Jan2010doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/315r0

IEEE P802.11
Wireless LANs

TGac Meeting Minutes – Orlando, March 2010
Date: March 15, 2010
Author(s):
Name / Affiliation / Address / Phone / Email
Joonsuk Kim / Broadcom / 190 Mathilda Pl, Sunnyvale, CA94086 / +1-408-543-3455 /

Abstract

This document contains the minutes from the TGac meeting in Orlando, March 15-20, 2010, taken by Joonsuk Kim(Broadcom), TGac vice chair.

RED means a motion that passed, BLUE means a motion that is NOT concluded or failed.

TGac Meeting Minutes – Orlando, FL, USA

Meeting Minutes

  1. Monday PM2, March 16, 2010
  2. Chair Osama Abdul-Magd (Samsung) presents IEEE SA SB Patent Policy and Procedures.
  3. The TG members did not express any concerns/issues that the WG chair needs to be aware of.
  4. Vice Chair Joonsuk Kim (Broadcom) agreesto take minutes for this session. A permanent position for secretary is still open.
  5. There are 100 people in the room.
  6. TGac agenda for the Orlando meeting is in 10/0251r0.
  7. LA minutes 10/0315r0 are approved unanimously, motion moved by Adrian (Intel), seconded by Joonsuk Kim (Broadcom).
  8. AdHoc Group Minutes (10/0138r0, 10/094r1, 10/0211r1 and 10/089r3) are approved unanimously, Allan (Samsung) and Sameer (Qualcomm)
  9. JaeSeung Lee (ETRI) presents 10/335r0
  10. Michelle (Intel) – Is it the same RTS?  No, Then we have to design new frame. Also NAV setting rule has been changed.
  11. JaeSeung (ETRI) – we may reconsider to reuse the existing frame format
  12. Brian (Cisco) – It is an incomplete RTS/CTS process.
  13. JaeSeung (ETRI) – We agree it is not a perfect solution.
  14. Solomon (Intel) – xIFS can be any IFS? He has a concern on PIFS. What if CTS is not required?
  15. JaeSeung (ETRI) – We have to think about it.
  16. Maybe sent in contention free period without RTS/CTS. MultiChannel case has to be considered, too.
  17. Sadheer (InterDigital) – What about sending RTS from STAs?
  18. Yusuke (NTT) presents 10/333r0
  19. Michelle (Intel) – Why should we include OBSS into evaluation methodology?
  20. Yusuke – We’ll have multiple OBSS scenario
  21. Youhan (Atheros) – Why is it serious? When the network is saturated, it is more serious problem.
  22. Yusuke – We still have a case with OBSS scenario.
  23. Rolf (Qualcomm) – OBSS is a case we may be seeing in real life
  24. Robert (Intel) – asking clarification on the scenario
  25. Minho (ETRI) – We need to choose the parameters more carefully
  26. We have to cooperate with TGaa
  27. Greg Breit (Qualcomm) presents 10/308r11 on the channel model
  28. Vinko (Broadcom) –Simulation scenario does not have to specify single-user or multi-user
  29. Osama – will vote r12 to accommodate Vinko’s comment on Thursday
  30. Osams – Plan for adhoc meeting tomorrow.
  1. Monday PM2, March 16, 2010
  2. Osama summarizes what to cover in this session (10/251r2)
  3. Motion #1: Move to support the Interference Cancellation concept described in this document [09/1234r1] by inclusion of the following section and text in the Tgac spec framework document:

“ 4.1 Resolvable LTFs for DL MU-MIMO

In a DL MU-MIMO transmission, LTFs are considered “resolvable” when the AP transmits enough LTFs for an STA to estimate the channel to all spatial streams of every recipient STA. In order to enable interference cancellation at an STA during a DL MU-MIMO transmission, an AP may transmit the preamble using resolvable LTFs.”

