may 1998 doc.: ieee 802.11-98/122 tentative minutes of the...

May 1998 doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/122

Tentative minutes Full WG, May 98 page 1 Al Petrick, Harris Semiconductor

Tentative Minutes of the IEEE P802.11

Full Working GroupInterim Meeting

Utrecht, Netherlands

4 to 8 May 1998

Monday, 4 May 1998

1.0 Opening Meeting called to order by Vic Hayes at 8:30, Agenda of 46th session of 802.11 is in doc.:IEEEP802.11 11-98/153r1. Al Petrick acting, secretary for George Fishel 1), is present and ready to take the notes.

Objectives for this meeting, all groups

1.1 Selection of technology for TGa and TGb

1.2 Work in study group for WPAN

Proposed changes in the agenda, made by Vic Hayes, 802.11 Chair1.3 Folded TGa agenda in1.4 Change Monday evening from TGb to TGa1.5 Change Tuesday evening from TGa to social1.6 Study group date from 20-21 of May to 19-211.7 Spare meeting time for sponsor material on Thursday1.8 Establish “teller committee” on Monday

1.1 Roll Call: People in the room were invited to introduce themselves. There were 61 people in the room.

1.2 Voting rights:

1.2.1 Participation in debates, moving and seconding is only permitted by voting members, in all802.11 meetings (at all levels). The subgroup chairs may permit observers to participate in debates.

1.2.2 Voting at the working group level is by voting members only. Chair may permit observers toparticipate in debate. To become a voting member:

1.2.2.1 Participate in at least 2 out of 4 consecutive plenary meetings. Voting rights start atthird meeting

1.2.2.2 Participation in at least 75% in meetings, in the room

1)T The officers of the Working Group are:Mr. VICTOR HAYES Mr. GEORGE FISHEL Mr. BOB O'HARAChairman IEEE P802.11 Secretary IEEE P802.11 Editor IEEE P802.11/Chair 802.11revLucent Technologies AMP Inc. Informed Technologies Inc.Phone: +31 30 609 7528 Phone: +1 717 592 6161 Phone: +1212 645 4317Fax: +31 30 609 7498 Fax: +1 717 592 6179 Fax: +1 212 645 6719E-Mail: [email protected] E-Mail: [email protected] E-Mail: [email protected]

Mr. STUART KERRY Mr. AL PETRICK Mr. JOHN FAKATSELISVice-Chairman IEEE P802.11 Vice-Chairman IEEE802.11 Chair IEEE802.11-TGbBufferfly Communications, Inc. Harris Semiconductor Harris SemiconductorPhone: +1 408 496 6868 Phone: +1 407 729-4944 Phone: +1 407 729 4733Fax: +1 408 496 0909 Fax: +1 407 724-7886 Fax: +1 407 724 7886E-Mail: [email protected] E-Mail: [email protected] E-Mail: [email protected]

Mr. DAVE BAGBY Mr. DEAN KAWAGUCHI Mr. NAFTALI CHAYATChair IEEE P802.11-MAC group Chair IEEE P802.11-PHY group Chair IEEE802.11-TGa3Com Corporation Symbol Technologies Inc. BreezeCom, Inc.Phone: +1 408 326 3762 Phone: +1 408 369 2629 Phone: +972 3 645 6262Fax: +1 408 326 8880 Fax: +1 408 369 2740 Fax: +72 3 645 6290E-Mail: [email protected] E-Mail: [email protected] E-Mail: [email protected]

Ms. VICTORIA PONCINIChair IEEE P802.11c groupThe Boeing CompanyPhone: +1 425 865 5342Fax: +1 425 957 5048E-Mail: [email protected]

May 1998 doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/122


- One interim may be exchanged for a plenary- Voting members will get a token to be used at votes

1.2.2.3 All members have voting rights at task group meetings

1.2.3 Voting rights can be maintained: 1.2.3.1 By participation in 2 plenary meetings within 4 consecutive plenary meetings 1.2.3.2 One interim may be substituted for a plenary

1.2.4 Voting rights may be lost:1.2.4.1 After failing to pay the conference fee- After missing two out of three consecutive letter ballots

1.2.5 Current state of member status:1.2.5.1 Voting members (76) total membership1.2.5.2 Voting members (58) at this session 1.2.5.2 Aspiring voting members (35)1.2.5.3 Nearly voting members (24)

1.3 Attendance List, Registration

1.3.1 Administration: The attendance list was circulated, Clemens Ruppel supervising - 75%attendance according to the attendance list is required to qualify for participating in themeeting as a whole, so make sure to sign the book. Copies of the attendance list are handedout before the end of each meeting.

1.3.1.1 Important for administration of voting rights that the attendance book is used properly.

1.3.1.2 Sign per meeting (morning, afternoon, evening). Do not sign ahead.

1.3.1.3 Place initials. Do not cross or underline. You must attend the session after signing.

1.3.2 Registration: You pay full plenary costs if you attend just ½ hour of any meetings for theweek.

1.3.3 Check E-mail addresses in the book:1.3.3.1 Some addresses have been struck, or have a $-sign added to the right - those received

complaints from the reflector1.3.3.2 Please strike your e-mail address if you do not use it If you do not disagree to receiving

very long files, mark bulk e-mail with YES. Vic Hayes plans to remove the bulk Email.

1.4 Logistics: Paper document distribution is done using pigeon holes. Paper distribution is only forthose members not having a PC. You will find your copies and messages in the referenced locationin the expanding file folders in the slot in front of your name. Electronic distribution is alsoavailable.

1.4.1 Conference fee to be paid through registration at the hotel front desk. The cost is added tothe hotel bill.

1.4.2 Copying and collection of files is managed by Stuart Kerry. Al Petrick assists in pigeonholestuffing. Stuart is also in charge of document numbers. Before a submission is presented, adocument number must be assigned by Stuart and a file copy on diskette in Office 95 submittedusing the 802.11 templates for record and distribution. Each submitter must provide fifteen (15)paper copies for pigeon hole distribution. There were eleven people without computers at thismeeting.

1.4.3 Coffee breaks at 10 AM and 3 PM. Noon to 1:00 PM lunch, printing is available in theconference room.

1.4.4 Document distribution: The primary dissemination of documentation is electronic filedistribution. However three (3) mediums will be used. They are: a) 802.11 network b) flashmemory card, c) diskettes. Fifteen (15) of the attendees needed paper copies of thesubmissions.

May 1998 doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/122


1.4.5 Sign in for a slot, remember the letter and number (this is for members not having electronicaccess. Pigeon holes are file folders with a letter id on each folder and a number on each slot ineach folder are numbered slots, each of which is 'owned' by a person. Each person owns slot infront of number.

1.5 IEEE Patent Policy Vic Hayes explained the IEEE Patent Policy as per Clause 5 of the IEEEStandards By-Laws and per Clause 6.3 of the IEEE Standards Operations Manual. He specificallyasked for notification from members of patents applicable to the Published standards or draftstandard and that patent holders submit the requested statement.

1.6 Other announcements

1.6.1 Vic Hayes-Lucent will host a social event Tuesday evening and Dean Kawaguchi will close TGa at5PM promptly. A straw poll for the social event attendance was approx. 70 people.

1.6.2 Dean Kawaguchi is requesting volunteers for the TGa matrix. John Fakatselis also needs volunteersfor TGb compliance matrix.

2. Approval of the minutes of previous meetings

2.1 Minutes of the Irvine, California meeting approved 98/121. No comments on the minutes. Voters for aquorum (42) including voters and nearly voters. Problems with the minutes, make the necessary changes inthe nomination sections. Al Petrick made the necessary changes specifically the nominees for office. Arevised copy will be posted on the server.

MOTION 1: To approve the minutes as amended. Bob O’Hara Moves to approve minutes, Seconded byAnil Sanwalka, No discussion: motion passes 40/0/2.

2.2 There were no matters rising from the minutes.

3. Reports

3.1 Excom update: Vic Hayes. Approval to send D4 of 802.11 to sponsor ballot and conditional approval to send802.11c to sponsor ballot. A study group was approved for PAN and as well as a press release for PAN.

3.2 TGrev needs to review the comments by Thursday of this week. No questions on the sponsor ballots. Therewas some confusion on the sponsor letter ballots forms. All of the response voters were YES, some withcomments, some with questions.

3.3 Study group meeting: Bob Heile gave an update of the first PAN study group meeting. The group discussedthe requirements for PAR requirements. Jim Carlo, 802.0 chair attended and provided assistance to the group.The meeting minutes are contained in document 98/159. The next interim meeting is in Dallas Texas May 20-21. For more information on PAN refer to the web site at URL: Grouper.IEEE.org/groups/802/11, which alsohas a link to the WPAN area. A straw poll of 6 people are planning to attend the meeting this week inUtrecht.

3.4 CEPT project update by Vic Hayes. The RFID and Airlan devices are to be tested by Lucent, Netherlands.The testing consist of measuring interface data between the devices. The purpose of the test is to determine ifRFID devices should be allowed to operate in the frequency band. Some discussion: Sensormatic was one ofthe companies supporting RFID. CEPT is open for comments at this time. The CEPT forms are on the IEEE802.11 web site.

4. Review of Contributions: Stuart Kerry updated the list of document submissions 98/160 thru 98/196.

5. Adoption of Agenda Vic Hayes reviewed the agenda and proposed additions to the published agenda document 11-98/153-r1.

MOTION 2: To approve adoption of agenda as amended. Moved by Anil Sanwalka, Seconded by JohnnyZweig, No discussion: Motion 2 passes 39/0/0

6. Unfinished Business6.1 Maintenance: update by Bob O’Hara6.2 TGa - update given by Dean Kawaguchi6.3 TGb - update given by John Fakatselis

May 1998 doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/122


6.4 TGc- PAN study group given by Bob Heile6.5 TGrev - update given by Bob O’Hara (only editorial issues at this point)n

7 New Business7.1 Appointment of committee tellers, discussion by Vic Hayes

MOTION 3: To appoint Al Petrick, Stuart Kerry and Vic Hayes as the teller committee for this session.Moved by Dean Kawaguchi, Seconded by Roy Sebring. Some discussion: Motion 3 passes: 44/0/0

8 Adjourn for Subgroups

Wednesday 6, May 1998

Plenary13:00PM

9. Opening: Announcements by the Chair:9.1 Roll Call, No roll call9.2 Document list update; No update9.3 Agenda update: Reviewed the outline of the agenda 98/153-r1, Changes include 1)replace for

Wednesday afternoon what is given for TGa to TGb, 2) change Thursday morning from TGb intoPlenary and TGa after adjournment of Plenary 3) Delete all Study Group Meetings for Thursday asthey have accomplished their business 4) SG meeting date from 20-21 of May to 19-21 5) Sparemeeting time for Sponsor material on Thursday “ Established teller committee” on Monday.

MOTION 4: To approve the agenda as amended. Moved by Anil Sanwalka, Seconded by Dean Kawaguchi.Discussion on Motion 4.Question called by Bob O’Hara, Seconded by Simon BlackCalled question passes: 45/4/5

MOTION 4: To approve the agenda as amended. Moved by Anil Sanwalka, No discussion permitted, Motionpasses 50/0/2.

9.4 Announcements9.4.1 Anti-trust laws reviewed by Vic Hayes stressing that product pricing should not be discussionat IEEE 802 meetings, and intellectual property pricing as well.9.4.2 reminder that each individual is representing himself and not a company.9.4.3 Stuart Kerry presented Vic Hayes with an autographed book from the attending members, forremembrance of this weeks meeting.

9.4.1 Moved to adjourn into study groups, moved by Simon Black, Seconded by Keith Admunsun;delay Plenary to maximize TG schedule meetings. Approved by voice vote.

Thursday 7, May 1998

Plenary13:00PM

9. Opening: Announcements by the Chair: Vic Hayes clarified this was a delayed plenary :9.1 Roll Call, each individual was asked to state their name, company and location. There were 67 people

at the opening of this session.9.2 Document list update: Stuart Kerry added documents 98/229 and 98/231. Some discussion on document numbers for TGa9.3 Agenda Update

May 1998 doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/122


MOTION 5: To approve agenda as shown in document 98/153-r1. Moved by Bob O’Hara, Seconded by AnilSanwalka, No discussion, Motion 5 passes 44/0/1.

9.4 Announcements: 1) The Chair gave a statement on Anti-trust laws. See document 98/153-r1. 2) Thechair clarified that each member during the attendance of the meeting should represent themselves asan individual and not as a company.

10. Old Business10.1 Report Study Group - update by Bob Heile, summary report in document 98/222 and 98/163

10.2 Report Maintenance Group - update by Bob O’Hara. The ballot was not closed and the groupneeded some more time before a report could be given.

