1.2Reminder of Patent Policy and Meeting Rules

Oct 2011doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/1406r0

IEEE P802.11
Wireless LANs

Oct 2011 Teleconferences
Date: 2011-10-25
Author(s):
Name / Affiliation / Address / Phone / email
Jon Rosdahl / CSR / 10871 N 5750, Highland, UT84003 / +1-801-492-4023 /

1.0TGmb Teleconference Oct 25, 2011

1.1Called to order at 10:01 ET

1.2Reminder of Patent Policy and Meeting rules

1.2.1No issues were noted.

1.3Attendance: Jon Rosdahl, CSR; Adrian Stephens, Intel; Mark Hamilton, Polycom; Dorothy Stanley, Aruba; Kazuyuki Sakoda, Sony; Michael Bahr, Siemens; Mark Rison, CSR; Peter Ecclesine, CISCO;

1.4Proposed Agenda:

1.4.1Discuss the 92 comments that were received.

1.4.2Review Comment files

1.4.2.1

1.4.3Review the Editor Report Document

1.4.3.1

1.5Review of Comments received

1.5.191 of 92 comments have a proposed by Adrian

1.5.2Comments sorted as Bugs that need review

1.5.3Comment review and initial overview given.

1.6Most Compelling Comments (AdHoc Status = Bug)

1.6.1Look to find valid technical comments on changed text.

1.6.1.1Changes to the draft open clauses for further comments

1.6.2CID 15060 (also 15025)

1.6.2.1WNM-Sleep Mode issue

1.6.3CID 15036 and 15039

1.6.3.1Review comment

1.6.3.2Propose to accept

1.6.4CID 15004

1.6.4.1Review Comment

1.6.4.2MLME-SETKEYS.confirm was removed, but a clause that still refers to this primitive needs to be removed.

1.6.4.3Propose to accept

1.6.4.4We edited the cited text, but the changes were just capitalization.

1.6.5CID 15032

1.6.5.1Review Comment

1.6.5.2Read-Write vs Read Only in the MIB

1.6.6The Argurment is that there is at least one that should be changed, so we can look at other comments that need to be changed.

1.7Discuss Comments

1.7.1CID 15046

1.7.1.1Review Comment

1.7.1.2Review proposed change in CID 15047 in clause 10

1.7.1.3The changes on merit seemed reasonable, but there seems to be at least one bug in the description.

1.7.1.4Proposed Resolution: Accept

1.7.1.5For CID 15047: Proposed Resolution: Revised as the change was modified.

1.7.2Group Opinion to make this change and the other ones we have pointed out so far:

1.7.2.1Vote yes: 5 vote no: 0 Indifferent: 1

1.7.2.2Question on if there would be a delay if we do make the change.

1.7.2.2.1If we make a D12, we could still make the deadlines for Continuous Process in RevCom

1.7.2.2.2If we have to make D13, we may have an impact to our schedule.

1.7.3CID 15027:

1.7.3.1Review Comment

1.7.3.2Suggestion to Reject as this seems to be a new feature.

1.7.3.3Proposed Resolution: REJECTED (EDITOR: 2011-10-25 06:20:27Z) - The proposed new uses of QoS Null may have an impact on legacy interoperability. In the RDG case, a Block Ack frame can be used to give the responder "thinking time" and also conveys potentially useful data.
The case of QoS Null is relevant to optimization of a polled TXOP in which the STA chooses not to use the granted TXOP. The benefits such an optimization would afford are not viewed as sufficient justification for making this change.

1.7.4CID 15040

1.7.4.1Review Comment

1.7.4.2Concern on the new wording was noted on “assigned”.

1.7.4.3Proposed Resolution: accept.

1.7.5CID 15024

1.7.5.1Review Comment

1.7.5.2Propose to reject

1.7.5.3Discussion on how much of a possible interoperable issue.

1.7.5.3.1If we had looked at this earlier, it may be one we would have been comfortable entertaining a change. But not now.

1.7.5.4Proposed Resolution: REJECTED (EDITOR: 2011-10-25 07:56:05Z) This comment is on text that has not changed in D11, and is not the topic of an unsatisfied comment.

1.7.6CID 15052

1.7.6.1Review Comment

1.7.6.2Propose to reject

1.7.6.3Proposed Resolution: REJECTED (EDITOR: 2011-10-25 07:00:39Z) - The equations should be viewed as expressing constraints on the implementation. In particular note that aRxPLCPDelay is expressed as: (DS, OFDM & ERP PHYs) "Implementers may choose any value for this delay as long as the requirements of aSIFSTime and aCCATime are met.", and (HT PHY) "Implementation dependent". The comment does not take the variability of "D" into account.

1.7.6.4More discussion on the equations needs to be done.

1.7.6.5Action Item: Mark R to provide a more descriptive resolution for consideration. (Adrian to mentor).

1.7.6.6Note that we are not wanting to make changes where we do not have strong consensus on.

1.7.7CID 15023

1.7.7.1Review Comment

1.7.7.2Question on backward compatibility?

1.7.7.3The effective change is to remove how the value is selected.

1.7.7.4It removes an ambiguity

1.7.7.5The new text would make it the same as TGac.

1.7.7.6There is a potential for compatibility.

1.7.7.7Check for the level of support in the WG prior to discussion.

1.7.7.7.1Action Item: Adrian to check with broader group for support.

1.7.8CID 15049

1.7.8.1Review Comment

1.7.8.2Are we comfortable with this scope of Change?

1.7.8.3These are clearly editorial – No Technical change is being requested.

1.7.8.4This does open some text.

1.7.8.5Poll the group for comfortable level of change:

1.7.8.5.1Yes: 6 No: 1(but ok with other changes) Abstain:

1.7.8.5.2Given we have other changes we seem ok with this one.

1.7.8.6Proposed Resolution: Accept.

1.8We will look to accept the proposed resolutions on Friday the 18th if possible

1.8.1Everyone to review Doc 11/10:1455r14

1.8.2We reserved one for Nov 1 if needed…hopefully not.

1.9Checking of Change Volunteers:

1.9.1Peter, Jon, Dorothy, Mark H.

1.10Adjourned at 11:03 ET (Next Call will be on Friday Oct 28th, 2011 at 10 ET).