  1. Moved by Greg, seconded by Brian
  2. Yes/No/Abstain = 52/1/6
  3. Motion passes
  1. Motion #2: Move to support PHY abstraction methods as described in 11-10-334r0 and update FR&EM document 11-09-451r8 accordingly.
  2. Moved by Takatori, seconded by Minho
  3. Eldad – Adhoc agreed to accept the concept, but never agreed to which document
  4. Vinko – agreed with Eldad. It is pre-mature. It is up to simulation scenario, it doesn’t have to specify in FR/EM
  5. Yasushi – Contents could be TBD, but he wants to include a section to describe it in FR/EM. We need a sort of guideline.
  6. Adrian – It is pre-mature. He moved to table the motion
  7. Seconded by Assaf
  8. Sudheer – we don’t want to go back to Adhoc to change the strawpoll
  9. Minho – we need a concept, we can discuss on details later
  10. Rolf – support to table this motion
  11. Eldad – what’s the rule between strawpoll and motions in TG? We need a template to describe the rule. We need a discussion in Adhoc for more details
  12. Yes/No/Abstain = 60/0/8
  13. This motion is tabled
  14. Motion #3: Move to support adding a basic guideline on the numerology for 11ac device described as in Section I of 11-10/0070r4, excluding slide 9 (max Number of users for MU remains TBD), to the spec framework document, 11-09-0992?
  15. Moved by Joonsuk, seconded by Brian
  16. Yes/No/Abstain = 65/0/1
  17. Motion passes
  18. Motion #4: Move to adopt the slide 27 in 11-10/0251r2 (two SIGNAL field for 11ac preamble)
  19. Moved by Joonsuk, seconded by Menzo
  20. Yes/No/Abstain = 65/0/2
  21. Motion passes
  22. Motion #5: Move to support adding the 11ac preamble structure with two SIGNAL fields (VHT-SIGA located before VHT-STF and VHT-SIGB located after VHT-LTFs) as in Section III (Slide 22) of 11-10/0070r4 to the spec framework document, 11-09-0992?
  23. Moved by Joonsuk, seconded by Menzo
  24. Request to amend the motion by Minho
  25. Amended Motion #5: Move to supportto have BPSK on the 1st VHT-SIGA symbol and TBD on the subsequentVHT-SIGA symbol(s) for VHT auto-detection, and to edit the spec framework document, 11-09-0992, accordingly
  26. Moved by Joonsuk, Seconded bu Andre
  27. Vinko – againt the motion
  28. Raza – for this motion since we didn’t have an agreement on 2 symbols for VHT-SIGA
  29. Voting to amend the motion
  30. Yes/No/Abstain = 66/0/1
  31. Amended Motion #5: Move to support to have BPSK on the 1st VHT-SIGA symbol and TBD on the subsequent VHT-SIGA symbol(s) for VHT auto-detection, and to edit the spec framework document, 11-09-0992, accordingly
  32. Yes/No/Abstain = 64/0/1
  33. Motion passes
  34. Brian Hart (Cisco) presents 10/317r1
  35. Sudheer – Is it compatible with DL MU-MIMO? -> Yes
  36. DaeWon (LGE) – capability with 80MHz is required? -> no opinion; BW capability can be different per user -> agreed but it depends on vendors; ACKs per channel for MU requires 20MHz RF for AP -> it is protected by NAV anyway, we can talk more details on that.
  37. Solomon (Intel) – Any drawback for full functionality? -> it would be a challenge to build such a device, we didn’t consider for simulation; In order to resolve a hidden node problem, RTS/CTS is required.
  38. Power difference to operate 40/80MHz may cause a memory problem? -> don’t know the answer.
  39. Yasushi (NTT) – we may have an issue with multi-channel and OBSS.
  40. PeterLoc (Ralink) – Do we have a primary channel? – yes
  41. Strawpoll - Do you agree that BSSs with non-AP STAs that have a mixture of PHY capabilities leads to inefficient use of the BSS resources, and reducing this inefficiency is a topic that merits further investigation?
  42. Solomon – Why only Non-AP STAs?
  43. Yes/No/Abstain = 57/2/29
  1. Thursday AM2, March 16, 2010
  2. Motion #6: Move to support including TBD bits for Bandwidth and STBC in VHT-SIGA and including MCS field in VHT-SIGB, and editing the spec framework document, 11-09-0992, accordingly?
  3. Move by Joonsuk, Seconded by Eldad
  4. YES/NO/Abstain = 56/0/23
  5. Motion passes
  6. Motion #7: Move to support allowing only equal modulation and coding scheme across all streams per user and stating this in the spec framework document, 11-9-0992?
  7. Moved by Eldad, Seconded by Joonsuk
  8. YES/NO/Abstain = 37/13/12
  9. Motion failed
  10. Yasushi – He didn’t know when the doc was uploaded, so didn’t have time to review
  11. Eldad – Adhoc chairs are responsible to post to the group (by email) that the report is ready
  12. 11-09-0992r6 was presented by Robert
  13. Motion #8: Move to support in-home entertainment scenario
  14. Changing Table 5 in 11-09/0451r11 with the changes described in slide 3 of 11-10/0384r3
  15. changing Table 7 in 11-09/0451r11 with the changes described in slide 4 of 11-10/0384r3
  16. deleting Figure 2 and case 2 in 11-09/0451r11
  17. Moved by Eldad, Seconded by Yasushi
  18. YES/NO/Abstain = 69/0/8
  19. Motion passes
  20. 11-09-0451r12 is presented by Minho
  21. Eric – What’s the revision number to propose?; approved r11 in COEX, change it to r12.
  22. Motion #9: Move to approve document 11-09-0451r12 as the current revision of the Functional Requirements and Evaluation Methodology document
  23. Moved by Minho, Seconded by Yasushi
  24. YES/NO/Abstain = 67/0/4
  25. Motion passes
  26. 11-09-0451r13 is presented by Minho
  27. 11-09-0308r12 is presented by Greg
  28. Motion #10: Move to approve 11-09-0381r12 as the current revision of the channel models addendrum document
  29. Moved by Greg, Seconded by Eldad
  30. YES/NO/Abstain = 64/0/1
  31. 11-09-0992r8 was presented by Robert
  32. Motion #11: Move to approve document 11-09-0992r8 as the current revision of the specification framework document
  33. Moved by Robert, Seconded by Eldad
  34. YES/NO/Abstain = 70/0/1
  35. Motion passes
  36. Motion #12: Move to support allowing only the same modulation and the same coding rate and coding type across all streams for single user case and stating this in the spec framework document, 11-09-0992
  37. Moved by Vinko, Seconded by Eldad
  38. Yongsoo (Ralink) – what is type? It is coding type
  39. Tushar – favor on this motion, since it is much simpler
  40. Peter – does it apply for MU?; This is for SU case
  41. Eldad – much simpler for testing purpose, favor on this motion
  42. Minho – isn’t it the same motion?
  43. Tushar – no, it is for SU case, we will investigate for MU later
  44. YES/NO/Abstain = 57/15/3
  45. Motion passes
  46. Discussion on teleconferences
  47. Not overlap with TGad
  48. April 29, 10:00-12:00 EDT
  49. PHY telecon schedule
  50. April 8, 11:00 – 12:00 EDT
  51. MAC telecon schedule
  52. April 8, 10:00 – 11:00 EDT
  53. Coexistence telecon schedule
  54. April 22, 20:00 – 21:00 EDT
  55. MU-MIMO telecon schedule
  56. Thu April 15, 10:00-11:00 EDT
  57. Thu April 29, 20:00-21:00 EDT
  58. Motion #13: Move to approve document 11-09-0992r9 as the current revision of the specification framework document
  59. Moved by Robert, Seconded by Eldad
  60. YES/NO/Abstain = 59/4/2
  61. Motion passes
  62. Osama – TGac is adjourned.

TGac Meeting Minutes - Los Angeles, CA, USApage 1Menzo Wentink (Qualcomm)Joonsuk Kim (Broadcom)