2011-10-111900.7-11/0012r0
IEEE 1900.7 WS Radio WG
29-30 September 2011, Berlin Germany
Chair: Stanislav Filin
Acting Secretary: Junyi Wang
Attendance
Name (Last, First) / Affiliation / AttendanceSep 29 / Sep 30
AM1 / AM2 / PM1 / PM2 / AM1 / Am2
1 / BochowBernd / Fraunhofer FOKUS / x / x / x / x / x / x
2 / AustStefan / NEC Communication Systems / x / x / x / x
3 / MacKenzieRichard / BT / x / x / x / x / x / x
4 / ThilakawardanaShyamalie / BBC R&D / x / x / x / x / x / x
5 / MurphyAndrew / BBC R&D / x / x / x / x / x / x
6 / DemessieYohannes / NICT / x / x / x / x / x
7 / TranHaNguyen / NICT / x / x / x / x / x
8 / LuLiru / NICT / x / x / x / x / x / x
9 / WiecekDariusz / NIT Poland / x / x / x / x / x / x
10 / SunChen / NICT / x / x / x / x / x / x
11 / NoguetDominique / CEA LETI / x / x / x / x / x
12 / RiegelMax / DySPAN SC / x
13 / WilcommDaniel / TU Berlin / x / x / x / x
14 / FilinStanislav / NICT / x / x / x / x / x / x
15 / WangJunyi / NICT / x / x / x / x / x / x
16 / HollandOliver / King’s College London / x / x / x / x / x / x
17 / HaradaHiroshi / NICT / x / x / x / x
18 / HoangVinh-Dien / NICT / x / x / x / x / x / x
19 / PrasadVankatesha / TU Delft / x / x / x / x / x
20 / YiYunjung / LGE / x / x / x / x
21 / ZhouMingtuo / NICT / x / x / x / x / x / x
22 / ZhangXin / NICT / x / x / x / x / x / x
23 / XueJiantao / BUPT / x / x / x / x
24 / SwainDarcy / DISA / x / x
25 / ManikkothSajeev / IEEE / x
26 / PengLijun / BUPT / x
Sep 29, AM1
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by the chair Stanislav Filin on Sep 29 at 8:30.
The Chair asked for volunteers to be Acting Secretary for this meeting.
No one volunteered. The Chair asked Junyi Wang whether he could be an Acting Secretary for this meeting. Junyi Wang agreed.
The Chair appointed Junyi Wangas IEEE 1900.7 WG Acting Secretary for the duration of the Berlin meeting with the following responsibility
■Recording minutes of Sep 29-30, 2011 F2F meeting in Berlin and publishing them within 60 calendar days of the end of the meeting
The Chair asked for approval from the WG. The appointment was approved.
It was requested to do roll call vote for each motions. The chair agreed.
The chair and Acting Secretary performed roll call for attendance:
23 participants present
2participants (Bernd Bochow and Max Riegel) declared that they participate as observers.
The Chair explained the rules of voting membership for this meeting and after this meeting.
The Chair stated that the WG needs P&P for this meeting. The Chair proposed to take baseline P&P, select the value of supermajority, and approve as 1900.7 WG P&P for this meeting.
The chair made a call for any opinion.
It was requested to clarify the document sever so as to find the draft P&P. The chair clarified it.
The chair made a call for any further questions. No one came forward with questions.
The chair made a call forany objections to select supermajority value (2/3 or 3/4) and approve “IEEE Standards Association (IEEE-SA) Baseline Policies and Procedures for IEEE Standards Working Groups – Individual Method” for operation during this meeting?
No objections
Strawpoll
Which option do you select for supermajority?
2/3
3/4
There were some discussions on the thresholdto approve P&P.
D. Yohaness proposed 50% to approve.
The chair suggested 2/3 to be on the safe side.
Strawpoll was run.
Name / VoteLast / First
Aust / Stefan / 2/3
MacKenzie / Richard / 2/3
Thilakawardana / Shyamalie / 2/3
Murphy / Andrew / 2/3
Demessie / Yohannes / Abstain
Tran / HaNguyen / Abstain
Lu / Liru / 2/3
Wiecek / Dariusz / 2/3
Sun / Chen / Abstain
Noguet / Dominique / 2/3
Wilcomm / Daniel / 2/3
Wang / Junyi / 2/3
Holland / Oliver / 2/3
Harada / Hiroshi / Abstain
Hoang / Vinh-Dien / Abstain
Prasad / Vankatesha / Abstain
Yi / Yunjung / 2/3
Mingtuo / Zhou / Abstain
Zhang / Xin / Abstain
2/3 was selected as supermajority value.
