June 2008 doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0750r0
IEEE P802.11
Wireless LANs
Date: 2008-06-26
Author(s):
Name / Company / Address / Phone / email
Adrian Stephens / Intel Corporation /
Agenda as published
1. Review Patent Policy requirements, call for notification of any new essential patents. See below.
2. Review and approve agenda
3. Beam ad-hoc, comment resolution
4. PHY ad-hoc, comment resolution
5. MAC ad-hoc, comment resolution (TBD)
Teleconferences are bound by the conditions stipulated by the documentation below. Please review them prior to the teleconference.
IEEE CODE OF ETHICSIEEE-STANDARDS ASSOCIATION (IEEE-SA) AFFILATION FAQ
IEEE-SA ANTITRUST AND COMPETITION POLICY
IEEE-SA LETTER OF ASSURANCE (LOA) FORM
IEEE-SA STANDARDS BOARD PATENT COMMITTEE (PATCOM) INFORMATION
IEEE-SA PATENT POLICY
IEEE-SA PATENT FAQ
IEEE 802 LAN/MAN STANDARDS COMMITTEE POLICIES & PROCEDURES
IEEE 802.11 Working Group Policies and Procedures at https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/public-file/07/11-07-0360-04-0000-802-11-policies-and-procedures.doc
Attendees
(Name, Affiliation)
Adrian Stephens, Intel
Assaf Kasher, Intel
Bill Marshall, AT&T
Dave Bagby, Sanyo & Calypso Ventures
Doug Chan, Cisco
Eldad Perahia, Intel
Harish Ramamurthy, Marvell
Hongyuan Zhang, Marvell
John K, Qualcomm
Joonsuk Kim, Broadcom
Matt Fischer, Broadcom
Michael Livshitz, Metalink
Naveen Kakani, Nokia
Peter Loc, Ralink Technology
Raja Banerjea, Marvell
Vinko Erceg, Broadcom
Agenda as approved
1. Review Patent Policy requirements, call for notification of any new essential patents. See below.
2. Review and approve agenda
3. Beam ad-hoc, comment resolution
a. 2 contributions – 1 hour
4. PHY ad-hoc, comment resolution
a. 17 comments – 1 hour
5. MAC ad-hoc, comment resolution
Minutes
1. Review Patent Policy requirements, call for notification of any new essential patents
a. No response to “is there anybody unfamiliar with the IEEE patent policy”
b. No response to “is there anybody who wishes to bring any new essential patents”
2. Review and approve agenda
3. Beam ad-hoc, comment resolution
a. Comments Doc is 11-08/737
b. Doc 11-08/736r1 (Ketchum)
i. CID 7320 7321. Proposed rejection. No feedback. No objection to accept this resolution.
ii. CID 7322.
1. Proposed counter.
2. Long discussion on whether the commenter is correct, or expressing an opinion.
3. No objection to accept this resolution.
c. Doc 11-08/738
i. CID 7151.
1. Proposed rejection.
2. No objection to accept this resolution.
ii. CID 7537.
1. Proposed counter.
2. Discussion: reject as this is informative. There are normative statements elsewhere that suffice.
3. Joonsuk will update the document.
iii. CID 8089
1. Proposed counter.
2. Some discussion: Adrian questions why commenter’s resolution wasn’t adopted.
3. No objection
iv. CID 8108.
1. Proposed rejection.
2. No objection
d. Treatment of minor technical comments.
e. Any objection to moving unassigned 19 comments to Editor?
i. Peter Loc – will there be any objection to classifying these as editorial?
ii. Adrian – we’re not reclassifying them. I will bring a motion to TGn for approval.
iii. No objection.
4. PHY ad-hoc, comment resolution
a. 11-08/743r0
i. CID 8071
1. Proposed resolution
2. No objection
ii. CID 8097
1. Document contains a rejection
2. Vinko wants to change resolution to accept, based on email with commenter.
3. Raja Bannerjee – Marvell wants to discuss further.
a. Raja will propose alternative
4. Comment deferred.
iii. CID 8098
1. Document contains defer.
2. Vinko will update resolution to define resolution as a counter and define aSignalExtension in 20.4.4 and 10.4.3
iv. CID 7457 - 7460
1. Document contains Reject.
2. Adrian suggests adding a NOTE to table to add reference to 11.14.1.
3. Resolution now: “Insert note to table to add reference to 11.14.1”
4. Vinko will update resolution.
v. CID 7470
1. Proposed Reject
2. No Discussion
3. Proposed resolution accepted
vi. This completes the comments which are not “minor technical”
vii. Restart from top of document looking at minor technicals
viii. CID 7473
1. Proposed Reject
2. No objection
ix. CID 7474
1. Proposed Reject
2. No objection
x. CID 7475
1. Proposed Accept
2. Some discussion. Eldad wants to reject. Values are used in equations which do (or will) have a shall.
3. New resolution: reject. No discussion.
4. Vinko will update.
xi. CID 7476
1. Proposed Accept.
2. No objection
xii. CID 7477
1. Proposed Accept.
2. No objection
xiii. CID 7469
1. Proposed Reject
2. No objection
xiv. CID 7471
1. Proposed Reject
2. No objection
xv. CID 7472
1. Proposed Counter
2. No objection
xvi. CID 7538
1. Document shows an accept.
2. Changed to reject based on discussion for 7475
3. Vinko will update
xvii. CID 8072
1. Proposed Accept
2. No objection
b. 10 of 18 were accepted as in the document, 8 need to be updated.
5. MAC ad-hoc, comment resolution
a. Document 11-08/0742r0
i. CID 7073
1. Proposed Reject
2. No discussion
3. No objection
ii. CID 7074
1. Proposed reject
2. Question: anybody believes there is ambiguity when the FORMAT parameter does not exist?
a. No response
3. No objection
6. Next Meeting July 02, 2008
a. PHY, can use some time, but Eldad’s minor comments
b. MAC - hours
c. COEX – maybe some material (20 minutes at most)
d. BEAM – not this week, but 10 minute slot in following week
Minutes page 1 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation