September 2002 doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/546r0
IEEE P802.11
Wireless LANs
TGh minutes, September Interum meeting, Monterey, CA
September 12, 2002
Evan Green
Intel
2111 NE 25th Ave, Hillsboro, OR
Phone: (503) 264-8456
Fax:
e-Mail:
Joint RR session opened by Mika/Carl 3:30pm Monday
Status update by Mika Kasslin, 02/541r0 Tenative LB42 results
Review of 802 operating rules and IP disclosures by Mika Kasslin
Motion (Procedural) to accept agenda in document 02/540r0
Moved: Peter Ecclsine
Seconded: Chris Hansen
Passed with no objections
Motion (Procedural) to accept minutes of July meeting in document 02/435r0
Moved: Andrew Myles
Seconded: Bruce Kramer
Passed with no objections
LB42 comments presentation 02/541r0 by Mika Kasslin
Plan for the week is to have breakout sessions.
Group leaders:
· Genereic Group: Al Garret
· Management req/resp: Chris Hansen
· DFS: David Skelrn (after Tue AM)
· MLME SAP: Simon Black
Interim reports from adhoc groups were given Tue at 1pm.
Straw poll: Should we deny association to stations without spectrum management capability? (section 11.5 line 1236)
Keep as is (AP may allow): 13
Deny association: 5
TGh Wednesday Sept 11 8am-10am session
Start with prezo by Loir Ophir on ‘Forward Compatibility Hooks for 802.11h’. 11-02-XXXr0a-H-Forward_Compatibility_Hooks_for_802_11h in Working Group area
Concerns on channel numbers and bits in Basic Report
Andrew Myles – could define another report with 16 bits
Peter Ecclesine – an octet in 802.11d means 200 5MHz channels can be numbered in an octet. The Japan 4.9 band is an example of the next standard picking it up.
Gunther Kleindl – forward hooks only if it does not delay the standard
Mika Kasslin – our action frames also address the future. Is concerned that changes to draft lead to comments about why the changes were made.
Loir Ophir – this issue does respond to some commenters
Simon Black – has sympathy with this but asks “why can’t the future standard address this issue?”
Second prezo
Would add an octet of band field to several messages
Issue with country element
Vijay Patil – fear that forward-looking has to work across groups, e, i, etc. and this group is not alone in the implementation
Straw poll “Would you like to see simple forward compatibility hooks inserted in the 802.11h draft to support future extensions for other regulatory domains, other frequency bands, other purposes?”
Yes: 2
No: 10
Don’t care: 0
Maybe: 1
Yes, provided that we do not hold up our progress: 3
Continue review of tentative resolutions to LB42 comments
Mika Kasslin presented 498r2 comments from LB36
David Skellern presented DFS comment resolutions
David Skellern proposed to change 11.5, 11.6 introductory text to make consistant with agreements reached this week. Accepted with no objections.
Straw poll by Chris Hansen:
How many people would like to keep the +/3dB differential tollerence in section 7.3.2.12
For: 7
Against: keeping +/- 3dB tolerance: 4
Thursday session 9/12
Motion (technical) to approve document 02/515r6 as comment resolutions for LB 42
Moved: Chris Hansen
Seconded: Andrew Myles
Yes: 15
No: 0
Abs: 1
Motion (technical)
1. TGh will make TGh draft revision 2.2 corresponding to the LB42 comment resolutions (02/515r6) available to the membership via the 802.11 members only area of the web site by October 2002.
2. The TGh chair is instructed to issue a 15 day electronic ballot (where non-response is taken as assent) asking the membership the following question: Shall TGh draft 2.2 be issued for WG re-circulation ballot?
3. The TGh chair shall then start the re-circulation ballot depending on the outcome.
Moved: Andrew Myles
Seconded: Chris Hansen
Yes: 19
No: 0
Abs: 0
Meeting adjourned with no objections (with applause however).
Submission page 3 Evan Green, Intel