Motion
Approve “IEEE Standards Association (IEEE-SA) Baseline Policies and Procedures for IEEE Standards Working Groups – Individual Method” with supermajority value of 2/3 as 1900.7 WG P&P for Sep 29-30, 2011 F2F meeting
Moved by Lu Liru
Seconded Oliver Holland
Discussions on the Motion
It was requested to clarify the merit and demerit of 2/3 or 3/4.
One opinion was that 2/3 potentially reduces the blocking and makes the process going fast. However it was against by other opinion with the reason that 2/3 is too easy to accept motion.
H. Harada requested having detail discussion on the threshold. He mentioned that there were there was some discussion in Dyspan and SCC 41 committee, the wrong selection made problems at that time.
It was questioned on whether the P&P approved by the motion is only valid for this meeting. The chair confirmed that. It was then suggested discussing this question when we consider WG P&P.
It was also questioned that whether the membership of this group is by individual.“YES” the chair answered.
The chair made a call for any further discussions on this motion. No one came forward with questions or comments. The chair called the question.
The motion was run. Y-> Approve. N->Disapprove. A-> Abstain.
Name / VoteLast / First
Aust / Stefan / Y
MacKenzie / Richard / Y
Thilakawardana / Shyamalie / A
Murphy / Andrew / A
Demessie / Yohannes / Y
Tran / HaNguyen / Y
Lu / Liru / A
Wiecek / Dariusz / Y
Sun / Chen / A
Noguet / Dominique / Y
Wilcomm / Daniel / Y
Wang / Junyi / A
Holland / Oliver / Y
Harada / Hiroshi / A
Hoang / Vinh-Dien / A
Prasad / Vankatesha / A
Yi / Yunjung / A
Mingtuo / Zhou / A
Zhang / Xin / A
Jiangtao / Xue / A
YES 8 NO 0 A 14
Motion passed.
2. Approval of Agenda
The chair showed the Agenda 7-11-0001-01-AGND-berlin-meeting-agenda and initialed discussions on the agenda.
It was requested to have a time slot to discuss how to maintain the membership. The chair clarified immediately. He showed the related parts in the approved P&P.
Richard MacKenzie requested to have a time slot for his pretension on “potentialusage case for TVWS”. The chair assigned the time slot for it. The agenda was therefore updated to rev2.
Agenda 7-11-0001-02-AGND-berlin-meeting-agenda was approved with unanimousconsensus.
3. Call for Essential Patent Claims
The chair announced the instructions for the WG Chair and patent pages.
The Chair made call for essential patent claims.No new essential patent claims were indicated.
4. Opening report
Opening report 7-11-0004-00 was presented by the chair.
The chair made a called for any questions.
It is questioned whether someone who did not register for the meeting may impact voting in this meeting. The chair indicated that he will check later, and he requested those ones who did not do registration do not vote for the motion.
There were some discussions whether this is first meeting of this group. The chair confirmed that this meeting in Berlin is the first meeting.
5. Technical contributions
7-11-0005-00-Introduction from PAR and 5C presented by S. Filin, NICT
It was questioned on the definition of white space frequency band. The chair mentioned that the definitions are in the PAR. “Does it include not only TVWS but other WS band?”“YES.”The chair answered.
It is commented on 5C that the mobility of up to 300km/h may create problems. The question was supported by BBC, since in UK or Europe the usage case up to 300km/h mobility is very limited.
Bochow Bernd clarified that there did have some applications, such asITS system.
It was suggested that considering usage case first and then deciding whether we need the mobility up to 300km/h. The group agreed.
There was a request to carefully consider using the term of “white space”. The chair mentioned that the next presentation may give the potential bands for other white spaces.
It was questioned on the meaning of cellular and meshnetwork support. It was replied that cellular means point to multiple points. Mesh means point-to-point.
Does it mean 802.11af can support both cellular and mesh?
No. Cellular topology usually supports handover. For 802.11af they do not have handover support.
It was clarified that White space does not necessarily mean TVWS.
The chair clarified that it is up to the group to decide providing solutiononly for TVWS or for all WS.We should do call-for-contributions for particular topics
10-13-00-IEEE SCC 41 Ad Hoc on WS Radio White Space Usage Models, presented by Tran HaNguyen, NICT.
