Concall Minutes - Sept 09 to Nov 09

June 2010 IEEE P802.15-10-0388-04-0007

IEEE P802.15

Wireless Personal Area Networks

ConCall - 17 June 3 – 04:00 UTC

Attending the call

Submission Page XXX Richard D Roberts, Intel

June 2010 IEEE P802.15-10-0388-04-0007

Sridhar Rajagopal, Samsung

Tae-Gyu Kang, ETRI

Sang-Kyu Lim, ETRI

Il Soon Jang, ETRI

Dae Ho Kim, ETRI

You Jin Kim, ETRI

Taehan Bae, Samsung

Jaeseung Son, Samsung

Rick Roberts, Intel

Joachim Walewski, Siemens AG

Submission Page XXX Richard D Roberts, Intel

June 2010 IEEE P802.15-10-0388-04-0007

Sridhar chaired the call.

The chair encouraged committee members to identify CIDs that have been assigned to them but for which they are not comfortable providing the remedies. There was no related response from any of the committee members.

Agenda: hearing contributions addressing CIDs.

1.  Left over from the Beijing meeting was the CIDs addressed in contribution 10/348r0 and 10/337r0. The committee was not prepared to address these on this call and discussion was postponed until the next conference call.

2.  Contribution 10/383r0 was presented. This contribution addressed T-CIDs 213, 229, 239, 237, 426, 295, 298, 299, 301, 305, 309, 393, 400, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 419, 435c, 469.

·  T-CID 213 … resolved as per the remedy in 10/383r0

·  T-CID 229, 239 … resolved as per the remedy of 10/383r0 with the addition of text that points out in the presence of dimming: OOK is constant range and variable bit rate; while VPPM is constant bit rate and variable range. This is actually a graceful rejection because there are no changes in the tables.

·  T-CID 237, 426 … accept – delete 5 kbps data rate.

·  T-CID 295 … keep figure 20 but change text as per comment.

·  T-CID 298, 299, 301 … table discussion and work off-line to come up with resolution.

·  T-CID 305, 309 … accept suggested resolution as per 10/383r0.

·  T-CID 393 … accept suggested resolution as per 10/383r0.

·  T-CID 400 … Postpone accepting resolution until after more discussion. Address on the next conference call. There are also editorial corrections in 6.9.1 and 6.9.2 that are assigned to the technical editor.

·  T-CID 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 419 … accepted resolution of 10/383r0 with following clarifications: MSB reserved and 7 LSBs indicate the status.

·  T-CID 435c … accepted as per resolution of 01/383r0. The padded zeros are then punctured (discarded) and then the remaining interleaver output is sent to the inner convolutional encoder.

·  T-CID 469 … Table discussion until the next conference call.

3.  Contribution 10/386r0 was presented. This contribution addressed T-CIDs 36, 481, 483, 488, 504, 509, 681a, 683, 684, 686, 691, 697, 698, 700, 701, 703, 705, 801 and 802.

·  T-CID 36 … accepted as per 10/386r0 but delete the word “generally”.

·  T-CID 481 … Taehan to define scramble text for the next concall, along with editor instructions where to insert the text.

We’ll assume work on 10/386r0 during the next conference call starting with T-CID 483.

4.  Next was a short discussion on the ad-hoc dates and venues. Sridhar is to check with Clint on status of July ad-hoc. Rick is working on the August ad-hoc.

Concall ended at 05:30 UTC.

ConCall - 17 June 3 – 04:00 UTC

Attending the call

Submission Page XXX Richard D Roberts, Intel

June 2010 IEEE P802.15-10-0388-04-0007

Sridhar Rajagopal, Samsung

Sang-Kyu Lim, ETRI

Il Soon Jang, ETRI

Dae Ho Kim, ETRI

Taehan Bae, Samsung

Jaeseung Son, Samsung

Rick Roberts, Intel

Joachim Walewski, Siemens AG

Submission Page XXX Richard D Roberts, Intel

June 2010 IEEE P802.15-10-0388-04-0007

Agenda …

* Roll call (via e-mail to Rick Roberts)

* Minute taker (Rick Roberts)

* Update on comment resolution status (everyone)

* Update on ad hoc meeting location (see e-mail from Clint Chaplin)

* DCN: Continuation of 10/386r0 starting with T-CID 483 (Taehan)

* DCN: 348, 337 (ETRI)

* DCN: Latest revision of 10/383 (Sridhar)

1. Old business from the minutes of the last conference call (10/388r0)

·  T-CID 298, 299, and 301 from doc 10/383r0 … Sridhar will address in a soon to be released 10/383r1.