10.3 Report from TGc - update by Victoria Poncini. The group needed some more time to come to aconclusion.

10.4 Report from TGa - update by Dean Kawaguchi, report of ballot documents.

MOTION 6: To adopt OFDM proposal by Lucent Technologies. Moved by Dean Kawaguchi, Seconded byBruce Tuch. General discussion on Motion 6.

Motion to postpone, moved by Jim Zyren, motion not allowed ruled by Chair, removed postponemotion by Jim Zyren. Jim Zyren yields the floor to Dean Kawaguchi for discussion.

Note by Chair: the Chair does not remember having ruled a motion to psotpone out of order: he would have beenappealed immediately. Chair requests members to report the actual motion made by Jim.

Dean Kawaguchi moves to accept motion 6: as stated:

MOTION 6: To adopt OFDM proposal by Lucent Technologies, Moved by Dean Kawaguchi, Seconded byBruce Tuch. No discussion Motion fails: 28/16/6 (this is a technical motion that needs 75 %, this is only 65 %)

General discussion by the plenary: Chair recommends that TGa goes back to the working group to gain consensusand resolve issues. Dean Kawaguchi recommended that Naftali Chayat accepts TGa chair. Naftali Chayat declinesbecause TGa has a BreezeCom proposal under consideration. Dean Kawaguchi accepts position as TGa chair.

10.5 Report from TGb - updated by John Fakatselis ref to document 98/219

MOTION 7: To change the voting process. Moved by Jeff Abramowitz., No second, Bob O’Hara declaredthis motion was out of order , because only TGb reporting was being conducted on the floor. This was ruledby the Chair, Vic Hayes, that this subject is covered under agenda item 11 New Business.

11. NEW BUSINESS

To help the discussion, the chair produced the motion from the January interim meeting that adopted theTGb voting:

“MOTION 10: To approve 89/54 as the schedule and modulation selection process for 2.4GHz higherrate PHY. Moved by John Fakatselis, Seconded by Jan Boer, No Discussion. Motion 10 passes18/0/1”

(Note: the minutes from January have an error the correct document number is 98/54 not 89/54.)

Greg, Ennis, - re-clarification of Motion 10 89/54 as the schedule and modulation selection process for the 2.4GHzhigher rate.

MOTION 8: To change the voting process of TGb defined in step 14 of doc 98/54 to change a secret vote tostandard technical vote and to change the requirement for >50% to be 75% or greater the 75% in order to bebrought to the Plenary. Moved by Jeff Abramowitz, Seconded by Naftali Chayat.

May 1998 doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/122


General discussion on Motion 8.

MOTION 8: Friendly amendment proposed by Bob O’Hara “To begin the process from the beginning of theweek”. Not accepted as friendly.

Motion to amend MOTION 8 to (see the italic part):MOTION 8: To change the voting process of TGb defined in step 14 of doc 98/54 to change a secretvote to standard technical vote and to change the requirement for >50% to be 75% or greater the75% in order to be brought to the Plenary and to the begin the process from the beginning of the week.Moved by Bob O’Hara, Seconded by Carl Andren.

General discussion on the motion to amend.

Question Called, by John Fakatselis, Seconded by Anil Sanwalka, as listed below:2 opposing, Question was called, the motion to amend passes with 24/19/6

MOTION 8 now reads: To change the voting process of TGb defined in step 14 of doc 98/54 to change asecret vote to standard technical vote and to change the requirement for >50% to be 75% or greater the 75%in order to be brought to the Plenary and to begin the process from the beginning of the week. Moved by BobO’Hara, Seconded by Carl Andren.

General discussion on MOTION 8

Motion to amend MOTION 8 Moved by Naftali Chayat, Seconded by Gene Miller “To halt the current TGbvoting process, to allow the presentation of merged proposals and restart the voting process of TGb.” Removetext “and to begin the process from the beginning of the week.”

The motion reads after amendment:

MOTION 8 To halt the current TGb voting process, to allow the presentation of merged proposalsand to restart the voting process of TGb. To change the voting process of TGb defined in step 14 ofdoc 98/54 to change a secret vote to standard technical vote and to change the requirement for >50%to be 75% or greater than 75% in order to be brought to the Plenary.

General discussion on motion to amend Motion 8.

Question called by John Fakatselis, Seconded by Bob O’Hara as shown below, the motion to amendpasses with 25/17/10

MOTION 8 now reads: To halt the current TGb voting process, to allow the presentation of mergedproposals and to restart the voting process of TGb. To change the voting process of TGb defined in step 14 ofdoc 98/54 to change a secret vote to standard technical vote and to change the requirement for >50% to be75% or greater than 75% in order to be brought to the Plenary.

11.1 Adjourn for Lunch, proposed by Chair, Vic Hayes

11. 2 Call to order by Chair Vic Hayes continuation of Plenary

MOTION 8 is still on the floor: To halt the current TGb voting process, to allow the presentation of mergedproposals and to restart the voting process of TGb. To change the voting process of TGb defined in step 14 ofdoc 98/54 to change a secret vote to standard technical vote and to change the requirement for >50% to be75% or greater than 75% in order to be brought to the Plenary.

Point of information raised on Motion 8 as amended: how would the Cahir interpret which proposals wouldqualify?

May 1998 doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/122


Clarification of Motion 8 by the Chair Vic Hayes. “ 5 proposals plus the merged ones, based on at least 2, ofcourse proposer can withdraw”No discussion, Question called fails 23/18/4

MOTION 9: Division of the question. Moved by Mathew Shoemake, Point of order, by Chair, division ofquestion made by a non-voter, Mathew Shoemake, yields floor to Chris Heegard.

MOTION 9: Division of the question moved by Chris Heegard Seconded by Jim Baker.

Motion 8 after division into 2 parts:2) To halt the current TGb voting process, to allow the presentation of merged proposals and to restart the voting process of TGb.

1) To change the voting process of TGb defined in step 14 of doc 98/54 to change a secret vote to standardtechnical vote and to change the requirement for >50% to be 75% or greater the 75 % in order to bebrought to the Plenary.

MOTION 8: part 1 To change the voting process of TGb defined in step 14 of doc 98/54 to change a secretvote to standard technical vote and to change the requirement for >50% to be 75% or greater the75% in order to be brought to the Plenary.

Question called, by Bob O’Hara, Seconded by John FakatselisQuestion called passes 45/6/1

MOTION 8 part 1To change the voting process of TGb defined in step 14 of doc 98/54 to change a secret voteto standard technical vote and to change the requirement for >50% to be 75% or greater the 75% in order tobe brought to the Plenary.No discussion Motion 8 part 1 passes 47/5/2

MOTION 8 Part 2 To halt the current TGb voting process, to allow the presentation of merged proposals andto restart the voting process of TGb.

MOTION 10: Amendment on Motion 8 part 2: by Wim Diepstraten Add text “to discard the result of thevoting this week.” And remove text “ restart the voting process of TGb.” And add text: “instruct TGb to finda consensus proposal.” Seconded by Ad Kamerman

MOTION 8 part 2: As amended by Wim Diepstraten would read:2) To halt the current TGb voting process, to discard the result of the voting this week, to allow thepresentation of merged proposals and to instruct TGB to find a consensus proposal.

Clarification of Motion 8 part 2 as amended, by the chair. “ 5 proposals plus X combinations of the 5proposals” “Micrilor or ; mergers of Micrilor and other of the 4 other proposals or combination of the other4 proposals”

Discussion on Motion 10Question Called, by Wim Diepstraten, Seconded by John FakatselisQuestion Called, fails 27/14/11

Discussion on Motion 10

Question called, by Johnny Zweig, Seconded by Bob O’HaraQuestion called to amend, fails 18/29/2

Discussion on Motion 10

May 1998 doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/122


Question called, by Kent Rollins, No objection to calling the question, motion 10 passes 41/10/5

Discussion on Motion 8 part 2 as amended.Question called by Keith Amundsen, Seconded by Bruce Tuch. No objection to question called,

MOTION 8 part 2: To halt the current TGb voting process, to discard the result of the voting this week, toallow the presentation of merged proposals and to instruct TGb to find a consensus proposal.

motion 8 part 2 passes 41/11/2

13. Adjourn for Subgroups, moved by Naftali Chayat, Seconded by Bruce Tuch, approved by voice-vote.

Friday 8, May 1998

Plenary13:00PM

14. Opening14.1 Announcements:14.1.1 Chair reviewed master attendance list for corrections14.1.2 Last call by Chair for free cookies14.1.3 WLAN update by Darwin Engwer14.2 Document list update by Stuart Kerry, Lucent technologies removes submission documents 98/181 and

98/192, PAN study group documents are 98/232 and 98/233. Comment file for TGa is document98/234.

14.3 Agenda adjustments

MOTION 12: To approve the amended agenda, moved by Jim Zyren, Seconded by Johnny ZwiegNo discussion, Motion 12 passes 48/0/0

15. Reports from study group15.0.1 Study group PAN report by Stuart Kerry for Ian Gifford, see document 98/222

MOTION 13: To request the 802.11 chair to acquire ExCom approval to send the letter of the SG (98/233)and to send the approved letter.No discussion, Motion 13 passes 45/0/4

15.0.2 TGc report by Victoria Poncini, see document 98/220

MOTION 14: To empower the chairs of TGc and 802.11 to process the last comments to come in, pendingclosure of the ballot with the persons that attended the TGc meeting this week (and anyone else that want toparticipate) and to submit the draft to the next step in the process (re-circulation). Moved by VictoriaPoncini, Seconded by John Fakatselis.No discussion, Motion 14 passes 46/0/2

15.0.3 TGrev report by Bob O’Hara, see document 98/221

MOTION 15: To empower the chair of TGrev and 802.11 to process the last comments to come in pendingclosure of the ballot with the persons that attended the TGrev meeting this week (and anyone else that wantsto participate) and to submit the draft to the next step in the process (re-circulation), moved by Bob O’Hara,Seconded by Simon Black.No discussion, Motion 15 passes 43/0/2

May 1998 doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/122


MOTION 16: To empower the Chair of 802.11 to bring the D5.1 or its successor to the ISO committee, movedby Bob O’Hara, Seconded by Roy Sebring No discussion, Motion 16 passes 47/0/0

15.1 TGa report by Dean Kawaguchi see document 98/218

MOTION 17: That if TGa has to re-open their selection process that they be directed to use non-secretvoting, and achieve a 75% or greater acceptance before forwarding to 802.11, moved by Keith Amundsen,Seconded by Anil Sanwalka. No discussion, Motion 17 passes 43/0/4

15.2 TGb report by John Fakatselis see document 98/219

16. Unfinished business16.1 Output documents

SG liaison letter 98/233 802.11 D5.1 +

802.11c D6 + Both comment resolution reports

16.2 Next meeting Objectives for next meeting

Continue the consensus process for TGa and TGbContinue the outstanding sponsor ballotFurther work in the SG PANMailing dates as soon as possible, weekly uploads, diskette format for those in need.July 5th interim meeting starts Sunday 4PM, prior to Monday morning

MOTION 18: To remove the Sunday part of the Interim meeting in July, moved by Dean Kawaguchi,Seconded by Roy Sebring. No discussion, Motion 18 passes 37/0/5

16.3 Future Meetings. 16.3.1 Raytheon to host September 98, Waltham, MASS

16.3.2 Harris to host January 99 in Orlando Florida, (strawpoll: 38 favor)16.3.3 BreezeCom to host May 99 in Israel (strawpoll 32 favor)16.3.4 Clarion to host May 99 in Japan (strawpoll 38 favor)

17 Closure17.1 Special thanks to Vic Hayes and Bruce Tuch of Lucent for hosting the meeting in Utrecht., declared by

Stuart Kerry, Vice Chair.