It was questioned on the term white space and comment to have discussion in the agenda and havefinal common understanding in the group. The chair proposed to discuss this in agenda item 6 and made a call for any objections to modify the agenda accordingly. No objections.
Is there nothing related with license in IMT-band. NO.
What is the real reason to include ISM band?It is an unlicensed band, it can also be used as white space.
It is suggested postpone discussion on this until agenda Item 6.
How much frequency ranges the group would consider. The chair clarified that we have to make decision on the frequency band we should support and some other points like mobility, range. It was indicated that we had discussion on it, and we decided to open to all WS during PAR creation.
It was commented that for the UK geo-location database, it should be mentioned that maximum power should also be given by the geo-location database as mentioned in slide 7.
The chair clarified that the contribution just to show what are possible white space we have.
10-31-00-White Space Usage Models presented by Lu liru, NICT.
Due to the time, the chair suggested having discussion from the afternoon.
Agenda was updated to 7-11-0001-04 due to the unfinished presentationin the morning session. The Agenda 7-11-0001-04 was approved.
The meeting was recessed at 0:15PM.
The meeting was called to order at 1:30PM.
The chair initiatedthe discussion on presentation 10-31-00-White Space Usage Models
It was questioned that whether the data rate is PHY layer or MAC layer. “It is PHY layer data rate” the presenter answered.
It was questioned on the methodology behind scenarios and the reason to set those scenarios as the target of TVWS. The presenter clarified that we just provide idea for potential applications.
The chair clarified that the contribution is just input for our group. It is not preventing to contribute any other usage models.
The chair made a call for any other questions. None made.
10-0008-02-System presented by Junyi Wang, NICT.
It was questioned on the reason on the coexistence with other systems. The presenter answered that the coexistence is a key issue in the white space, although it is not the main job of this group, we could provide some interfaces for that.
It was questioned on how dissimilar systems may coexistence to each other since they could not understand each other. The presented explained that the coexistence can be provided by some servers on internet since all systems have interfaces with internet. This job is doing in IEEE 802.19.1.
11-02-00-Regulatory and propagation conditions in the TVWS, presented by Vincent BERG, CEA-LETI
It was commented that Okumara - Hata model is usually used for high frequency band like 1.8GHz, it may not be a good model for TV band. The presenter replied that the channel model is questionable. The intention of this presentation is to initiate the discussion.
It was commented that the actual link budge calculation is hard to be calculated. Since it is in white space, you may have to consider the interference from other devices. The presenter agreed and amended that Interferencemanagement is also one of important points.
How many clusters do you expect for indoor case in Saleh and Valenzuelamodel?
It depends on the application models.
It was indicated that 802.11n channel model with frequency shift is much close to the real scenario.
The ERO Seamcat Modified Hata model is widely used within CEPT and EBUand presented in the following document.
(page 21)
The usage of the above can be found in:
The simplified version of Hata is used in Ofcom Implementing Geolocationconsultation:
(Annex A.4)
The chair requested the group to have serious consideration for this topic.
11-3-00-A broadcaster's view: use cases/requirements, A. Murphy, BBC R&D
It was questioned on why there is no mobile broadcast usage scenario. It was answered that the BBC has no strategyon that. There are a lot of issues in business model.
It was questioned hat why DTV-T2 is introduced however you provide a usage case of Broadband access. Just to introduce modulation scheme by using DTV-T2 as an example.
It was commented that in Slide 12, TDMA may be better CSMA in high load scenario, while in low load scenario, it is not true. The presenter replied that the point of this comparison is to show TDMA system does not break when increasing connections. It was against by the commenter, he mentioned that it totally depends on the applicationscenarios, for some application it may be the way to go, but for other it is not.
It was commented that DVB-T2 is designed for satellitecommunication, we should look at the power limitation, if there is some limitation in it, and the performance will not be achieved. The presenter clarified that the satellite communication is using single carrier with OFDM as modulation scheme, although it is similar to DVB-T2, but they are different.
11-9-02-Potential Use Cases For TVWS, presented by Richard MacKenzie, BT
It was questioned on the background on slide 5. The presenter explained that this is just initialattempt to evaluate the availability of TVWS.
Have you also considered the satellitecommunication in the presentation?
No. Some of users are using satellite but they are not satisfied with its services because they cannot provide broadband services.
Since the scheduled topics did not finish by the ending time of today. The chair scheduled the remained topics to tomorrow and updated the agenda accordingly.
The chair made a call for any objection to approve the agenda 7-11-0001-05. No objections.
