April 2006February Aug 20056doc.: IEEE 802.11-06/0583r0doc.: IEEE 802.11-065/0244837r0
IEEE P802.11
Wireless LANs
Date: 20065-04-262-028-12
Author(s):
Name / Company / Address / Phone / email
Stephen McCannHong Cheng / Roke Manor Research Ltd (A Siemens Company)Siemens Roke ManorPanasonic Singapore Laboratories / Roke Manor, Old Salisbury Lane, Romsey, Hampshire, SO16 8LT, UKBLK1022 TaiSeng Ave #06-3530 TaiSeng Ind. Est. Singapore 534415 / +44 1794 83334165 65505477 /
Recorded Attendees
Stephen McCann (Chair, TGu)
Lars Falk
Vivek Gupta
Farooq Bari
Necati Canpolat
Srini SreemanthulaStefano Faccin
Marian Rudolf
Andrew MyersEleanor Hepworth
Mike Moreton
Farooq Bari
Cheng Hong
Lars Falk
Proceedings:
Chair opened the teleconference at 0910:0750 ET.
There were no objections to everyone being aware of IEEE –SA policies.
Chair stated that the objective of this teleconference is basically to arrange which issues, not related to proposal presentations, need to be discussed during the Jacksonville (May 2006) meeting.
Documentation Review
Scenarios and Assumptions (05/355r8) - NecatiLiaison ResponsesDiscussion of current TG documents
Necati mentioned that he has spent some looking at this document and would like to present some comments and recommendations about the Reference Network Architecture. Figure 1 is a good starting point for this discussion. He would like to compare and contrast it with some of the diagrams from
IEEE 802.21.
Action: Chair to Chair: As agreed allocate 20 minutes of time for this presentation during the Jacksonville meeting.
Necati also mentioned that TGu should address the Enterrpise and Home Environments, in addition to the predominant Public Access environment. It was agree that he should make a presentation on this issue in the May meeting.
Action: Allocate some time for Necati to present some material on Enterprise and Home Environments.
Requirements (05/822r10) – Necati
Necati mentioned that he will bring some comments and recommended changes to the requirements document at the May meeting.
Chair: Reminded everyone that changes can only be made to this document through motions, as the document has been previously approved by the Task Group.
at the end of the Hawaii meeting, this teleconference would discuss TGu comments that we wished to send as liaison responses, to the following groups:
3GPP2
GSMA IREG
3GPP SA2
3GPP SA3
New Items
Vision Document (06/550r0)
The chair introduced this document and explained that it was based and inspired by a similar document from Richard Paine in TGk. Most people felt that this document was a good start.
Cluster Problem Statements (06/542r0)
The chair explained that it was agreed at the last meeting (Denver – March 2006), that it would be useful to produce a document outlining the reasons heond each of the TGu clusters. An initial attempt (06/542r0) has been started, and the chair encouraged everyone to try and contribute towards this document.
When complete, it is hoped that this document will be read by all of the 802.11 membership and will become an explanatory guide of the work done in TGu when any draft document is ready for initial Letter Ballot.3GPP2 (Incoming liaison 06/0064r0)
Suggested comments so far:
1) "Regarding R3U3, this is an example of a need to coordinate QoS parameter types and profiles between IEEE 802.11 and 3GPP2"
TGu does not have such a QoS profile concept and we feel that this is not a standardisation issue within the scope of 802.11 (it would be a recommended practice).
2) Review of document X.P0028-0
3) Mention that once TGu has a draft proposal and is in a suitable state for review, it will be sent to them by liaison.
Everyone agreed that this was suitable text for an initial liaison response
Action : Chair to draft template response text using these comments and place document on 802.11 server.
3GPP SA32 (Incoming liaison 06/556r00061r0)
The chair introduced this document and asked for any comments. As there were none, he suggested that this topic be postponed until the May 2006 meeting.
Suggested comments so far:
1) "Regarding R3A1, 3GPP SA2 sees a potential security threat when enabling a device to simultaneously connect to networks under the control of different, unrelated service providers. 3GPP also has a concept of a Home Network for a user and the user is not considered to have multiple home networks"
TGu does not have a concern with this view, as it is regarded as a policy issue, and would only occur in minority situations.
Comment: We should also ask 3GPP SA2 what they exactly mean by ‘simultaneously’ and provide them with a definition from the TGu point of view.
Action : Chair to draft template response text using these comments and place document on 802.11 server.
3GPP SA3 (Incoming liaison 06/0062r0)
There are no suggested comments so far.
Comment : However, there may well be comments before the Denver 802.11 meeting, so let’s create a template response to them anyway.
Action : Chair to draft template response text using these comments and place document on 802.11 server.
GSMA IREG (Incoming liaison 06/0063r0)
Suggested comments so far:
1)"Regarding R3N1, Our concerns relate to the implications of
mechanisms planned to implement this requirement. Would these mechanisms cause/require APs to attempt to communicate with various Home Network backend servers before the STA joins to the BSS? And if so, what are the planned mechanisms to implement the communication?"
