January 2009doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0095r0
IEEE P802.11
Wireless LANs
Date: 2009-01-09
Author(s):
Name / Affiliation / Address / Phone / email
Jon Rosdahl / CSR / Highland, UT /
Documents from this session:
Closing Report:
Agenda Document:
Issues List:
Presentations:
1.0Monday 13:30 start
1.1Matthew Gast, Trapeze Networks, chair – called meeting.to order
1.2Review Policies and Procedures and Patent Policy
1.2.01Call for Patents – no response
1.311-09-40r2 is the meeting slides
1.4Agenda approved without objection
1.5Minutes from Nov 11-08-1363r0 approved, without objection
1.6Minutes from Teleconference 11-08-1456r1 approved without objection
1.7Call repeated for Editor….no response.
1.7.01Request for 1/x part of paying for an Editor where x would be the number of companies willing to participate….no response
1.8Plan of Record review
1.8.01Without an editor, we cannot proceed.
1.8.02Timeline will be filled with N/A until we can proceed.
1.9Amendment Ordering reviewed
1.9.01We cannot tell where the line may go if we do not have an editor.
1.10Reviewed the Version chart from the editor reports.
1.10.01Some Task groups need to check that they have the correct version referenced.
1.11Interpretation Request: 7.1.3.7 (FCS Field and Annex G (G.1 and G.14)
1.11.01Checksum value reported in G does not seem correct.
1.11.02 For this timeslot we did not have volunteer to check
1.11.03While discussing the topic that a bug may be in table G, a rather large insect (1.5” body and 4” legs ) attached the secretary. Photos have been taken.
1.11.04Matthew will try to identify someone to run the FCS algorithm and see what the results are.
1.12Comment Resolutions:
1.12.01Review the current status
1.12.02Group 3 needed a formal motion –
1.12.02.01Moved to accept Group 3 resolutions
1.12.02.01.1Moved by Jon R., 2nd Stephen M
1.12.02.01.2Passded -- 3-0-0
1.12.03Security Group
1.12.03.01CID 66: the proposed change is to change the order of the sentence. Propose to accept. And move to Group 4.
1.12.03.02CID 81: the proposed resolution is to accept the proposed rewording sentence… then after more discussion, it was determined that the new sentence should not work with the paragraph, so we left it in the security group and let Matthew to revisit the whole paragraph.
1.12.03.03CID 92: the sentence that is being changed is the same as in 81, so 92 refers to the solution, then again, as we looked to finish the sentence, it was determined that a bit more work needed to be done on the paragraph, so the Security group will look at it some more.
1.12.04QoS Group:
1.12.04.01There was several CIDs that were done on Telcon, so a review of the Telcon minutes were done to update the resolutions accordingly.
1.12.04.02CID .4, and 59 taken from minutes.
1.12.04.03CID 8 move to group 4 (reject)
1.12.04.04CID 48 – proposal from Mark R move to group 4
1.12.04.05CID 49, 50, 51, 93, 94 accept move to group 4
1.12.04.06CID 59 accept proposal and move to Group 4
1.12.04.07CID 60 – Withdrawn – move to group 4
1.12.04.08CID 80 – Accept move to group 4
1.12.04.09Move to approve Group 4 resolutions in 11/09/1127r9
1.12.04.09.1Moved: Jon R, 2nd Mark H. –
1.12.04.09.2Unanimously accepted.
1.13Motion to recess was made to allow the chair to get the SLR to photo the uninvited insect, which was then unceremoniously escorted from the building.
2.0Monday Evening Session:
2.1Called to order at 7:35pm
2.2Plan for tonight:
2.2.0111/09-50 and 11/09-51 presentations address CID 104 and CIDs 70, 73, 76 and 102. Respectfully.
2.3Reviewed doc 11/09-59r1
2.3.01The changes from r0 to r1 include a minor change for CID 73 to use “data” instead of “DATA”
2.3.02For CID 102, it changed from making a sentence a Note to simply deleting it.
2.3.03Add reference to 11/09-51r1 for CIDs 70, 73, 76 and 102 and make the respective resolutions from that doc in 11/08-1127r9.and mark as Group 5
2.4Reviewed Doc 11/09/50 and Doc 08/1336 for CID 104
2.4.01CID 104 Clean up Annex J…..
2.4.02Doc 09/50 takes 08/1336 and decomposes each change suggested and discusses which should or should not be made.