6. Input to 1900.1 WG
Request from 1900.1 WG 7-11-0007-00was presented by the 1900.1a chair Bochow Bernd.
The chair: what is the deadline for the second questions? Bochow Bernd: It depends on the feedback from the working group. We do not want to urge you to achieve any deadline.
The chair indicated that we need to check the table of contents from the perspective of 1900.7 before October 19. However the eeliest day for 802.19 is 21, October, but we need to have official meeting to approve the terms.
Bochow Berndclarified that if the group could not mange to achieve the deadline, it is also appreciatedto get the feedback from individual.
The chair clarified that that this is the invitation for anyone in the meeting to have comment on it, but it is not official process of the 1900.7. The intention of the second question is to balance between different groups. We have much time for this. We can create ad-hoc group for this.
It was questioned to the 1900.1 chair: most of definitions we need will come up in the future, are you going to provide update for this list. Bochow Bernd indicated that 1900.1a project is until Dec, 2012, we hope to have our draft after Dec meeting; you may join the ballot to bring the comment with new terms. However for the current draft, we intend to have a stable list for considerationbefore Oct. 19.
Bochow Bernd clarified that 1900.1a has published draft with some terms, until 2018, they are going to provide revision of current standard; it is also possible to include the terms at that time from 1900.7 group.
It was clarified that if there are conflict definitions for a particular term, the conflict resolution of terminology will be finally solved in 1900.1a WG.
1900.1a chair clarified that1900.1a takes no difference for WG and individual resolutions.
It was suggested to select the opinion of WG with higher priority than individual. The chair supported.
The chair made a call for any objections to processrequest 1 fromnow and continue in AOB if the group cannot finish today. No objections.
The chair made a call for missing term from theperspective of 1900.7.
It was indicated that it is a hard job to complete in such short time. The WG should have some reference to find what is missing. The chair agreed. And he amended that he provided some terms to 1900.1a according the PAR we had.
It was indicated the following problems: (1) We don’t have enoughmaterial (2) We do not know how far we should go in defining the new terms.
Did 1900.1a approve to include 1900.4a definition in 1900.1 draft. The 1900.1 chair clarified that they do not include the terminology list which has already published.
The chair suggested defining local terms by WG. It was supported by Dominique.
List of new terms
TV White Space
White Space Dynamic Spectrum Access Radio System
Strawpoll
Are you in favor to include the term “White Space Dynamic Spectrum Access Radio System” in the list of terms as an answer to WG 1900.1?
YES
NO
Discussion
1900.1a chair clarified that this term might be interesting for 1900.1a to evaluate.
It was objected with the reason that the term does not add anything new.
The chair indicated to the group that 1900.1a may provide some definitions that we may not besatisfied. We may define by ourselves.
The strawpoll was run. Y-> YES, N->No, A->Abstain
Name / VoteLast / First
Aust / Stefan
MacKenzie / Richard / N
Thilakawardana / Shyamalie / A
Murphy / Andrew / A
Demessie / Yohannes / A
Tran / HaNguyen / N
Lu / Liru / N
Wiecek / Dariusz / A
Sun / Chen / Y
Noguet / Dominique / N
Wilcomm / Daniel / N
Wang / Junyi / N
Holland / Oliver / Y
Harada / Hiroshi / A
Hoang / Vinh-Dien / Y
Mingtuo / Zhou / Y
Zhang / Xin / Y
Swain / Darcy / N
YES 6 NO 7
It was requested to indicate the voting member of 1900.1a
In YES group: Oliver, Prasad, in NO group: HaNguyen, Darcy.
The chair stated that the results of the strawpoll do not allow to select either option and suggested continuing the discussion on terminology, and the discussion of definition of WS in the agenda of AOB tomorrow.And he also proposed to start from Agenda Item 7of today tomorrow morning. The agenda was updated accordingly.
The chair made a call for any objection to approve the agenda in 7-11-0001-06. No objections.
The meeting was recessed until tomorrow at 6:13PM, Sept 29, 2011
The meeting was called to order at 8:30AM, Sept. 30, 2011
The chair showed the agenda again and asked the group whether there is any modification for this agenda. None made.
The chair reminded voting membership policy.
7. Draft development process
Contribution to facilitate discussion on the draft development process was presented (7-11-0006-00)
It is questioned on slide 5 that what Radio interference ID is. The presenter explained that it is used to connect one MAC layer to another MAC layer, such as Mac address in WiFi. While MAC address is not mandatory for 1900.7. To identify device , we need some ID.