Evening Tue. Nov. 9

7:35pm Chair David Howard calls meeting to order.

Review assigned officers, agenda this week, rules of IEEE and 802 standards development life cycle based on doc. 889r0.

Motion to approve the agenda carries.

Review and approve minutes of Waikoloa session.

802.11 PAR comments (11-10-1335r0 slide 8, 9 and 10):

5.2

The comment said ‘should be’, not requirement.

Participants don’t see any places which need to be tensed.

5.4

Disagree, keep the purpose in there, the form needs to be filled.

Responseto this comment: ‘proposal was considered, but the 802.15 precedence is to include this’.

5.5 Noted

This comment is noted because no specific suggestion has been made by 802.11

5.6 Accept

‘Government agency’ is very general, don’t say ‘government agency’ without specific name.

8.1 Accept

802.19 PAR comments:

Comment:If TVWS is included, should LECIM support 802.19.1 draft?

Response: not necessary to state in the PAR. Wireless standards don’t preclude TVWS andTVWS is not the primary band of interest of this time.Also Some text about coexistence in 5C are used torespond the comment.

Accept:Delete the sentence ‘Theseapplications have unique requirements that are not fully addressed with the current standard.’ in PAR scope and ‘uniqueness’ should be identified in 5C.

Accept:A sentence in PAR scope is shortened without changing its meaning.

802.11 5C comments:

Accept: change ‘WPAN-LR’ to ‘LR-WPAN’.

Accept: add acronym LECIM in the text not title.

All other comments are accepted.

Will Chair provide beers after 8:30pm? Probably no.

802.19 5C comments:

Accept: add the comment to 5C Distinct identity and add two more distinctiveness comparing to 802.22 and 802.11 to 5C too.

Updated PAR and 5C will be reviewed inWed AM1 and vote.

8:43pmRecess

AM1 Wed Nov. 10

8:05 Chair calls meeting to order.

Review comment resolution of draft PAR and 5C based on 894-02.

PAR comment resolution:

-Make some clarification on ‘5.5 Need for the Project’

-Move the second paragraph of clause 8.1 to 5C

-Move ‘e.g.’ in ‘5.2 Scope’ to clause 8.1

Q: PAR doesn’t state any difference between LECIM and other standards?

A: SG only addresses ‘Need’which other standards can’t address now, and TG addresses difference.

5C comment resolution:

-Make some modifications on the resolution for comments on 5C.

Suggest to add 802.19 comment ‘large path loss, minimal infrastructure requirements and multiyear battery life’ to draft PAR clause 8.1 to clearly state the distinctiveness of LECIM.

Q: What’s the ‘data model’ in clause 8.1?

A: Size of payload and duty cycle etc.

Update draft PAR to 756-08 and draft 5C to 757-04.

Motion: submit draft PAR 756-08 and draft 5C 757-04 to 802.15 WG.

Moved by Evan Green (Self)

Second by Kato Shu (NICT)

32 for, no opposition, no abstain.

Motion carries.

Update to 894-03.

No meeting on AM2 Thu.

9:39am Recess

Attendees:

1. Pat Kinney Kinney Consulting

2. Benjamin Rolfe BCA

3. Joaquin Slun OnRamp Wireless

4. Ted Myers OnRamp Wireless

5. David Howard OnRamp Wireless

6. Shu Kato NICT

7. Mike McInnis The Boeing Company

8. Paul Gorday Sunrise Micro Devices

9. Ed Callaway Sunrise Micro Devices

10. D. Russo Microsoft

11. J. Schwuerer France Telecom

12. S. Jiccings Semtech

13. Ronald Tabroff Mueller Systems

14. Betty Zhao Huawei

15. Rainer Hach Nanotron Technologies

16. Cheolho Shin ETRI

17. Evan Green Independent