At the moment, no technical solutions to these requirements have been selected for TGu, but it does appear likely that no new negotiation protocol will be created. Existing signally will be used. It is thought that any communication between the backend servers and the terminal will be primarily downlink, indicating choices of roaming partners available. Some sort of terminal identifier may be signalled on the uplink prior to authentication, but this yet to be described in detail.
Comment : Need to change the sentence about signaling to:
“If any signaling is used in the final solution, it will be existing signaling”
Action : Chair to draft template response text using these comments and place document on 802.11 server.
Chair updated the group about the current TG documents:
Meeting minutes for last meeting 05/817r1
Meeting minutes for the ad hoc session in last meeting 05/818r0
Consolidated approved requirements document from last meeting 05/822r0
Chair urged anyone has comments on the requirements to send email to himself and Hong Cheng.
Chair: Remaining requirements will be treated in the September 2005 . meeting in LA (Los Angeles). Discussion about the outstanding requirements is better carried out during the face-to-face sessions.
Floor: Agree.
Chair: In IEEE 802.21, there will be teleconf calls to deal with media specific requirements. We will have new requirements for TGu from IEEE 802.21, and may need to deal with those in LA. If people are interested, please join their teleconf, scheduled on next Tuesday and 9th September 2005.
Farooq: There is an overlapping teleconf with this one. We need to collaborate with them.
Stephen (Chair): This one is for 3GPP related discussion. Will send the IEEE 802.21 teleconference info to the IEEE 802.11u mailing listML.
Down Selection process
A down selection process proposal is available in 05/618r1
Stephen (Chair): Have received some comments for that after SanFrancisco meting. We may need to look for a CFP (call for proposals) soon. People concern if it is a formal or informal CFP. Considering issueing CFP in LA, so that people can work towards November meeting.
Stephen (Chair): Also, possible to issue informal call for proposal to TGu ML, so that we can start presentation in LA. We have 14 hours (e.g. /7 meetingsessions) in LA. May not need all of them for requirement discussion. There is one postponed technical presentation from last meeting. We have time to listen to some informal presentations.
Farooq: Don’t think the requirement will take 14 hours. So, it is good to do that.
Stephen (Chair): In LA, we will finish the requirement first, and then deal with presentation at later time.
Mike: it won't do any harm to issue the initial call for proposal.
Stephen (Chair): Will phrase it that it is informal. Usually, CFP is issued during F2F (face to face) meeting.
Mike: There is no rule for that, but, it is good to have all the relevant docs, e.g. requirements, approved first.
Mike: There may be some areas end up with only one proposal. The downselection will be quite fast.
Stephen (Chair): Yes.
AoBDiscussion of Liaison Issues
No other business
Stephen (Comment : What has happened to the 802.21 liaison that was sent to 802.11
Chair: It has indeed been received by the chair of 802.11, and has been distributed to the chair’s advisory committee (CAC), but no further
Action : Chair to send an email to 802.11 WG chair, asking for update on 802. 21 incoming liaison to 802.11.
hair): We should issue a formal liaison to external bodies, eg 3GPP, 3GPP/2, WiFi Alliance, etc. Would like to do it in LA. If we can approve the requirements document, 05/822, we will attach it to each of the LS and ask for comments.
Cheng: How should we make use the response? Do we consider that in the down selection?
Stephen (Chair): We may need to modify the requirements according to their comments/suggested changes. But now, we cannot halt the whole group to just wait for comments from them.
Cheng: Yes. We need to carry on with what we need to do. And figure out how to make use their comments at the same time.
Farooq: Will we send the draft solution for comments later?
Stpehen (Chair): Have not thought about that yet. But, why not.
Stephen (Chair): Do you think 3GPP has enough time to go through the IEEE proposals?
Farooq: One meeting's time should be enough to get those people interested to response.
Stephen (Chair): That is probably 9 months down the road from now.
Mike: Need to wait when it is ready for the Letter Ballot.
Stephen (Chair) will generate some template for Liaison offline and send to the group.
Next Teleconference
There is a joint TGu/TGv teleconference on 15th February 2006 09:00 ET
The next TGu Stephen (Chair): No agenda for next teleconf yet. Maybe we need to get the agenda for LA meeting set then.
Farooq: Are there any procedures about the presentation requirements, e.g. the 4 hours limit?
Mike: We can state that in the CFP.
Stephen (Chair): Yes. That could be done. We can set a deadline. Would Wednesday before the meeting OK?
Farooq: Yes. One day earlier would be enough.
teleconferenceNext teleconf is is on 2nd March 2006 09:00 ET.
Chair adjourned the meeting without any objection. 24th August 2005 10:00 ET.
Submissionpage 1Stephen McCann, Siemens Roke Manor ResearchHong Cheng, Panasonic Singapore Labs