am also sensitive to completing the work in a timely way. If we have reached steady state, we could be here forever, never coming to closure. I advocate addressing the comments via a maintenance activity. Regarding whether a group needs to be consistent, the group can be partial: those ideas that would produce “no” votes can justify treatment, however, changes that are expansive or far reaching can equally be dropped in favor of expedited closure.
3.3.1.13. AndrewM: We have to consider comments made on any part of the proposal. The danger is that in a sponsor ballot, I could comment on
January 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0019
any part of the proposal. This is clearly unsatisfactory. The practical matter is that WMM is reaching the market already, and it does not benefit us to linger over the details. I think we should proceed.
3.3.1.14. O’Hara: I agree with Andrew, the process must converge. However the process is important. In the first two recirculations there was not a single rejection regarding a comment on text that didn’t change. I think Srini had a good suggestion that in the cover letter cover the process wasn’t applied uniformly, but that in the future we will not accept comments which refer to unchanged text. It is improper that the appearance be that the group uses the procedural issue to reject comments that it does not want to deal with. This appearance irritated me. However, it is more important that the process be correct. If questions are raised later, I do not wish this to be the first standard to be rejected by RevCom.
3.3.1.15. JohnK: We don’t do science here, we do engineering on a limited budget. We have to finish this thing. I think we should not have considered many of the early comments. We have been distracted by many comments which have been resurrected time and again. This wastes time. As far as resolving the questions on technical merit, I must look at the project risk of one path versus another. If I were convinced that these comments would materially change the direction of the standard, I would vote for acceptance.
3.3.1.16. Mathilde: There has been consensus that the technical merit of the comments was there. WRT the urgency issue, Srini’s suggestion would be a nice idea. People don’t look at the 11e draft to make product. Wi-Fi has gone ahead.
3.3.1.17. TomK: With TGe there will be new ideas constantly. We should come to some closure. I was involved with development of large quantities of equipment using QoS features. We have to try to make this work and get it out. Going on forever does not benefit this.
3.3.1.18. JohnF: Let me focus the discussion. Another compromise is to look at all 13 comments and address them on technical merit. In parallel we make it clear to the sponsor group that we won’t act on further comments which do not produce changes. That said, anyone else with comments?
3.3.1.19. JohnK: If we are to take up the comments, I’d like to know how we can keep the process moving. For example, to treat them, we’d have to counter since the comments themselves refer to other changes.
3.3.1.20. JohnF: Would it be OK if we treated your comments, would you consider changing your vote by the end of the week?
3.3.1.21. O’Hara: Yes. I have no issues with anything in the latest draft. There is minimum possibility that votes will change due to matters not related to my past comments.
3.3.1.22. Srini: We will be changing the draft slightly anyway. I think we have been trying to implement the rules to show that there has been no discrimination.
3.3.1.23. JohnK: I request a straw poll. 3.3.1.24. JohnF: Let’s see it. 3.3.1.25. Not ready yet. 3.3.1.26. JohnF: Are there any other comments? No. It seems like discussion
has slowed down. Would someone please craft a motion that would move us forward procedurally?
3.3.1.27. Mathilde: How about a motion to accept those resolutions? 3.3.1.28. JohnF: We cannot do that now.
January 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0019
3.3.1.29. JohnK: I see two separate motions. We need a motion going forward to affirm that only comments treating changed text will be considered. We’d need another to accept Bob