May 1998 doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/122


Attendance list for minutes Utrecht, NLFull name att. % memstatus company phone e_mailMr. Jeff Abramowitz 75 voter 3Com Corporation +1 408 764 5974 [email protected]

Dr. Reza Ahy 94 voter RadioLAN +1 408 616 6361 [email protected]

Mr. Keith B. Amundsen 100 voter Raytheon Company +1 508 490 1759 [email protected]

Mr. Carl F. Andren 95 voter HARRIS Corporation +1 407 724 7535 [email protected]

Dr. Geert Awater 90 aspirant Lucent Technologies +31 30 609 7423 [email protected]

Mr. James R. Baker 100 voter Netwave Technologies Inc. +1 925 737 1646 [email protected]

Mr. Simon Black 85 voter Intalk Ltd. +44 1223 847400 [email protected]

Mr. Jan Boer 100 voter Lucent Technologies +31 30 609 7483 [email protected]

Mr. Ronald Brockmann 100 voter No Wires Needed B.V. +31 30 228 1245 [email protected]

Mr. Wesley Brodsky 100 voter Raytheon Company +1 508 490 1616 [email protected]

Dr. John H. Cafarella 100 voter Micrilor Inc. +1 781 246 0103 [email protected]

Mr. Naftali Chayat 100 voter BreezeCom +972 3 645 6262 [email protected]

Mr. Wim Diepstraten 85 voter Lucent Technologies +31 30 609 7482 [email protected]

Mr. Richard Ditch 30 aspirant Motorola +1 602 441 0809 [email protected]

Mr. Darwin Engwer 100 voter Netwave Technologies Inc. +1 925 737 1600 [email protected]

Mr. Greg Ennis 100 nearly +1 408 358 5544 [email protected]

Mr. John Fakatselis 100 voter HARRIS Corporation +1 407 729 4733 [email protected]

Mr. Jeff Fischer 85 voter Micrilor Inc. +1 781 246 0130 [email protected]

Mr. John Fisher 65 voter Proxim Inc. +1 650 526 3703 [email protected]

Mr. Paul Fulton 100 aspirant 3Com Corporation +1 408 326 3467 [email protected]

Mr. Ian Gifford 75 voter M/A-COM Inc. +1 978 442 4650 [email protected]

Mr. Motohiro Gochi 100 voter Clarion Corporation of +1 781 245 7001 [email protected]

Mr. Tim Godfrey 95 voter Choice Microsystems +1 913 897 0908 [email protected]

Mr. Jan Haagh 100 voter Lucent Technologies +31 3060 97464 [email protected]

Mr. Richard S. Haendel 70 aspirant Rockwell-Collins Inc. +1 319 295 5663 [email protected]

Mr. Karl Hannestad 100 voter Netwave Technologies Inc. +1 925 737 1600 [email protected]

Mr. Mohammed Hasan 100 nearly Nortel +1 972 684 1732 [email protected]

Mr. Victor Hayes 100 voter Lucent Technologies +31 30 609 7528 [email protected]

Dr. Chris Heegard 100 voter Alantro Communications +1 707 521 3062 [email protected]

Mr. Robert Heile 85 voter GTE Internetworking +1 617 873 4835 [email protected]

Mr. Juha Heiskala 100 aspirant Nokia Research Center +358 9 4376 6812 [email protected]

Mr. Maarten Hoeben 100 voter No Wires Needed B.V. +31 30 228 0910 [email protected]

May 1998 doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/122


Full name att. % memstatus company phone e_mailMr. Masayuki Ikeda 95 voter Seiko Epson Corp. +81 266 52 3131 [email protected]

Mr. Kenichi Ishii 100 aspirant NEC Corporation +81 44 856 2250 [email protected]

Mr. Petri Jarske 100 aspirant Nokia Mobile Phones +358 40 510 3896 [email protected]

Mr. Donald C. Johnson 95 voter NCR +1 937 445 1452 [email protected]

Mr. Ad Kamerman 100 voter Lucent Technologies +31 30 609 7479 [email protected]

Mr. Nobuo Karaki 95 voter Epson R&D, Inc. +1 408 952 6102 [email protected]

Mr. Mika Kasslin 100 aspirant Nokia Research Center +358 9 4376 6294 [email protected]

Mr. Dean M. Kawaguchi 100 voter Symbol Technologies Inc. +1 408 369 2629 [email protected]

Mr. Stuart J. Kerry 100 voter Butterfly Communications +1 408 496 6868 [email protected].

Mr. Patrick Kinney 85 voter Intermec Technologies +1 319 369 3593 [email protected]. (Norand)

Mr. Cees Links 75 aspirant Lucent Technologies +31 30 609 7596 [email protected]

Mr. Michael Marsanu 85 nonvoter ARtem Datenfunksysteme +49 731 392 4098 [email protected]

Mr. Isao Masaki 100 voter Clarion Corporation of +1 714 790 3535 [email protected]

Mr. Jim McDonald 85 voter Motorola Inc. +1 847 576 3169 [email protected]

Mr. Gene Miller 98 voter Raytheon Company +1 508 490 1838 [email protected]

Mr. Henri Moelard 95 voter Lucent Technologies +31 30 609 7551 [email protected]

Mr. Masaharu Mori 100 voter Clarion Co. Ltd. +81 48 443 1111 [email protected]

Dr. Masahiro Morikura 100 voter NTT Wireless Systems Labs. +81 468 59 3132 [email protected]

Mr. Ravi P. Nalamati 100 voter DNPG Cabletron Systems +1 978 506 5189 [email protected].

Dr. Richard van Nee 100 voter Lucent Technologies +31 30 609 7412 [email protected]

Mr. Bob O'Hara 100 voter Informed Technology Inc. +1 212 463 7937 [email protected]

Mr. Larry P. Ochs 50 aspirant XETRON Corporation +1 513 881 3266 [email protected]

Mr. Kazuhiro Okanoue 100 voter NEC Corporation +81 44 856 2255 [email protected]

Mr. Al Petrick 100 voter HARRIS Corporation +1 407 729 4944 [email protected]

Mr. Bob Pham 100 voter NEC America Inc. +1 703 834 4486 [email protected]

Ms. Victoria M. Poncini 100 voter The Boeing Company +1 425 865 5342 [email protected]

Mr. Gregory S. Rawlins 100 voter Signal Technologies Inc. +1 407 260 0175 [email protected]

Dr. Stanley A. Reible 100 voter Micrilor Inc. +1 617 246 0103 [email protected]

Mr. Frits Riep 100 nearly DNPG Cabletron Systems +1 978 506 6962 [email protected] Inc.

Mr. Benno Ritter 85 aspirant Philips Semiconductors +1 408 991 4593 [email protected]

Mr. Kent G. Rollins 100 voter HARRIS Corporation +1 407 729 5133 [email protected]

Mr. Philippe Rouzet 20 nonvoter Dassault Electronique +33 01 34 81 45 77 [email protected]

Dr. Clemens C.W. 100 voter Siemens AG +49 89 636 5 33 25 [email protected]. Anil K. Sanwalka 100 voter Neesus Datacom Consultants +1 416 754 8007 [email protected]

May 1998 doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/122


Full name att. % memstatus company phone e_mailMr. Roy Sebring 100 voter Intermec Technologies +1 425 356 1740 [email protected]

Corp.Dr. Tie-Jun Shan 85 aspirant Lucent Technologies +1 732 949 1721 [email protected]

Mr. Matthew B. 100 nearly Alantro Communications +1 707 521 3067 [email protected] voterMr. Hitoshi Takanashi 100 voter NTT Wireless Systems Labs. +81 468 59 3471 [email protected]

Ms. Cherry Tom 100 voter AT&T Laboratories +1 973 386 4192 [email protected]

Mr. Tom Tsoulogiannis 100 voter Neesus Datacom Consultants +1 416 754 8007 [email protected]

Mr. Bruce Tuch 100 voter Lucent Technologies +31 3060 97527 [email protected]

Mr. Eric Vallet 20 nonvoter Dassault Electronique +33 1 49 11 80 08 [email protected]

Mr. Ikuo Wakayama 100 nearly NEC Corporation +81 423 33 5485 [email protected]

Mr. Mark Webster 85 nearly HARRIS Corporation +1 407 724 7537 [email protected]

Mr. Steven A. 80 voter M/A-COM Inc. +1 978 442 4621 [email protected]. Johnny Zweig 100 voter Netwave Technologies Inc. +1 925 737 1600 [email protected]

Mr. Jim Zyren 100 voter HARRIS Corporation +1 407 729 4177 [email protected]

May 1998 doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/122


Meeting Plan1998

• July 6-10 - Hyatt Regency La Jolla, San Diego, CA, Plenary

• Sept 14-18 - Waltham, MA, tentative, Interim (Raytheon)

• November 9-13 - Hyatt Regency, Albuquerque, NM, Plenary

1999

• Jan TBD - Orlando area, FL, Interim (Harris)

• March 8-12 - Hyatt Regency, Town Lake, Austin, TX, Plenary

• May TBD - Japan?, Interim (Clarion)

• July 5-9 - Queen Elizabeth, Montreal, PQ

• Sept TBD - Israel?, Interim (BreezeCom)

• November 8-12 - Hyatt Regency Kauai, Koloa, HI

June1998 doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/224

Tentative minutes TGa page 1 Geert Awater, Lucent Technologies

Tentative Minutes of the IEEE P802.11Task Group A Meeting

Utrecht, the Netherlands

4 to 8 May 1998

Meeting 1: Monday, 4 May 1998

Opening

Meeting called to order by Dean Kawaguchi at 14.00, Geert Awater, volunteers to be act as secretary and take thenotes for this meeting.

Objectives for this meeting

1. Assess Voting procedure.

2. NEC/Breezecom presentation.

3. Lucent/NTT presentation.

4. RadioLAN presentation.

5. Other presentations, independent of a particular proposal.

6. Comparison matrix.

There is no volunteer for maintenance of the comparison matrix. In the absence of an independent volunteer,Breezecom will maintain the matrix.

As soon as modulation type is selected Dean Kawaguchi will hand off chairmanship to Naftali Chayat.

1.1 Voting procedure

Selection process will eliminate one proponent at a time. There will be 2 voting rounds. Provided TG-A uses thesame procedure as TG-B with the exception that there are just 2 rounds, and all voting happens at the same day, onTuesday afternoon.

Motion 1.1: To accept voting procedure as described by Dean Kawaguchi.Moved by Naftali Chayat. Seconded by Henry Moelard.Motion passes 35–0–1

1.2 NEC/Breezecom presentation

1.3 Lucent/NTT presentation

1.4 RadioLAN presentation

1.5 Other presentations

NEC gives presentation on system capacity and the relation to Clear Channel Assessment threshold.

1.6 Comparison Matrix

All above agenda items are completed at 18.00, so the meeting can be adjourned earlier at 19.00. Remainingquestions about the presentations moved to panel discussion the next day.

Motion 1.2: To adjourn at 7pm.Moved by Don Johnson, seconded by Anil Sanwalka.

Motion to amend by addition of the sentence “provided the template has been presented and theissues have been discussed.”Moved by Naftali Chayat

June1998 doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/224


Second unknownMotion passes by unanimous consent

Motion 1.2 now reads: To adjourn at 7pm, provided the template has been presented and the issues have beendiscussed.

Motion 1.2 passes by unanimous consent

Naftali Chayat presents the matrix template.

Reza Ahy points out there are 2 points of contention related to the matrix

1. Proposers have different interpretation for delay spread tolerance entry. (Lucent/NTT: delay spread 150ns,RadioLAN: 100 ns, Breezecom/NEC: maximum delay spread for every rate):

2. Power consumption data should be added to the matrix template.

Extended discussion on the interpretation of the power consumption entry. The general agreement is that this tablecan be derived directly from data already available in the matrix.

Motion 1.3: To add power consumption table to the comparison matrix.Moved by Reza AhySeconded by Johnny Zweig

Discussion on how the entry should be calculated. However, the question is called as the motion does not specify thecontents of the entry.

motion to call the questionMoved by JohnnySeconded by Anil SanwalkaNo objections: question is called.

Motion 1.3 passes 20–14–10

Chair declares this motion technical

Appealed by Bob O’HareSeconded by: unknown

Vic Hayes claims that this motion is procedural.

Motion to call the questionMoved by Vic HayesSeconded by Stuart Kerry.Motion to appeal the chair passes: 14–10–19

Motion 1.3 is procedural.

Discussion on what should be put in table.

Motion 1.4: To use backoff for the 20% power amp efficiency at 3 Volts for 17 dBm transmit power in thelower band and 24 dBm for the middle band.Moved by Reza AhySeconded by Steven Zelubowski

Naftali Chayat objects that this is a particular scenario which would represent existing data in such a way that itemphasizes the advantages of one particular proposal.

Anil Sanwalka: calls the questionReza Ahy opposed to calling the question.Vote on calling the question: 29–2–5

The question is calledMotion 1.4 fails 2–26–9

Motion 1.5: To close the issue and let the proposers determine the intention of the group.Moved by Anil SanwalkaSeconded by Tom Tsoulogiannis

Johnny Zweig remarks that remaining issues and questions can be addressed in the panel discussion the next day.

June1998 doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/224


Bob: calls the questionSeconded by: unknown.None opposedMotion 1.5 passes 34–0–5

Reza Ahy withdraws objection related to the multipath entry in the matrix.

Adjourn

Meeting is adjourned at 20.00.

June1998 doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/224


Meeting 2: Tuesday, 5 May 1998

Opening

Meeting called to order by Dean Kawaguchi at 14.25, Geert Awater is present and ready to take the notes.


1. Present comparison matrix data.

2. Question and answer to panel of proposing teams.

3. Voting on the three proposals.

4. Presentation of results.

5. Voting on the remaining two proposals.

6. Presentation of results.

Voting proposal 1,2,3 none abstain. Same procedure as for TG-B.