2.4.03R1 was created during the discussion to ensure that a “Discussion”and “Proposed” were included in each subcomment change.
2.4.04Move CID 104 to Group 5
2.5Motion: Approve document 11-09/0051r1 and instruct the tech editor to incorporate the document into the 802.11 Draft Revision.
2.5.01Moved: Peter E, 2nd Jon R
2.5.027-0-0 motion passes
2.6Motion: Approve document 11-09/0050r1 and instruct the technical editor to incorporate the document into the 802.11 draft revision.
2.6.01Moved Peter E. 2nd Jon R.
2.6.027-0-0 motion passes
2.7Motion: Approve comment resolutions in comment group 5 in document 11-08/1127r10.
Note: Group 5 consists of the following CIDs resolved by 11-09/0051r1: 70,73, 76,102
resolved in PHY comment group: 23, 40, 69,72,74, 75, 79
resolved by 11-09/0050r1 : 104
2.7.01Moved Peter E. 2nd Jon R.
2.7.025-0-2 motion passes
2.8Motion to recess without objection 9:06pm.
3.0Tuesday PM1 –
3.1Called to order 1:35pm
3.2E-mail received on CRC interpretation error.
3.2.01The Chair did send a request to several individuals.
3.2.02From Jouni M., we did get a response.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jouni Malinen [mailto:
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 10:00 AM
To: Matthew Gast
Subject: Re: TGmb interpretation request
On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 08:03 -0800, Matthew Gast wrote:
> TGmb received an interpretation request on the frame check sequence,
> which is quoted in the agenda deck. The person requesting the
> interpretation believes that our frame check calculation in Annex G is wrong.
> Do you have any tools that can calculate the FCS and help us respond
> to the interpretation request?
Sure, it is just CRC32.. The difficult part is to get the bits in
correct order in various places ;-). Anyway, I think I would agree with
the comment and this makes the earlier discussion on whether we should
fix spelling of "Fire-insired" or add a note pointing out the typo kind
of interesting.. It is not anymore just a typo in the text, but even a
technical issue of incorrect FCS value being used and fixing that would
mean having to fix the other tables in Annex G, too.. Someone did not
have a good day when generating the starting point for this teszt
vector.
For those less fluent with bit order and padding etc. in DATA (G.13 and
G.14), undersigned included, the correct FCS in G.1 (values 97..100)
should have been 67 33 21 b6, not da 57 99 ed.
- Jouni
------End of Message------
3.2.03Resolution prepared in 11/09/42r0.
3.2.04Motion by Jon R. 2nd Mark H
3.2.05Passed unanimously
3.3Reviewed the report from Editor’s meeting – Amendment ordering etc.
3.3.01Note that TGs if it completes in late 2010, it may not make it into TGmb
3.3.02This is still mute if we do not have an Editor for TGmb
3.4CID 6 and 7, adjust the resolution to include the proposed change from the commentor, and change to group 6.
3.4.01Move to accept comment resolutions in Comment group 6 in 08/1127r11.
3.4.01.01Moved Mike M, 2nd Mark H.
3.4.01.02Passed unanimously – no objections
3.5CID 42: reject – The text in this paragraph states that the MAC does not reoder frames for non-Qos Sta’s, except for “power management” procedures.
3.5.01Motion to move to Group 7,
3.5.01.01Moved Jon R. 2nd Mark H.
3.5.01.02Unanimously without objection.
3.6CID 44: reject, the Supported Rate IE always referes to the PHY data rate
3.6.01Did not find the specified sentence in the baseline.
3.6.02Did not find specified reference in TGv D3.0 either.
3.6.03Move to Group 7
3.7CID 68 – Request a submission from Darwin or Johnny Zweig…
3.7.01Matthew has the Action Item to send request.
3.8CID 56: discussion on how to indicate when the confirm is returned….do we need to have a confirm? The 1999 revision had a DOT indication, (MAUnitData-Status.Indication) was removed.. The status for indicating the excessive retries was removed…i.e. if the status is something that is immediate is only left, and any delayed status was removed.
3.8.01Mark H. volunteered to prepare a submission for correction.
3.8.02After a bit of discussion, it was noted that the majority of products do not seem to have had an issue with this, so this may or may not be of high value.