·  T-CID 400 from doc 10/383r0 … postpone until next conference call

·  T-CID 469 from doc 10/383r0 … resolved as per the following email (ETRI plans on submitting additional comment during recirc)

From: Roberts, Richard D [mailto:
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 4:46 PM
To:
Subject: [802.15.7] Discussion on CID 469

From the minutes of the last conference call, the committee was suppose to discuss the suggested remedy for CID 469, which is about the text in section 6.7.4.

Currently the text in 6.7.4 says … A logic level high applied to the light source shall result in a high radiated intensity. A logic level low applied to the light source shall result in a reduced radiated intensity.

The suggested remedy for CID 469 was to modify the text to say … A logic level high applied to the light source shall result in a high radiated intensity. A logic level low applied to the light source shall result in a reduced radiated intensity. The extinction ratio is at the discretion of the implementer.

As I recall, the discussion from last week’s conference call was not about the text in red, but rather the original text in blue. The concern was about reference to “logic levels”. The comment came from ETRI as I recall. I carefully checked the comment data base and I do not see any comments made during the letter ballot in regards to the text in blue other than CID 469 which just wanted to add the text in red. The technical editor could make an editorial correction and instead of calling these “logic levels”, these could just be called “levels”. So the text would say …

A logic level high applied to the light source shall result in a high radiated intensity. A logic level low applied to the light source shall result in a reduced radiated intensity. The extinction ratio is at the discretion of the implementer.

ETRI folks – does this satisfy your concerns. If not, then indicate how you’d like the text to be edited and we can discuss it some more.

Rick Roberts

Intel Labs, Oregon, USA

Office: 503-712-5012

Cell: 503-929-5624

2. Update on Ad-hoc meeting … July is all planned and August announcement should go out this week (week of June 8th 2010).

3. Continuing on Doc 10/386r0

·  T-CID 483 – skipped – needs more discussion – unresolved

·  T-CID 504 – accepted as per remedy given in doc 10/386r0

·  T-CID 509 – closed – clarification provided as per remedy given in doc 10/386r0

·  T-CID 681a – rejected as per Doc 10/386r0

·  T-CID 683 – accepted - delete information element exchange from table 79 as shown in doc 10/386r0

·  T-CID 684 – accepted as per 10/386r0 – delete VLC cell and mobility

·  T-CID 686 – accept as per 10/386r0

·  T-CID 691 – skipped – not resolved – we need to have a discussion with Michael Bahr. Joachim will coordinate with Michael on attending a conference call.

·  T-CID 697 – accepted in principle, but delete 7.3.12.1 entirely and in figure 94, last column, add the note “see table 92”.

·  T-CID 698 – add a note to figure 95, 4th column, that says “see section 7.2.2.1.5”

·  T-CID 700 - skipped – not resolved – we need to have a discussion with Michael Bahr. Joachim will coordinate with Michael on attending a conference call.

·  T-CID 701 – accepted as per 10/386r0

·  T-CID 703 - skipped – needs more discussion – unresolved

·  T-CID 705 – accept as per 10/386r0

·  T-CID 801 – accept as per 10/386r0

·  T-CID 802 – work this via email – postpone discussion until next conference call

4. Next contribution is doc 10/348r0

·  T-CID 177, 247, 635, 645, 660, 798, 799, 800

Discussion was held in regards to the following email thread (shown below)

From: Roberts, Richard D [mailto:
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 1:51 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [802.15.7] Request for next CC (8th June GMT 04:00) - Doc 10.337r0 & Doc 10/348r0

My comments below …

:

In regards to doc 10/348r0 … in general, I support whatever changes ETRI wants to make to the color packet scheme since this is their scheme. But I also agree with Sridhar’s comment #1 below in regards to trying to minimize the impact on the draft. I’d be interested in ETRI’s reply to Sridhar’s request.