2.1 Present comparison matrix data

Naftali Chayat enters power consumption data in matrix. There was disagreement on what the data represent. It wasagreed that every proposer provide what they want for this entry. Take note that the data of the different proposalsare not directly comparable.

Discussion on format of matrix presentation. It is agreed that first Naftali Chayat gives a general presentation of thematrix. Then each of the proposers present their data.

2.2 Question and answer to panel of proposing teams

2.2.1. Questions from the meeting to the panel

Q: Why do the 20 Mbit/s and 30 Mbit/s ACK packets have the same duration for the Lucent/NTT proposal?

A: Caused by modulation granularity. ACK is less than an OFDM symbol, hence they have the same length.

Q: Are interleaving effects taken into account for timing data?

A: Yes.

Q: In RadioLAN proposal, how is raised cosine waveform maintained?

A: RF distortion is compensated by pulse shape predistortion.

Q: In RadioLAN proposal: how can presented CCA time be greater than slot time?

A: Is an error CCA time = 1.2 µs, SlotTime = 3 µs.

Q: RadioLAN proposal has equal sensitivity as other proposals. How is that possible, given the larger bandwidth?

A: Insensitivity is lower than Breezecom/NEC by 1 dB.

Q: To each of the proposers: comment on the intellectual property issues. How do implementers judge the cost of theproposals?

A: (Breezecom/NEC) We have no patents.

A: (RadioLAN) We have patents, only on implementation. What has been presented is available and well known.Offers possibility to license our chips.

A: (NTT) We have patents, but only in Japan.

A: (Lucent): Details provided by Bruce Tuch. 5% of the selling price. 5% of ASIC chip, or 5% what it would costfor you to make it. We have two patents, and we will not make royalties on patents. Subjects: Use of fallbackrates in OFDM. They do not overlap completely with the proposal at hand.

2.2.2 Proposers’ questions to each other.

Breezecom/NEC to RadioLAN

June1998 doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/224


Q: How did you test or simulate, the effect of the PA switching on the pulse shape? We do not believe that productwill pass test with such low back-off. If you do not switch, then you have a higher utilization of the PA, andhence much higher power consumption.

A: If the PA is not switched: the question is not applicable. If you do switch, compensate for distortion in the baseband. We simulated PA non-linearity.

Lucent/NTT to Breezecom/NEC

Q: In which table of the template is the non-linearity of the PA taken into account?

A: In adjacent channel interference, there you must use it otherwise results are meaningless. All of the back-offrelated tables (regulatory issues) do take it into account.

Q: Your out-off band is power 10 dB higher than ours. How can your adjacent channel performance better?

A: Channel center is 20MHz from band edge: OFDM spectrum shape is low and wide. Yours is high and then dropssharply sharp. OFDM wins far away, Single carrier wins nearby.

Not what we see in the proposal document. The OFDM spectrum has less out of band power, as can be concludedfrom the graphs you provided.

Discussion about curves, drawn in channelization scheme.

Q: You updated template twice recently and tolerable delay spread has improved. However, receiver sensitivity didnot improve. Explain.

A: Numbers improved by 10%, as we solved to problems in the carrier tracking loop algorithm in multipathenvironment. Receiver sensitivity is not very sensitive to delay spread. Phase noise tolerance also improved.

RadioLAN to Breezecom

Q: Did you analyze error propagation effects of the equalizer?

A: All number include all decoding and DFE effects.

Q: Have you looked at what has been learned through the course of HiperLAN 1 (a 23 Mbit/s single carrierstandard)? They are no products.

A: The process of standardization of HiperLAN happened earlier. Technology was not yet mature. For this proposal,there are no time gaps related to availability of technology. Our preamble structure makes it easier to do betterchannel estimation.

Q: You cited back-off advantage to Lucent/NTT proposal. Your actual numbers are very similar to those ofLucent/NTT, sometimes worse. Explain.

A: Back-of advantage is watered down in most environments. Table shows that for the medium and low band data,there is no difference because of regulations. For lower power implementations, we do have full advantage.

Breezecom/NEC to NTT/Lucent

Q: Do back-off result include any technique for peak-to-average reduction?

A: No specific technology was assumed.

2.3 Voting on three proposals

The three proposers each give a 5 minute summary of their proposals.

Nobody is requesting a reading of the rules. There are 3 proposals. “None of the above” counts as a vote, abstaindoes not. If there is one which has more than a 50% vote, then the voting stops.

Votes are cast and processed.

2.4 Presentation of results

Votes cast: 56non voters leaving the room: 12ballots: 56invalid: 0valid: 56

June1998 doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/224


Breezecom/NEC: 28 (50.0 %)Lucent/NTT: 23 (41.1 %)RadioLAN: 4 ( 7.1 %)None: 1 ( 1.8 %)Abstain: 0 ( 0.0 %)

Total: 56

The Breezecom/NEC and Lucent/NTT proposals proceed to the next round of voting.

2.5. Voting on two remaining proposals.

2.5.1 Round of questions

Q: Power consumption of OFDM proposal.

A: what really matters for the users is battery life. Assume receive power is 10 times more important than transmitpower. Lucent/NTT proposal uses 140mW of power (10% TX, 90% RX) versus 300mW power for 100% TX.

Q: Compare complexity of the proposals.

A: (Lucent/NTT): Equalizer is more complex than FFT based approach. DSP design much more difficult for DFE.Simple receiver is important if you’re transmitting only 10% of the time.

A: (Breezecom/NEC): 6 iterations of the Gauss-Seidel algorithm are needed to initialize the equalizer. Each iterationtakes about the number of feed forward filter taps, squared. Since you already have a vector multiplier for yourFIR, you need about 6 times the number of taps in time units. Time units are less than 4 microsecond (since wehave to make up for the extra delay caused by the equalizer initialization). In the case of 8 taps, we need about 30microseconds to compute equalizer initialization. Then we have to close the time gap by doing equalization fasterthan real time.

Q: Phase offset ripples through equalizer in he single carrier proposal. Do you take that into account?

A: By the time samples reach equalizer, LO offset is already compensated, using a phase tracking loop. The echoesin the channel have different phase rotations. The FFE compensates for different phase rotations.

2.5.2 Final address

Breezecom/NEC: The single carrier system has an efficient transmitter, OFDM has an efficient receiver. Use of anasymmetric scheme would be ideal, but in the real world we need symmetric modulation scheme. In outdoor we usedirectional antenna’s, so that delay spread comes down to around 150 ns. This is what the equalizer can deal with.

Lucent/NTT: It would be a wrong approach to a choose system with a fixed delay spread. There would be a huge gapbetween what you can buy today in 2.4 GHz band and what you can buy in the 5.2 GHz band tomorrow. The onlyadvantage of the single carrier system is its power back-off. However, in the restricted band OFDM is actually betterthan the single carrier proposal. Worst case back-off for the single carrier oposal is also higher than for OFDM.Battery life is determined more by the receiver than by the transmitter, and the equalizer is difficult. Equalizertraining is also difficult. Technique presented by Breezecom/NEC to initialize is a novel subject, which is not wellunderstood. OFDM is a mature technique for higher bit rates.

2.5.3 Voting

Votes are cast and processed.

2.6 Presentation of results of the second voting round.

Votes cast: 58non voters leaving the room: 15ballots: 58invalid: 0valid: 58

Breezecom/NEC: 24 (41.4 %)Lucent/NTT 31 (53.4 %)None: 2 ( 3.4 %)Abstain: 1 ( 1.7 %)

Total 58

The Lucent/NTT proposal is selected and will be forwarded to the 802.11 plenary meeting.

June1998 doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/224


Adjourn

Meeting is adjourned at 17.00.

June1998 doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/224


Meeting 3: Thursday, 7 May 1998

Opening



The original objective was: “To work on detailed text of selected proposal.” Since the selected proposal wasapproved by the plenary with a 65% vote, the objective is changed (see minutes) in:

1. Raise acceptance of Lucent/NTT proposal to 75% vote by plenary meeting.

3.1 Raise acceptance of Lucent/NTT proposal to 75% vote by plenary meeting.

Motion 3.1: To adopt an open comment resolution process on any concerns of anybody with the objection ofgetting 75% vote. Moved by John Fakatselis. Seconded by Hitoshi Takanashi.

Discussion on whether a 3 hour discussion is sufficient to replace a letter ballot, which is a 30 day process.Discussion on whether the single carrier proposal should be take in consideration for proposing to the plenarymeeting.

Motion to amend by changing motion 3.1 into “Conduct a Q&A process on the OFDM and OQAMproposal select one by majority and ratify forwarding of it by a 75% vote.”Moved by Reza Ahy.Motion void, for absence of second.

John Fakatselis takes over the chair so Dean Kawaguchi can second the motion.

Motion to amend by changing motion 3.1 into. “Conduct a Q&A process on the OFDM and OQAMproposal select one by majority and ratify forwarding of it by a 75% vote. “Moved by Reza Ahy, seconded by Dean Kawaguchi.Motion to amend fails 8–17–10.

John Fakatselis hands the chair back to Dean.

Motion 3.1 passes 19–4–13

Discussion on how to conduct the comment resolution process. The chair proposes to have a 10 minute recess, inwhich everyone can write down their questions on the OFDM proposal.

Straw poll: How many voters are present and when do they intend to leave?

Voters currently present: 34Voters leaving before Friday 8 May, 15.00: 5Voters leaving before Friday 8 May, 17.00: 9

Straw poll: Until what time does the assembly want to continue?

• indefinite: 0 votes• until 23.00: 1 vote• until 19:00: 23 votes

The chair recommends to adjourn the meeting at 19.00, and decide to continue or stop at that time.

Questions and issues are posed and discussed answered. For an account, see submission IEEE P802.11 98-234. (filename 82347A-Question-answers-NTTLucent.doc).

At 19.00, chair proposes to extend meeting by half an hour. Approved by acclamation due to positive exchange ofinformation and belief that most of technical topics can be covered. IP questions are deferred until the next day.

Adjourn

Meeting is adjourned at 19.30 hours.

June1998 doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/224


Meeting 4: Friday, 8 May 1998

Opening



1. Cover IP questions related to the Lucent/NTT OFDM proposal.

2. Draft agenda for next meeting.

4.1 Cover IP questions related to the Lucent/NTT OFDM proposal

Motion 4.1: To recommend to the plenary to approve the 98/72r3 as a Draft TG-A standard and forward it toa WG ballot.Moved by Naftali Chayat, Seconded by Hitoshi Takanashi.Motion 4.1 fails: 19–19–4

Vic Hayes summarizes IEEE policy and bylaws with respect to patents. Discussion on whether we can discusspatents and Lucent Technologies IP position. The chair remarks that the bylaws mention patents, not IP position, andrules that the meeting can discuss Lucent’s IP position, without any mentioning fees.

No appeal.

Questions are asked and answered, as described in submission IEEE P802.11 98–234. (file name 82347A-Question-answers-NTTLucent.doc).

4.2 Draft Agenda for next meeting

The chair proposes an agenda item for next meeting

1. Responses to ballot questions.

Motion 4.2: A ballot for agree on a single carrier proposal.Moved by Jim McDonald, Seconded by Kazuhiro Okanoue, (Keith Amundsen withdraws his initial secondbecause of improper wording of the motion on the screen.)

Motion is reworded by the chair:

Motion 4.2bis: To add an agenda item. A ballot to ask what it would take to agree on a single carrierproposal. Moved by Jim McDonald, Seconded by Kazuhiro Okanoue.

Motion to amend: To add and agenda item “Vote on the acceptance of the OFDM proposal before theprevious agenda item.”Moved by Anil Sanwalka, seconded by Carl Andren.Motion is amended 31-0-6

Motion to amend: To rename the agenda in question item to “A discussion to ask what it would take toagree on a single carrier proposal if the vote fails.”Moved by Reza Ahy. Seconded by Anil Sanwalka.Amendment passes by acclamation.

Motion 4.2bis now reads: To add an agenda item “A discussion to ask what it would take to agree on a singlecarrier proposal if the vote fails and Vote on the acceptance of the OFDM proposal before the this agendaitem.”Naftali Chayat calls the question. Seconded by Anil SanwalkaMotion 4.2bis passes 27–11–3

Agenda for July 1998 meeting• • Responses to Ballot questions• • Vote on acceptance of OFDM proposal.• • A discussion to ask what would it take to agree on a single carrier proposal if the vote fails

June1998 doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/224


Closure

Meeting is closed on 15.03

Attendance listsee the minutes of the plenary meeting, 98/223

Future meetingssee the minutes of the plenary meeting, 98/223

May 1998 doc.: IEEE P802.11-98/225

Tentative minutes TGb May 98 page 1 Carl Andren, Harris Semiconductor

IEEE P802.11Wireless LANs

Tentative Minutes of Task /group B

May 4, 1998

Meeting in Utrecht, the Netherlands

Secretary:

Carl Andren

Harris Corporation, Semiconductor Division

Palm Bay, FL 32905

Phone: 407-724-7535Fax: 407-724-7886

e-Mail: [email protected]

Monday, AMKent Rollins, temporary secretary, and Carl Andren being secretary the remainder of the week, tentative minutesedited by John Fakatselis and Vic Hayes.John Fakatselis, ChairStuart Kerry and Vic Hayes will act as parliamentarians.