3.8.03Straw-poll on value of further persuit
3.8.03.01Option 1: leave as is in 2007 (immediate indications only)
3.8.03.02Option 2: make completion code list more extensive like in 1999 rev.
3.8.03.03Straw-poll – 2-0-4
3.8.04Mark to evaluate and come back with proposal
3.9CID 57 – See submission 08/1340r0
3.9.01Schedule for later today.
3.10CID 82-88: reject in this case, the use of STA is clear since it refers to the process of BSS-transition.
3.10.01These are relative to the 11r clause on BSS-Transitions.
3.10.02Move to Group 7 – no objection
3.11Move to accept the resolutions in Group 7
3.11.01Moved Jon R 2nd Mike M.
3.11.02Passed by unanimous – no objection.
3.12Recessed at 3:27pm
4.0Tuesday PM2 –
4.1Called to order at 4:02pm
4.2Review doc 08/1340r0 – MLME-Stop Mechanism.
4.2.01With the increase in the number of BSSIDs, it would be good to have a way to stop the BSS. This primitive is a way to stop the AP.
4.2.02Multiple BSSid operation as described in TGk causes this topic to not be completely simple.
4.2.03Motion:: Approve Document 11-08/1340r0 as the resolution to CID 56 and instruct the technical editor to incorporate the document into the 802.11 draft revision.
4.2.03.01Moved: Mark H., 2nd Mike M.
4.2.03.02Vote: 5-0-3
4.2.03.03Comment marked Group 8
4.3CID 65 reject the Transmit Power and Link Margin field descriptions in clause 7.3.2.18 are defined to be signed integers.
4.3.01No objection to resolution, Move to include into Group 9 for adoption later.
4.4CID 38 and 95 – proposed resolution: Annex C has been deprecated, do not remove.
4.4.01Discussion – by leaving it in, then we do not force a renumbering to occur.
4.4.02What is the value to keep this old material? Keeping it was Easier than deleting.
4.4.03The group had differing opinion on the possible value. The annex has not been kept up-to-date, so some worried to the value, and believes it is mis-informative as it now stands.
4.4.04There was three thoughts:
4.4.04.011. leave anniex C as is.
4.4.04.022. take it out and leavea blank page
4.4.04.033. insert a last maintance date to the start of Annex C.
4.4.04.03.11-3 2-0 3- 7
4.4.05If we want to add the date, we need to do some homework to ensure the proper date is used. Jon to look it up and report back.
4.4.06Move to comment group to 9.
4.4.07CID 38 is changed to Counter and moved to comment group 9
4.5CID 58 – discussion on Multiple BSSID set.
4.5.01We need a summital to provide the text to resolve this comment.
4.5.02A Proposal is expected to come to resolve this one.
4.5.03Action Item request the commentor (Mark H) to provide a proposal.
4.6CID 13 Accept the resolution to reject the comment as it is not applicable to TGmb.
4.6.01This comment moved to Comment group 9
4.6.02It could be noted that we could send this to TGn, but this came from TGn.
4.6.03Violent agree to reject the comment.
4.7CID 21 dot11SMTbase3 was added in error.
4.7.01This is only in one place in 11k., and shows up in the base.
4.7.02After a lot of looking, it was agreed to accept the comment.
4.7.03After lot more discussion the resolution:
4.7.03.01Accept the proposed resolution in the comment column. Delete dot11SMTbase3 from the IEEE 802.11k-2008 amendment as referenced, when merging with IEEE 802.11-2007.
4.7.03.02Move comment to group 9
4.8CID 26 – where do definitions go properly.
4.8.01There are about 16 definitions that may have already been put in the dictionary.
4.8.02Someone will need to get a copy of the dictionary and see if this is available.
4.8.03Action item for looking it up was assigned to Jon R..
4.9CID 45 – Spectrum Management issue
4.9.01Counter: add “spectrum management” to the third coumn for the “LCI” row.
4.9.02Add to resolution and to Comment Group 9
4.10CID 77 – DS Parameter Set element
4.10.01Discussion – comment not well received.
4.10.02Proposed resolution: Counter. Remove the first sentence of the clause and change the reference to clause 15.4.6.2 to Annex J.
4.10.03New proposal was offered: Proposed Resolution: Counter. Change the text to read: “The DS Parameter Set element contains information to allow channel number identification for STAs. The information field contains a single parameter containing the dot11CurrentChannelNumber (See Annex J for values). The length of the dot11CurrentChannelNumber parameter is 1 octet. See figure 7-41”….