Regards,

Rick Roberts

Intel Labs, Oregon, USA

Office: 503-712-5012

Cell: 503-929-5624

From: Sridhar Rajagopal [mailto:
Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2010 12:19 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [802.15.7] Request for next CC (8th June GMT 04:00)

Dear Sang-Kyu,

Here are my comments:

1.  15-10-0348-00-0007 : While I appreciate the details on the color frame structure presented, I would like to know if we really need a completely new frame structure. It will require a lot of changes throughout the draft. It would be much preferable to integrate this with the command frame or visibility frame. Would it be possible for ETRI to do this?

:

Sridhar

From: Sang-Kyu Lim [mailto:
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 8:17 AM
To:
Subject: [802.15.7] Request for next CC (8th June GMT 04:00)

Dear all,

In regards to below two documentswhich will be discussed on next CC (8th June GMT 04:00),

if you have some comments or opinions related to these comment resolutions, pleasesend them by e-mail 24 hours before the call.

We also need some times to review them.

1. 15-10-0348-00-0007 : LB50 comment resolution related to color frame

2. 15-10-0337-00-0007 : LB50 comment resolution related to 4B6B and dimming

Sang-Kyu Lim

------

Principal Member of Engineering Staff

LED Communication Research Team

ETRI, Daejeon, Korea

------

ETRI indicated that it is easier to add a new frame type and all the required text is presented in doc 10/348r0. The committee accepted this remedy.

·  T-CID 792, 793, 794, 796, 797 – resolved via a new Figure 125 that will be submitted to the technical editor from ETRI.

·  T-CID 785, 786, 787, 788, 790 and 791 – resolved as per the suggested remedy in doc 10/384r0

·  T-CID 789 – rejected as per doc 10/384r0

·  T-CID 795 – resolved as following – table 89 is an example and the supporting text needs to be modified to clearly indicate table is an example and not normative text.

This ended contribution 10/348r0 and the end of business for this conference call. The next contribution to hear is 10/337r0.

Also, I’d like to record in the minutes that Sridhar has been assigned all the TechEd comments that were originally assigned to Praveen. The supporting email is shown below.

From: Roberts, Richard D
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 3:29 PM
To: 'Sridhar Rajagopal'
Subject: RE: [802.15.7] Reassignment of Praveen comments to resolve

Great! Thanks!

Rick Roberts

Intel Labs, Oregon, USA

Office: 503-712-5012

Cell: 503-929-5624

From: Sridhar Rajagopal [mailto:
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 3:03 PM
To: Roberts, Richard D;
Subject: RE: [802.15.7] Reassignment of Praveen comments to resolve

Hi Rick,

I have reviewed the TechEd comments and I think I can help resolve quite a few of them.

Please assign them to me in the next release of the comment resolution spreadsheet.

Sridhar

From: Roberts, Richard D [mailto:
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 10:48 PM
To:
Subject: [802.15.7] Reassignment of Praveen comments to resolve

Praveen sends his greetings and regrets that he has been reassigned to another project and cannot devote much time to TG7; however, after reviewing the comments he has agreed to provide remedies for the following CIDs: 750, 753, 754, 755, 756, 757, 758, 759, 810, and 812. His other CIDs have been assigned to the “TechEd”, which means there are available for reassignment.

Rick Roberts

Intel Labs, Oregon, USA

Office: 503-712-5012

Cell: 503-929-5624

ConCall - 17 June 15 – 04:00 UTC

Attending the call

Submission Page XXX Richard D Roberts, Intel

June 2010 IEEE P802.15-10-0388-04-0007

Sridhar Rajagopal, Samsung

Sang-Kyu Lim, ETRI

Il Soon Jang, ETRI

Dae Ho Kim, ETRI

Taehan Bae, Samsung

Jaeseung Son, Samsung

Rick Roberts, Intel

Joachim Walewski, Siemens AG

Submission Page XXX Richard D Roberts, Intel

June 2010 IEEE P802.15-10-0388-04-0007

Rick emailed in the status of the editorial comments and suggested that the committee wait until the editorial edits are completed before starting to rearrange text.

From: Roberts, Richard D [mailto:
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 8:23 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [802.15.7] TG7 conference call agenda