Review of the agenda.Presentations on Tuesday, Wednesday evening.Wednesday matrix overview, panel discussion, voting.Voting is not elimination in this round, select the best this time.A total of 1.5 hours are provided to each proposer.There were some doubts about the timing of the votes and the actual voting process in relation to what fallsoff, and when the selection is made.Table the agenda approval until the selection process is discussed.

Selection process overview.Reviewed the selection steps.Discussion of the final proposal selection process: Group that defined the process intended to avoidmultiple rounds by voting for the favourite and the leader wins. The final selection should be at least 50%,But not defined.The Chair. recommends for step 14. Vote is for favourite. Eliminate the lowest voters. A least two proposalsmust be in the final round.How are the final two chosen?Members wondered why TGb would need just 50 % whereas the plenary has to get 75 % for adoption, howcompromises would be considered where we currently only have an entire proposal to vote on and whetherthe final round would be at least 2 or just 2 proposals to vote on or whether the process would stop if one

May 1998 doc.: IEEE P802.11-98/225


proposal reached the majority. The current selection process (98/54, approved at the plenary meeting inMarch as motion 10) calls for a majority to bring a selected proposal to the plenary. Compromise proposalsin the past were made off-line, none have been brought to this meeting, one possibility could be to move fora recess between votes to prepare a compromise.After a long discussion, the interpretation of the rules were summarised as multiple voting on the favouriteof the available proposals, none and abstain; one tick per ballot form, that abstains are not counted, that thevoting would stop if one proposal reached majority, that the lowest one would be removed from the list.Once voting begins, the rounds would follow each other without repetition of presentations or panels.The Chair asked for any objection to voting for the favourite proposal? There were None.The Chair then reviewed background of the PAR. By asking a member to write down letters A-E on piecespaper with hidden names of the proposals, he defined the order of presentations.

A RaytheonB MicrilorC LucentD HarrisE Alantro

Random selection for the second data presentations.A AlantroB HarrisC RaytheonD MicrilorE Lucent

Motion to add the following clarifications to document 98/54 selection step 14.

n Selection of the Final proposal with most votes at the task group level.

A secret vote will take place to eventually choose the proposal with the most votes.

There will be multiple more rounds of voting eliminating the proposal with the least votes at eachround ,

until one proposal receives more than 50% of the votes.

The ballot will ask for the best proposal (only one vote) in addition a none of the above category willbe included.

The first round of balloting will take place after the first round of presentations and the result will beannounced.

The final selection will be presented as the recommendation of the task group to IEEE802.11 forapproval.

Mover/Seconder: Bob O’Hara/ AnilMotion to amend: final selection will be voted on by the group before going to plenary. With a 75%

vote required.Mover/seconder: Chris Heegard/ unknown.

After some discussion, the Question is called by Bob O’Hara, second by Johnny ZweigCall for the question: 44/0/0, question is called

Result of vote on motion: 7/31/4, the motion to amend fails. The main motion passes.Back on the adoption of the agendaMotion: Tuesday voting to eliminate one proposal. Wednesday voting to get to one proposal.Mover/Seconder: Unknown/unknownResult of vote on motion: 41-0-0. Motion passes

May 1998 doc.: IEEE P802.11-98/225


John F. Presented final agenda.IEEE802.11 TASK GROUP B

MAY 4-8 1998 , UTRECHT, the NETHERLANDSAGENDA

MONDAY

n n CALL TO ORDER

n n SECRETARY APPOINTMENT

n n PROCEDURAL

n n PARLIAMENTARIAN APPOINTMENT

n n COMPARISSON MATRIX TEAM

n n APPROVAL OF AGENDA.

n n APPROVAL OF MARCH 1998 MINUTES.

n n BACKGROUND

n n SELECTION PROCESS OVERVIEW.

n n CALL FOR PAPERS

n n PROPOSERS (submissions estimate)

n n ALANTRO 3 submissions

n n HARRIS 6 submissions

n n LUCENT 8 submissions

n n MICRILOR 6 submissions

n n RAYTHEON 3 submissions

n n OTHERS

n n Symbol 1 submission

n n STI 1 submission/presentation

n n ORDER OF PRESENTATIONS (BY PROPOSAL)

n n ADJURN

TUESDAY

n n PRESENTATIONS BY PROPOSERS

n n 8:15 - 9:00 A. Raytheon

n n 9:00 - 9:45 B. Micrilor

n n 9:45 - 10:30 C. Lucent

May 1998 doc.: IEEE P802.11-98/225


n n 10:30 - 10 :45 BREAK

n n 10:45 - 11:30 D. Harris

n n 11:30 - 12:15 E. Alantro

n n First round of voting

n n Announcement of voting results

WEDNSDAY

n n PROPOSAL PRESENTATIONS

n n 8:15 - 9:00 A

n n 9:00 - 9:45 B

n n 9:45 - 10:30 C

n n 10:30 - 10 :45 BREAK

n n 10:45 - 11:30 D

n n 11:30 - 12:15 GENERAL PAPERS PRESENTATIONS

WEDNSDAY AFTERNOON AND/OR EVENING.

n n MATRIX OVERVIEW

n n PANEL DISCUSSION

n n CLOSING ARGUMENTS

n n FINAL VOTING ROUNDS

n n ADJURN

Motion to approve the agenda Roy/ Dean 34-0-6Counted the number of submissions:Alantro 3, Harris 6, Lucent 8, Micrilor 6, Raytheon 3, Symbol 1There was one general presentationAgenda approved.Meeting adjourned

May 1998 doc.: IEEE P802.11-98/225


Tuesday, April 5, 1998, AM

Presentations by all participants

Raytheon,Wes Brodsky presented document 98/177, highlighting Amplifier back off, AM/PM conversion, Compare offset tonon offset, Sidelobe levels for ACI specification

Micrilor,John Cafarella presented Method of Including Effects in Throughput Modelling 98/207His second presentation: System Capacity with Channelization 98/208

LucentAd Kamerman presented Impact of delay spread robustness on coverage range. 98/179.Bruce Tuch presented: Element of a Successful Standard 08/198

AnnouncementBob O’Hara announced the Tgrev is working on comments from ballot LMSC. Meeting in room 225 for802.11 rev.

Voting procedures reviewed.The Chair showed the ballot form and responded to questions that this format was changed to makecounting more easy and that percentages are only counted from votes on proposals and on none, not onabstentions

HarrisMichael Marsanu, Aironet,. presented doc.: 98/209 FCC grants approval to AironetCarl Andren, Harris, presents doc.:98/116r1 Harris ProposalMark Webster, Harris, presents doc.: 98/200a, Review equaliser.

Alantro,Chris Heegard presents Alantro FCC Correspondence as given in doc.: 98/185

votingChair will rule on the process for selection. Clarification to the original document 98/58.Clarified 50% rule for ending rounds. Basically, If any proposal gets over 50%, that ends voting and goes to thewhole group. If no proposal gets 50%, the proposal with the least votes is dropped and the voting process continued.Motion needed to adopt choice, abstain vote does not count.

On a question what happens if there would be a tie on the last place, the chair responds that the rules allow only oneto be eliminated.Motion to adopt one of the following;Mover/Seconder: Stuart Kerry/Al Petrick

Vote on the motion 56-0-1. Motion passesGroup will resume at 1250 vote announced at 1255.

Voters 57 leaving room

May 1998 doc.: IEEE P802.11-98/225


non-voters 14 leaving roomballots 57invalid 1total 56

Company number %Harris 25 43Lucent 14 24Micrilor 12 21Raytheon 3 5Alantro 1 1.7None 1 1.7Invalid 1 1.7Abstain 0 0total valid 56

Therefore, at this time, the Alantro Proposal is removed.The meeting is adjourned at about 13:15 for a late lunch.

Wednesday, May 6, 98, AMMeeting opened by John FakatselisContinue with presentations

LucentJan Boer provides a description of BCPM (doc.: 98/175)Ad Kammerman gives a presentation of doc.: 98/180.

Raytheon.Wes Brodsky presents but has no slides.

MicrilorMass Mori presents the advantages of code channelization along Doc.: 98/143John Caferella continues the presentation.

HarrisMark Webster, makes a summary of Harris’ advantagesCarl Andren, describes the short preamble along with IP position versus the other proposals.

General presentationsThe next item in the agenda called for presentations of general papers not linked directly to any of the proposals. Thechair asked representatives of each proposal to review the general paper submissions and determine if they indeedwere general. The review team responded unanimously that 98/214 was a general paper, but there were 2 objectionsto 98/204.The paper doc.: 98/204 by Greg Rawlins titled “Comparison for 3 frequency vs. 2 frequency plans” was dropped.This paper was considered to favor directly the 2 channel approaches by the Chair common to Harris and Lucentand it was suggested by the Chair that Harris or Lucent accept it as part of their allocated time for presentation.Paper 98/214 by Jeff Abramowitz qualified for presentation with unanimous consent of the reviewers.

May 1998 doc.: IEEE P802.11-98/225


Jeff Abromiwitz, 3-COMPresented Paper 98/214 giving a prospective of what is important for the 802.11 high rate WLAN market

The Chair reviewed the remaining part of the agenda for the week. Chris H. requested a presentation in theafternoon.

Meeting adjourned.

Wednesday, May 6, 98, 1:20 PMFull group meeting moved to Thursday morning and TGb moved to here.

Comparison matrix, William Roberts from AMI will not be attending.Karl Hannestead will take the lead for discussing the matrix.

Karl Hannestad, NetwaveReview of the filled in comparison matrix.

Discussion of the agenda by John Fakatselis.

Panel discussionCarl AndrenJohn CafferellaBruce TuchWes Brodsky

Closing Statements

Mark Webster, HarrisSemi company, working on high rate for last 2 years. Low complexity, backwards compatability, regulatorycompliance, no license, no feeNon complex, based on textbook techniques.Working silicon in the labresponsive to concerns.

Keith Amundsen, RaytheonQPSK yields a power efficiency advantage, especially over Lucent3 channels is needed, the Harris proposal is the most likely to consider incorporating our ideas.

Bruce Tuch, LucentLucent is not a chip provider, 10 MBps with low complexity without pulling back in rate, Holistic approach.In very bad environment will be more robust, we are not in the business, we will supply the SPW code. Lucent willhelp you to become a successful wireless provider.Lets make a standard we can be proud of.

John Caferella, MicrilorThe issue of IP is that our requirements are benign.

May 1998 doc.: IEEE P802.11-98/225


MasS Mori: we have a chip supplier we have instructed to license the chips to anyone if the standard is made on ourproduct. In Japan the boundary for 2.4 GHz may expand. We learned from Lucent, we needed a channel matchedfilter.John, If 3 channels are needed, we have the half rate option. This will give 5 or 9 MBps and 3 channels. If you wantthe ability to put everybody on the same code, you can do it. When you do not have a sys admin to set up channels,you can do it.

Voting process, ballot 2Proposal number %Harris 26 44.8Lucent 15 25.8Micrilor 15 25.8Raytheon 1 1.72None 1 1.72Abstain 0 0Total 58 100

58 ballotsRaytheon removednext round,

Ballot 3 was discarded as the form still contained Raytheon by mistake.

Voting process, ballot 4

Proposal number %Harris 24 41Lucent 16 28Micrilor 17 29None 1 2Abstain 0 0Total 58 100

Voting process, ballot 5

Proposal number %Harris 28 48Micrilor 29 50None 1 2Abstain 0 0Total 58 100

Since no one got >50%, a quandary is on hand. On one hand Harris is eliminated, but Micrilor did not get over 50%of the vote.

Much argument on whether or not Harris was eliminated by this round. General consensus with the chairs agreementis that Harris is eliminated and the next vote would normally be: Micrilor or None.

Motion to postpone the ballot process to the Friday TGb meeting because it looks like there is no cleardirection and ask the interested parties of their willingness to work on a compromise throughthe start of the Friday TGb meeting.

Mover/seconder: Keith/Bruce

May 1998 doc.: IEEE P802.11-98/225


Chair rules this motion valid.Appeal the chair: the motion is out of orderAppealer/seconder: by Johnny/Simon

Call for the question by Chris/Keith. Vote result 51/0/4 The question is called.Vote on appeal is: 16/30/5 , therefore the motion is out of order.

Jeff Abromowitz: Point of Order: I question the validity of the voting due to voting irregularities that would beexplained by ‘block voting’. In this case, I believe that the 802 voting rules change to one vote per company.