4.10.04Note that it may have been corrected in TGk already….it wsa not.
4.10.05Note that this may need more
4.11Move: Approve comment resolutions in comment Group 9 in Doc 11-09/1127r12
4.11.01Move Mike M, 2nd Mark H.
4.11.02Vote: 6-0-3
4.12Recess at 6 pm – determined that we would meet next at 9am on Wed and that we would release the Wed afternoon and Thursday time slots.
5.0Wednesday, Jan 21, 2009 – 9 am
5.1Called to order by Matthew Gast.
5.2Revised agenda is in 09/40r3
5.3Still no Editor identified, so we will be at a standstill without the Editor.
5.4Andrew is concerned with his understanding of what is the proper scope of this group.
5.4.01He was asked to defer the discussion till later.
5.5So how many slots do we need for March.
5.5.01One or two slots is the normal call, but without an Editor, we are at a point that we are not able to use more slots.
5.6No interim adhoc or telecons are needed at this time.
5.7Review Timeline
5.7.01Suggestion is to change dates to N/A until such time we get an officer.
5.8Ideas of finding and editor and the funding for the editor.
5.8.01One way is to divide the work.
5.8.02Contact the IEEE and find ways to use one of their editors.
5.9Plan of Record will start to slide E-Plus one meeting.
5.10AOB
5.10.01Question on the W amendment … There is a comment that was submitted on Power-Save and how it associates… what is the disposition?
5.10.01.01This is an issue that may be split between the work that TGw is doing and what we need to do in TGmb
5.10.01.02In reviewing of the TGw comment spreadsheet, the comment has not been processed yet.
5.10.02Andrew M. question on scope of group. Highlights of discussion:
5.10.02.01Discussion on what the group is or is not.
5.10.02.02Exception was taken to the tone, and Andrew apologized and indicated that was not his intent -- accepted
5.10.02.03Suggestion was made to do a bit of a marketing pitch to the WG.on what we are doing and why they should care.
5.10.02.04Looking to find a way to define the way the group operates.
5.10.02.05Identify the agenda ahead of time to advertise the topics will be discussed and raised. This to allow more focused attendance.
5.10.02.06There is no change that will be made that is not approved by the WG. – if we maintain a line of communication to avoid doing work that will be rejected later.
5.10.02.07The changes that are proposed are being evaluated and the people that are interested should be interested and actively participate. There are times when certain experts are needed, they are consulted.
5.10.02.08Long statement from secretary. – the process is working and using the normal checks and balances.
5.10.02.09This group as a lot of authority and with that has a lot of responsibility. The changes to the draft can be done to any part of the draft, and the massive changes to the draft can be detrimental. This group should recognize this responsibility and act appropriately. If a pet-peeve issue is brought to the group, the group should police these to not allow issues that will cause the larger group to disagree with the change. The concern is that in the hall-way, there is a rumor that we are working out of bounds of the normal expectations.
5.10.02.10There is a responsibility and obligation to work within the scope of the PAR for this group. If someone brings something in, if there is enough folks in the room, then things can be pushed into the draft. This is no different in TGmb or any other TG were the group follows the rules.
5.10.02.11The chair passed charte of mtg to Mike M. Vice chair
5.10.02.12The chair is not able to give orders, but rather is there to direct the process. Having been asked about certain topics of change from individuals, the response has been to take those topics to WNG. The intent is not to do a wholesale change, but the spirit of trying to make the minor adjustments as needed.
5.10.02.13The chair is passed back to Matthew.
5.10.02.14There is a concern on the direction, and it is understood that the votes on topics are sometimes not as well advertised. Use of e-mail is not always well received. Contentious issues should be advertised better.
5.10.02.15Question on how is the issues list coded? Can we color-code the issues? Identify the issues that are contentious or external the normal process.
5.10.02.16The spreadsheet is coded to allow searching and finding isues. The advertisement over the reflector is done, and personal e-mail problems will have to be dealt with by the individuals. Remind the group that this process is being followed and we need to allow the trust of the group to overshadow the rumors of the hallway. We are in violent agreement that this group is focused on getting the revision done as soon as possible, and at this point, the Editor is the major stopping point.
5.11Adjouned at 10 am.
Minutespage 1Jon Rosdahl, CSR