Vic: there is no proof of block voting, so there is no way to apply that rule.Keith: What is the actual wording and how does it apply when there was a secret vote

Vote to adjourn until 9PM to let the parliamentarians solve the question about block voting.

After re-convening,, the chair did a review of any Block Voting references that himself and theparliamentarians were able to surface during the recess. The following references were presented to thegroup.

Standards companionIt is also the chair's responsibility to ensure that the workinggroup knows they represent only themselves, not their company or another interest.

LMSC Operating rulesExCom3.4.1 Voting GuidanceIt is expected that LMSC Executive Committee members will vote as both professionals and as individual experts,except under the Directed Position provisions of Procedure 8, and not as a member of any affiliate block(organization, alliance, company, consortium, special interest group, etc.). If substantive evidence is presented to theLMSC Chair that this provision is violated, the LMSC Executive Committee will meet to consider what, if any,action to take on the presented evidence. Such action may include any action up to and including arecommendation for removal from office.

Working group5.1.4.4 Working Group Chair’s AuthorityTo carry out the responsibilities cited in 0 5.1.4.3 Working Group Chair’s Responsibilities, the Working GroupChair has the authority to:a) Call meetings and issue meeting minutes.b) Decide which issues are technical and which are procedural.c) Establish Working Group rules beyond the Working Group rules set down by the Executive Committee. Theserules must be written and all Working Group members must be aware of them.d)Assign/unassign subtasks and task leaders or executors, e.g. secretary, subgroup chair, etc.e) Determine if the Working Group is dominated by an organization, and, if so, treat that organizations’ vote as one(with the approval of the Executive Committee).f) Make final determination if and how negative letter ballots are to be resolved when a draft standard,recommended practice, or guideline, is to be sent to the Executive Committee for approval for Sponsor BallotGroup voting.g) Collect fees to meet Working Group expenses.

Parliamentarians and chair could find no clear path of how the Task group could resolve even if true.The Chairman asked for a straw poll to determine who in the room “thought that improper voting hadtranspired”. Some members stated that they would be reluctant to state this in the open. The chair asked tohave the attendees return their opinion anonymously on a piece of paper indicating Yes (if suspectingimpropriety) or No. After the count of the straw poll by the chair and the parliamentarians, the chair stated that there is asignificant number (12Y, 21N) of members that believe that there was a problem . There were a few votesvoided as unreadable and nearly half of the attendees abstained by not returning a vote. Following the

May 1998 doc.: IEEE P802.11-98/225


discussion and the straw poll:

The chair rules to submit to the executive committee the concern of block voting expressed viaa “point of order” for resolution and direction.Appeal of the chair’s ruling by Wes Brodsky/Jeff fisher.In the debate on the appeal members repeatedly said there was no evidence of any groupdominating the organization and that the group should not cease work. Rather have the ExComrule on this. The appealing members argued that the matter should remain within the workinggroup rather than being escalated to the ExCom.The chair clarified the ruling to add that the work in the task group will continue if the ruling issustained.The next step would be the vote of Micrilor vs. None. The chair asked several times if the member that placed the point of order would withdraw hispoint without success. A big factor was the fact that the term “block voting” is not clearly defined.

Call the question by Al Petrick, seconder unknown. (26/5/3) the question is called.On the question of appealing the chair (19/29/7)

Motion to adjourn Al Petrick/Naftali Chayat (23/19/11) The meeting is adjourned at about 22:15 h.Note from Vic: the point of order was still not solved.

Friday, May 8, 98 AM

There was a talk by Vic on the proper way to do secretarial minutes and notes on patents. This is from the ‘IEEEStandards Companion’.A discussion started on whether the patent holder should disclose what was protected by IP, whether the technicaldetails could be discussed and whether more was needed than the IP statement as given by the holder. No conclusionwas reached.

Meeting opened with Voter count48 voting members, we need 42.5 for a quorum.

Status summaryWe are in the middle of discussing the changing the rules to insure that the TG will have a 75% vote in plenary. Thefloor is opened to combinations of the proposals.

Discussion and clarification of Plenary direction to the group (how do we moveon)The Plenary Directs TGb:1. To change the voting process of TGb as defined in step 14 of doc 98/54 to change a secret vote to a standard

technical vote and to change the requirement from >50% to be 75% or greater than 75 % in order to be broughtto the plenary.

2. To halt the current voting process, to discard the results of voting this week, to allow the presentation of mergedproposals and to instruct the TGb to find a consensus proposal.

Interpretation by Vic: (5 proposals plus merged ones, based on at least 2. Of course proposer can withdraw.) Concern was expressed regarding the definition of a merged proposal versus new proposals, whether somebody maymake a merger of two proposals, not being either of the base proposers and how far the merged proposal may containnew elements. For instance, the merged proposals should replace the original proposals.Anil: The interpretation is that we need new proposals from the proposersThis can be synopsised as:1. can we propose a new proposal2. who can present a proposal

May 1998 doc.: IEEE P802.11-98/225


3. what is a merged proposal4. is it two existing ones combined5. can they be substantially different

6. can an original be a modified, not merged proposal,the following motion was made:Motion: Accept the following text

Acceptable proposals are the existing 5 proposals, possibly modified (but not to the extent that itmakes them new proposals as determined by TGb) by the original proposer; and any proposalwhich combines substantial elements of two or more of 5 existing proposals, with the addition ofany required additional elements to render the merged proposal viable, and are presentedwillingly and jointly by the original proposers of the proposals being merged.

Mover/seconder: Carl/AnilMotion Passes with 29/1/7

Schedule for TGbJuly 98, Final proposal selectionSept, 98, Draft complete, submit working group ballot.

Bob O’Hara: since we don’t know what proposals are going to be shown, we need to allow more time and notpublish a schedule. So don’t make any changes to the published schedule.Jeff Fisher: We have heard estimates of 1 to 3 more meetings needed to come to consensus. Lets leave it up to thechair to change the published schedule.

Next meeting agendaBob O’Hara: Make the meetings more productive by having the presentations published 1 week before the meetingby making the presentations dependent on who has met the distribution schedule by putting them on the web site.Agenda time will be granted in preference to those who have delivered their papers. If there is no agenda time forsome late papers, they will not be presented.1. Present papers with priority given to papers available on the web a week prior to the meeting. Proposals needto be available at the beginning of the meeting.2. Discuss the selection process3. define activity between meetings

discussion of patent policyNo time for discussion.Adjourned at 12:05

Attendance listsee the minutes of the plenary meeting, 98/223

Future meetingssee the minutes of the plenary meeting, 98/223

May 1998 doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/226

Submission page 1 Victoria Poncini, The Boeing Company


Task Group 802.11c Minutes

Date: 05/08/1998

Author: Victoria PonciniThe Boeing Company

P.O. Box 3707 M/S 7M-CA

Seattle, WA 98124-2207Phone: +1 (425) 865-5342Fax: +1 (425) 957-5048


AbstractMinutes of 802.11 Task Group C____________________________________________________________________________________________

Task Group 802.11c met on Tuesday 05/05/98 at 08:45 am Utrecht, The Netherlands to finish comment resolutionon document 80211c/D5 Bridging Supplement to 802.1D. The session opened with a total of 13 comments toresolve against the document.

Voting members in attendance at the meeting Tuesday 05/05/98: Johnny Zweig, Henri Moelard, Bob O’Hara, AnilSanwalka, and Victoria Poncini. Darwin Engwer joined the group during the session.

All of the 13 comments were resolved and the meeting adjourned at 10:48am.

On Tuesday 05/05/98 afternoon, TGc received four additional comments on document 80211c/D5 BridgingSupplement to 802.1D. Victor Hayes notified the session that due to machine failure in IEEE office sponsor ballotswere still not counted.

TGc met again on Thursday 05/07/98 afternoon at 15:30 immediately following the close of the 802.11 mid-weekplenary to finish comment resolution . In attendance at this meeting were 802.11 voting members: Johnny Zweig,Henri Moelard, Bob O’Hara, Simon Black, Darwin Engwer, and Victoria Poncini. All of the four additionalcomments were resolved. Victoria Poncini asked to change the date on document IEEE P802.11c/D5 March 1998 toJuly 31, 1998.

Sponsor Ballot results are still unknown at the time of the Plenary session Friday 05/08/98. The document will besubmitted to the mailing containing the revision marks until sponsor ballot comes to closure and all comments areknown to be resolved. Task Group C will recommend to 802.11 plenary additional work and actions be handled viateleconference or e-mail to resolve additional comments received after closure of sponsor ballot voting period.

May 1998 doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/226


May 1998 doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/227



Task Group 802.11Rev Minutes

Date: 05/08/1998

Author: Victoria PonciniThe Boeing Company

P.O. Box 3707 M/S 7M-CA

Seattle, WA 98124-2207Phone: +1 (425) 865-5342Fax: +1 (425) 957-5048


Abstract

Task Group 802.11Rev met on Tuesday 05/05/98 at 10:48 am Utrecht, The Netherlands to finish commentresolution on document 80211rev/D4. Task Group 802.11Rev met on Wednesday 05/06/98 and again on Thursdayafternoon 05/07/98. The session on Tuesday opened with a total of 69 comments to resolve and one additionalcomment was received Tuesday afternoon via fax. A total of 70 comments were addressed during the session.

In attendance at the meeting Tuesday 05/05/98 were voting members: Johnny Zweig, Henri Moelard, Bob O’Hara,Anil Sanwalka, Darwin Engwer, and Victoria Poncini. Simon Black joined the group during the session. VictoriaPoncini was present at the Tuesday and Thursday sessions.

All of the 70 comments were resolved by Thursday afternoon. The meeting adjourned at around 16:00.

May 1998 doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/228

Tentative Minutes of the WPAN SG page 1 Ian Gifford, M/A-COM

Tentative Minutes of the WPAN SG Meeting

Wireless Personal Area Network Study GroupInterim Meeting

Holiday Inn Utrecht City CenterUtrecht, NL

4-6 May 1998

1.0 The meeting was called to order on May 4-8, 1998 at 10:40am in Room 227 by our cochairman Bob Heile

1.1 Roll Call: People in the room were invited to introduce themselves.

1.2 Secretary: The Chair recognized Ian Gifford as the Secretary for the Study Group Meeting.

1.3 Agenda Approval: Bob Heile presented the following agenda for approval:

Monday May 4, 19981. Opening of session

introductory commentsroll callvoting rightslogisticsother announcements

2. Approval of minutes from cambridge meeting3. Review of Contributions4. Adoption of agenda5. Old business6. New business7. Review objectives of meeting8. Review functional requirements document9. Discuss requirements for a standard

Tuesday May 6, 19981. Review PAR process/templates2. Review draft PAR3. Determine next steps4. Break into working groups for the PAR

Wednesday May 7, 19981. Reports by PAR working groups2. Create SG report for afternoon plenary3. Output Documents4. Next meeting

+location/logistics+objectives

5. New Business6. Close

Note: The SG agreed to compress Thursday’s tasks into the Wednesday Meeting.

Hearing no objections the motion to accept the Agenda passed by general consent.

May 1998 doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/228


2.0 Ian Gifford overviewed the April meeting minutes of the Study Group (SG). The goal of the Cambridgemeeting was to assign Principle Investigators to the documents and to prepare them, formally, as IEEE802.11 WPAN SG Submissions. The SG has created the following documents:

DOC No. TITLE-98/58 Wearables Standards Ad-Hoc Committee Presentation to 802.11 Committee (Robert

Heile, GTE/BBN, and Ian Gifford, AMP M/A-Com), January 22, 1998-98/94 "Wearables" Standards, Presentation to IEEE 802, ExCom (Dick Braley, Acting

Chairman, "Wearables" ad-hoc Standards Committee) , March 9, 1998-98/95 "Wearables" Standards, Presentation to IEEE 802, Standards Committee (Dick Braley,

Federal Express Corporation), March 9, 1998-98/96 A brief survey of Wearable application (Steve Case, Via), March 9, 1998-98/97 Wireless Solutions (Pat Kinney, Intermec), March 9, 1998-98/98 PAN feasibility: The BodyLAN (TM) Experience (Rick Larowe, GTE), March 9, 1998-98/135 Summary Report of the IEEE 802.11 WPAN Ad-Hoc Group Meeting held at Irvine,

CA, March 9th - 13th, 1998-98/136 Tentative Minutes of the IEEE 802.11 WPAN Ad-Hoc Group Meeting held at Irvine,

CA, March 9th - 13th, 1998-98/137 Venue for WPAN Ad-Hoc Group Meeting, April 8th - 9th, 1998, Cambridge, MA.-98/147r1 WPAN Press Release Draft (Ian Gifford, M/A-COM)-98/159 Tentative Minutes of the WPAN Study Group Meeting (Ian Gifford, MA/COM)-98/160 WPAN Guidelines (Ian Gifford, M/A-COM)-98/161 Wireless Personal Area Network (WPAN) Five Criteria and 2.4GHz Coexistence

Analysis (Ian Gifford, M/A-COM)-98/162 First Draft PAR for WPAN (Rich Ditch, Motorola)-98/163 Venue Hosted by GTE Internetworking (Ian Gifford, M/A-COM)-98/169 WPAN SG Draft Agenda 5/4-7/98 Utrecht, NL-98/170 WPAN SG Draft Agenda 5/19-21/98 Irving, TX USA-98/171 Draft Glossary & Acronym List-98/199 WPAN SG Call for Proposals for MAC/PHY (Dick Braley, Fedex)-98/216 WPAN SG Application Summary (Pat Kinney, Intermec)-98/217 HomeRF Overview Presentation (Stuart J. Kerry, Butterfly Communications)-98/222 Summary Report of the IEEE 802.11 WPAN Study Group Meeting held at Utrecht, The

Netherlands, May 4th - 8th, 1998-98/228 Tentative Minutes of the IEEE 802.11 WPAN Study Group Meeting held at Utrecht,

The Netherlands, May 4th - 8th, 1998-98/229 WPAN SG Spectrum Availability Matrix (Pat Kinney, Intermec)

Source: Extracted from doctbl98-begin-May.xls, dated May 6, 1998 - Modified

3.0 The latest WPAN Press Release was discussed and distributed to the SG meeting attendees, via Flash Card.4.0 Bob Heile overviewed up and coming May 19-21, 1998 Interim WPAN Meeting Venue:

Sheraton Grand Hotel (10 minutes from Dallas/Fort Worth Airport)4440 West Carpenter FreewayIrving, TX 75063+1 972-929-8400+1 800-345-5251May 19th, 1998 1:00pm to 5:00pm to May 21st, 1998 8:00am to 2:00pm

5.0 Again, Bob Heile led the discussion on potential Liaisons from the WPAN Study Group to:

• Infrared Data Association (IrDA)• Home Radio Frequency Working Group (HRFWG)• ETSI Broadband Radio Access Networks (BRAN) Project• ATM Forum Wireless ATM (WATM) Working Group• Wireless LAN Alliance (WLANA)• Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)

May 1998 doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/228


The liaison “communication devices” would be the Draft IEEE WPAN SG Press Release and the Call ForProposal (CFP) i.e., straw MAC & PHY Layer.

The following table describes the overall tasks that the WPAN SG would need to take to achieve a standardwithin IEEE:

TASKS STARTDATE

ENDDATE

STATUS

Cambridge, MA WPAN SG Meeting 4/8/98 4/9/98 DoneCall For Proposals (CFP) 4/30/98 5/19/98 In ProcessUtrecht, NL 802.11 Interim Meeting 5/4/98 5/8/98 In ProcessIrving, TX WPAN SG Meeting 5/19/98 5/21/98SUBMIT WPAN PAR 6/4/98La Jolla, CA 802 Plenary Meeting 7/5/98 7/10/98Waltham, MA 802.11 Interim Meeting 9/14/98 9/18/98Etc.First Unapproved WPAN Draft Specification March

1999Draft Specification approved by 802.11 WG September

1999Draft Specification approved by IEEE SAB March

2000

6.0 Bob Heile then progressed the specificity of the WPAN Functional Requirements. This work consumed thegroup until we adjourned at 6:00pm.

7.0 Dick Braley brought the meeting back to order at 8:05am. Dick provided an overview of the “Wearables”Standards activities the following headlines the discrete areas:

• Wireless Personal Area Networks• “Wearable Computing” and Interfaces• “Wearables” System Architectures• Nomadicity• Humionics

8. Joe Dvorak inquired into the actual definitions of the above terms and Dick provided a quick summary. The SGdiscussed the need to provide definition of terms for some of the unique WPAN terminology. ACTION: IanGifford agreed to solicit definitions for a WPAN SG Glossary and Acronyms list.

9. Joe Dvorak provided a brief overview of the January 15, 1998 draft WPAN PAR that was generated by the“Wearables” Ad Hoc Committee. ACTION: The SG discussed the Draft PAR at length and we edited thedocument as well as designated Rich Ditch as the Principle Investigator.

10. Ian Gifford provided a brief overview of the January 15, 1998 draft 5 Criteria document that was generated bythe “Wearables” Ad Hoc Committee. ACTION: The SG discussed the 5 Criteria and 2.4GHz Coexistencedeliverable and we assigned Ian Gifford to be the Principle Investigator.

11. Next Steps

WHAT WHO WHENProvide a Glossary & Acronym List for WPAN I. Gifford 5/8/98Setup IEEE Majordomo reflector:[email protected]

I. Gifford 5/11/98

-98/199 WPAN SG CFP (was –98/164) D. Braley 5/6/98-98/216 WPAN SG Application Summaries P. Kinney 5/6/98-98/217 WPAN SG Home RF, a pitch was made to theSG to overview the HRFWG and their activities

S. Kerry 5/6/98

-98/222 WPAN SG Utrecht Report Summary I. Gifford 5/7/98-98/228 WPAN SG Utrecht Tentative Minutes I. Gifford 5/7/98-98/229 WPAN SG Spectrum Availability Matrix I. Gifford 5/11/98

May 1998 doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/228


The meeting was adjourned on April 6th, 1998 at 12:00pm in Room 227 by our co-chairman Bob Heile

The Ad Hoc Group wishes to thank the 802.11 WG for their time and assistance and help. We look forward toparticipating in the Working Group in La Jolla, CA.

Tentative meeting schedule

Date Month Year Place Type Location Host

19-21 May 1998 Irving, TX Interim Study Group only Sheraton Grand Irving GTE

5-10 Jul 1998 La Jolla, CA Plenary Hyatt Regency

14-18 Sept 1998 Waltham, MA,tent

Interim WG Raytheon

8-13 Nov 1998 Albuquerque, NM Plenary Hyatt Regency

7-12 March 199 Austin, TX Plenary Hyatt Regency, Town Lake

4-9 July 1999 Montreal, PQ Plenary Queen Elisabeth Hotel

7-12 Nov 1999 Koloa, HI Plenary Hyatt Regency Kauai

May 1998 doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/218

Submission page 1 Dean Kawaguchi, Symbol Technologies

IEEE 802.11Wireless Access Method and Physical Specification

Title: TGa Report

Date: May 4-8, 1998

Author: Dean Kawaguchi

Symbol Technologies, Inc.2145 Hamilton Ave

San Jose, CA. 95125Telephone: (408)369-2629

FAX: (408)369-2737email: [email protected]

Opening

Introduction - temporary chair

Secretary - Geert Awater

Volunteers to update the matrix and prepare a list of questions - none, remainswith proposers

Procedure

I propose that the selection process for TGa follow the well thought out TGbselection procedure as documented in 98/54. John Fakatselis has done a great jobin defining it, keeping the TGb process fair and very orderly up to this point.Since there are only 3 remaining modulation proposals in TGa with the merging of4 proposals into 2, the TGa process will not perform any downselection(elimination) voting prior to the final selection voting.

By TGb rules, the group will vote for their favorite modulation type of the 3remaining proposals, eliminating the proposal with the least votes, then voting forthe favorite of the 2 remaining. The selected modulation will then go the full802.11 which will require 75% for ratification.

Of course if we do not end up with a 75% supported modulation type, the agendawill be modified as needed.

May 1998 doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/218


AgendaMon 14:00-14:45 Agenda, docs, presentation and approval of selection process

14:45-15:30 Presentation of proposal 115:30-16:15 Presentation of proposal 216:15-16:30 Break16:30-17:15 Presentation of proposal 317:15-18:00 Presentation of non-proposers material considered critical for

selection18:00-19:00 Discussion, resolution of matrix issues

Tue 13:00-14:00 Presentation of Comparison Matrix14:00-15:00 Q&A to a panel.15:00-15:15 5 minute summary of each proposal, vote15:15-15:45 Break, vote count15:45-16:15 Discussion, vote16:15-16:45 Break, vote count16:45-17:00 Results, discussion, adjourn17:00+ Social event

Thurs At plenary - approval of the selection10:00 - Discussions, text modifications

Friday Approval of finalized text, preparations for Ballot

May 1998 doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/218


Motion:

Adopt TGb selection process with exception that all votes happen at Tuesdayafternoon.

Naftali/Roy 35 0 1 Motion passes

Voting Results

Ballot #1Breezecom/NEC 28 50%Lucent/NTT 23 41.07%Radiolan 4 7.14%None 1 1.79%Abstain 0 0%

Total 56

Ballot #2Breezecom/NEC 24 42.11%Lucent/NTT 31 54.39% <<<< None 2 3.51%Abstain 1 1.75%

Total 58 (57 for %)

Note: % values shown above were recalculated for 57 non-abstention votes

Lucent/NTT selected by >50% per motion.

Motion to 802.11:

To accept the recommendation of TGa to adopt the OFDM proposal fromLucent and NTT as the basis for the 5 GHz PHY.

TGa/Bruce. 28/15/6……. 65 % Fails

May 1998 doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/218


Motion:to adopt an open comment resolution process on any concerns of anybodywith the objective of getting to 75%.

Vote on Main motion: 19-4-13

Written ballots by those voting NO on OFDM proposal.Discussion of comments.

Motion:to recommend to the plenary to approve the document 98/72r3 as a DraftTGa standard and forward it to a WG ballot.

Naftali/Hitoshi 19 - 19 - 4

After IP discussion…….

None willing to reopen.

Agenda Item:

Responses to Ballot questions

Motion – to add an agenda item :A discussion to ask what would it take to agree on a single carrier proposalJim/Kazu

Motion to amendAdd an agenda item before the previous:Vote on acceptance of OFDM proposal.Anil/Carl 31-0-6

Amended Motion – to add an agenda items :Vote on acceptance of OFDM proposal.A discussion to ask what would it take to agree on a single carrier proposal if thevote failsJim/Kazuhiro

Reza/Anil amended to add (if vote fails), accepted by acclamation

May 1998 doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/218


Naftali/Anil CQ no obj

Main motion – 27-11-3 passes.

Agenda for July 1998 meeting• • Responses to Ballot questions• • Vote on acceptance of OFDM proposal.• • A discussion to ask what would it take to agree on a single carrier proposal

if the vote fails

802.11 Plenery Motion:That if TGa has to re-open their selection process that they be directed to usenon-secret voting, and achieve a 75% or greater acceptance beforeforwarding to 802.11.

Keith/Anil43/0/4

May 1998 doc: IEEE P802.11–98/219

Submission page 1 John Fakatselis Harris semiconductor

Submission to:IEEE P802.11

Wireless LANS

Title: TGb REPORT FOR MEETING OF 05/04/98 TO 05/08/98 (Utrecht, Netherlands)

Date: May 1998

Author: John FakatselisHarris Semiconductor2401 Palm Bay Road

Palm Bay, Florida32905USA

Tel: (407)-724-7000Fax: (407)-724-7886

email: [email protected]

IEEE802.11 TASK GROUP BMAY 4-8 1998 , UTRECHT, the NETHERLANDS

AGENDA

MONDAY

n n CALL TO ORDERn n SECRETARY APPOINTMENT

n n PROCEDURALn n PARLIAMENTARIAN APPOINTMENTn n COMPARISSON MATRIX TEAM

n n APPROVAL OF AGENDA. n n APPROVAL OF MARCH 1998 MINUTES.n n BACKGROUND n n SELECTION PROCESS OVERVIEW.n n CALL FOR PAPERS

n n PROPOSERS (submissions estimate)n n ALANTRO 3 submissions

May 1998 doc: IEEE P802.11–98/219


n n HARRIS 6 submissionsn n LUCENT 8 submissionsn n MICRILOR 6 submissionsn n RAYTHEON 3 submissions

n n OTHERSn n DEAN 1 submissionn n GREG 1 submission/presentation

n n ORDER OF PRESENTATIONS (BY PROPOSAL)n n ADJURN

TUESDAY

n n PRESENTATIONS BY PROPOSERS

n n 8:15 - 9:00 A. Raytheonn n 9:00 - 9:45 B. Micrilorn n 9:45 - 10:30 C. Lucentn n 10:30 - 10 :45 BREAKn n 10:45 - 11:30 D. Harrisn n 11:30 - 12:15 E. Alantro

n n First round of votingn n Announcement of voting results

WEDNSDAY

May 1998 doc: IEEE P802.11–98/219


n n PROPOSAL PRESENTATIONS

n n 8:15 - 9:00 A. LUCENTn n 9:00 - 9:45 B. RAYTHEONn n 9:45 - 10:30 C. MICRILORn n 10:30 - 10 :45 BREAKn n 10:45 - 11:30 D. HARRISn n 11:30 - 12:15 GENERAL PAPERS PRESENTATIONSn n A Lucentn n B Raytheonn n C Micrilorn n D Alantron n E Harris

May 1998 doc: IEEE P802.11–98/219


WEDNSDAY AFTERNOON AND/OR EVENING.

n n MATRIX OVERVIEWn n PANEL DISCUSSION 1:50 - 3:15n n BREAKn n CLOSING ARGUMENTS 3:45- 4:05n n FINAL VOTING ROUNDSn n ANNOUNCEMENTS AT EACHn n ADJURN 8:30 AM (Thursday)

FRIDAY

n n VOTER MEMBERS COUNT.n n STATUS SUMMARY.n n DISCUSSION AND CLARIFICATION OF PLENARY

DIRECTION TO THE TASK GROUP b.n n SCHEDULE FOR TASK GROUP b.

n n Left up to the chairs not discussed.

n n NEXT MEETINGS AGENDA/n n present papers ( priority to proposals that will be available

on the web a week prior to the July meeting, proposals needto be available at the start of the July meeting.)n n Define selection processn n DISCUSSION ON PATENT POLICY (not discussed).n n CLOSING SUMMARY BY CHAIR .n n ADJURN (12:10)

May 1998 doc: IEEE P802.11–98/219


In accordance to Roberts Rules of Order, the chair can appointa parliamentarian (p 456). The parliamentarian will advise onthe proper rules. Stuart Kerry and Vic Hayes will act asparliamentarians.

DOWN SELECTION BALLOTTASK GROUP b

05/05/98

Motion to adopt one of the following choices as the BESToption for the 2.4 GHZ high rate PHY. as stated in theselection process document (98/54) step 14.Stewart/Al , unanimous

VOTING BALLOT:Indicate your vote by checking the appropriate choice. Onecheck only.

PROPOSAL/OPTION

YES(BESTOPTION)

ALANTROHARRISLUCENTMICRILORRAYTHEONNONE

May 1998 doc: IEEE P802.11–98/219


Company ROUND 1 % round 2 round 4 round 5 round 6 notcompleted

Harris 25 26 24 28Lucent 14 15 16Micrilor 12 15 17 29Raytheon 3 1Alantro 1None 1 1 1 1INVALID 1 0 0 0Abstain 0 0 0 0total valid 56 58 58 58

ROUND 3 WAS INVALID

Motion by Keith/Bruce to postpone the ballot process to the FridayTGb meeting because it looks like there is no clear direction andask the interested parties of their willingness to work on acompromise through the start of the Friday TGb meeting.

Jeff Abramowitz: Point of Order: I question the validity of ourvoting due to voting irregularities that could be explained by“Block voting”. I believe that the 802 rules allow that if blockvoting is shown, the voting rules change to one vote percompany.

The chair and the parliamentarians after a 1.5 hr recessresulted for the chair ruling that:

The matter is forwarded to the executive committee for finaldirection while we keep moving with task group b business.

THE CHAIR AND THE PARLIAMENTARIANS DECIDEDON THIS RULLING DUE TO THE SENSITIVITY OF THEPOINT RAISED AND THE INDICATION THAT MORE

May 1998 doc: IEEE P802.11–98/219


THAN 1 PERSON BELIEVED THAT THERE WAS SOMEKIND OF A “BLOCK” BASED ON THE DEFINITIONPRESENTED BELOW. NO CLEAR EVIDENCE THOUGH.THERE ARE NO RULES THAT WE COULD FINDREFERING TO WORKING GROUP ACTION ON A“BLOCK”.THE FOLLOWING REFERENCES WERE USED FOR THECHAIRS DECISION.

THE CHAIR WAS APPEALED AND OVERULED.

Standards companionIt is also the chair's responsibility to ensure that the workinggroup knows they represent only themselves, not their company or anotherinterest.

LMSC Operating rulesExCom3.4.1 Voting GuidanceIt is expected that LMSC Executive Committee members will vote as both professionals and asindividual experts, except under the Directed Position provisions of Procedure 8, and not as a memberof any affiliate block (organization, alliance, company, consortium, special interest group, etc.). Ifsubstantive evidence is presented to the LMSC Chair that this provision is violated, the LMSCExecutive Committee will meet to consider what, if any, action to take on the presented evidence.Such action may include any action up to and including a recommendation for removal from office.

Working group5.1.4.4 Working Group Chair’s AuthorityTo carry out the responsibilities cited in 0 5.1.4.3 Working Group Chair’s Responsibilities, theWorking Group Chair has the authority to:a) Call meetings and issue meeting minutes.b) Decide which issues are technical and which are procedural.c) Establish Working Group rules beyond the Working Group rules set down by the ExecutiveCommittee. These rules must be written and all Working Group members must be aware of them.d) Assign/unassign subtasks and task leaders or executors, e.g. secretary, subgroup chair, etc.e)Determine if the Working Group is dominated by an organization, and, if so, treat that organizations’vote as one (with the approval of the Executive Committee).f) Make final determination if and how negative letter ballots are to be resolved when a draft standard,recommended practice, or guideline, is to be sent to the Executive Committee for approval forSponsor Ballot Group voting.g) Collect fees to meet Working Group expenses.

May 1998 doc: IEEE P802.11–98/219


The following motion passed at the task group , defining the acceptable proposals.

Motion to accept the text below definingwhat is considered as an acceptableproposal for considerations of task groupb.

n The acceptable proposals are theexisting 5 proposals, possiblymodified (but not to the extentthat makes them new proposals asdetermined by TGb ) by theoriginal proposers, and any proposals which combinesubstantial elements of two ormore of the 5 existing proposals,with the addition of any requiredadditional elements to render themerged proposal viable, and arepresented willingly and jointly bythe original proposers of theproposals being merged.

Carl/Anilpasses 29/1/7.

May 1998 doc: IEEE P802.11–98/219


May 1998

Victoria Poncini, The Boeing CompanySlide 1

doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/220

Submission

802.11c Report• Met on Tuesday 05/05/98 and Thursday 05/07/98

• Ballot closure deadline on Tuesday 05/05/98received 4 new comments.

• Received 17 comments: 15 editorial, 1 technical, 1technical NO vote.– 9 comments accepted

– 3 comments not applicable

– 3 comments declined

– 2 comments not accepted

• Ballot status and additional comments unknown

doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/xxxMonth 1998

John Doe, His CompanyPage 1Submission

May 1998

Bob O’Hara, Chair: TG-rev, Informed Technology, Inc.1

doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/221

Submission

Report of TG-rev

Bob O’Hara

May 1998


doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/221

Submission

TGrev Report

• Participating:– Simon Black

– Darwin Engwer

– Henri Moelard

– Victoria Poncini

– Anil Sanwalka

– Johnny Zweig



May 1998


doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/221

Submission

TGrev Report

• Received 70 comments thus far– Technical: 6

– technical: 15

– Editorial: 19

– editorial: 26

– “Questions”: 4

Total: 70

May 1998


doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/221

Submission

TGrev Report

• All comments resolved– Accepted: 54

– Declined: 12

• All questions answered (4)



May 1998


doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/221

Submission

TGrev Report

• Technical changes were made– Registration of notification objects in the MIB

were changed to comply with SMIv2– New notification objects were added

• dot11Deauthenticate• dot11AuthenticateFail

– Concatenation of WEP secret key and IV wasclarified.

– Ranges were set on many attributes to minimizestorage requirements

– dot11StationID is now deprecated

doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/222May 1998

Bob Heile, BTEPage 1Submission

May 1998

Bob Heile, GTESlide 1

doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/222

Submission

WPAN SG Meeting Report

Utrecht, NL

May 4-6, 1998

May 1998


doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/222

Submission

WPAN Report Contents

• Utrecht, NL Agenda Summary

• Current Press Release

• Irving/Dallas TX Venue May 19-21, 1998

• Technical Guidelines a.k.a. FunctionalRequirements and Applications

• WPAN Call For Proposal

• WPAN Liaisons

doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/222May 1998


May 1998


doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/222

Submission

Monday May 4, 1998

• Opening of session– introductory comments– roll call– voting rights– logistics– other announcements–

May 1998


doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/222

Submission

Monday May 4, 1998

• Approval of minutes from Cambridge meeting– Pat, Larry second 4,0,0

• Review of Contributions– Stuart Kerry, Butterfly HomeRF Pitch added to Wednesday

May 6th, 1998 Agenda

• Adoption of agenda– Hearing no objections agenda accepted

• Old business– We need a Spectrum Availability and Requirements Matrix

• New business

doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/222May 1998


May 1998


doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/222

Submission

Monday May 4, 1998

• Review objectives of meeting– Solicit WG Proposal (802.11 FH/DS)– Progress Draft PAR and 5 Criteria &

Coexistence– Draft Liaisons w/ Press Release, Call For

Proposal, etc.

• Review functional requirementsdocument aka Guidelines

• Discuss requirements for a standard

May 1998


doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/222

Submission

Tuesday May 5, 1998

• Reviewed– PAR process/templates– Draft PAR

– Draft 5 Criteria– Draft Guidelines

• Created Application Summaries• Determined next steps

– Create Spectrum Availability Matrix– Liaisons, Promote CFP

doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/222May 1998


May 1998


doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/222

Submission

Wednesday May 6, 1998

• HomeRF Pitch from Stuart J. Kerry• Created SG report for afternoon plenary

May 1998


doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/222

Submission

WPAN SG Press Release

• IRVINE, CA 12 March 1998 - IEEE P802.11Working Group announced today the formation ofa study group to identify a project forstandardization of a LAN for wirelesscommunications for Wearable computing devices.This study will examine the requirements forWireless Personal Area Networking (WPAN) ofPCs, peripherals, and consumer electronic devicesto communicate and interoperate with one another.

doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/222May 1998


May 1998


doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/222

Submission

WPAN SG Interim Meeting

Sheraton Grand Hotel (10 minutes from Dallas/Fort Worth Airport)

4440 West Carpenter Freeway

Irving, TX 75063

+1 972-929-8400, +1 800-345-5251• May 19th, 1998 1:00pm to 5:00pm to May 21st, 1998

8:00am to 2:00pm

• Reference “GTE IEEE Meeting” Rate

• Irving Venue doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/163

• Irving Agenda doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/169

May 1998


doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/222

Submission

Current WPAN PrioritizedGuidelines

• A– Low Cost: i.e., relative to target device

– Small Size e.g., ~.5 cubic inches• excludes antenna & battery

– Power Management: Very Low current consumption• Average 20mW @ 10/90 or less

– Data– Should allow coexistence of multiple Wireless PAN’s in the same

area (20 within 400 square feet)

– Should allow coexistence of multiple Wireless Systems i.e.P802.11 in the same area

doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/222May 1998


May 1998


doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/222

Submission


• B– Effective Data Rate at the MAC SAP: (19.2 - 100) kbit/s (actual 1

device to 1 device)

– All devices within a WPAN must be able to communicate witheach other

– Networking support for a minimum of 16 devices

– Voice

– Range: 0-10 meters

– Mobility: 0-10mph (hand-off not required to anotherPAN)

– Bridge or Gateway connectivity to other data networks

May 1998


doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/222

Submission


• C– No single element of failure

– Video

doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/222May 1998


May 1998


doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/222

Submission

WPAN SG ApplicationsExamples

• Mobile Worker– Courier: Communications between Printer, Scanner, Computer,

Gateway to WAN, etc.

– Road Warrior: Communications between Laptops, HPCs, Pagers,Cellular Phones, Scanners, Gateway to WAN, etc.

• Physiological Monitoring– Patient: Communications between Body Sensors, Personal Data

Collection Device, Gateway to WAN, etc.

– Sports: Communications between Shoe Sensors, Body Sensors,Personal Data Collection Device, Gateway to WAN, etc.

May 1998


doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/222

Submission

WPAN SG Call For Proposal forIrving, TX

• The following will describe a Call For Proposal(CFP) for the lower layers i.e., OSI RM MAC &PHY Layers of the Wireless Personal AreaNetwork (WPAN).

• Proposals are solicited from members of theWPAN Study Group, Academia, and Industry toprovide a straw model for Medium Access Controland Physical layer solutions that are consistentwith the WPAN Functional Requirements.

• CFP doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/169

doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/222May 1998


May 1998


doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/222

Submission

Proposed WPAN SG Liaisons

• Infrared Data Association (IrDA)

• Home Radio Frequency Working Group(HRFWG)

• ETSI Broadband Radio Access Networks (BRAN)Project

• ATM Forum Wireless ATM (WATM) WorkingGroup

• Wireless LAN Alliance (WLANA)

• Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)

May 1998


doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/222

Submission

Conclusion

• The WPAN SG would like to thank the802.11 Working Group for their assistancewith the setup of the Utrecht Meeting.