IEEE P802.22 Wireless Rans s6

January 2008 doc.: IEEE 802.22-08/0023r0

IEEE P802.22
Wireless RANs

1.  Introductions
Attendees:

Bill Rose

Monique Brown

Gerald Chouinard

Greg Buchwald

Chris Clanton

Jerry Kalke

Prior to approval of the agenda, there was a discussion on the upcoming Taipei meetings. According to Carl, only 17 participants have signed to be present. Therefore Carl has decided that there will be no breakout sessions for .22 including TG1. Gerald asked if we can hold meetings by teleconference to resolve comments. IEEE rules prohibit this.
It was decided that we will hold two calls per week (PHY, MAC) starting the week following the F2F meetings. The first will be held on Tuesdays at 6:00 PM EST starting the 22nd of January, and the second on Thursdays at 6:00 PM EST starting on Thursday the 24th of January. Bill Rose took the action item to notice the calls.

2.  Patent policy review

3.  Approve agenda

4.  Approve minutes from 1/03/08

5.  Comment Resolution:

o  Address Comment 108
We discussed this comment which had been rejected during the previous comment resolution. Although the commenter provided additional reasoning, we have held a great deal of discussion on shortening the beaconing periods with the result that it is not possible to meet the commenter’s request. Monique captured the comment resolution which included pointing out that we cannot shorten the duration enough to meet his stated requirements. The agreed upon resolution to maintain the necessary QoS for VoIP applications mentioned in the comment is to switch channels upon sync detection and do OOB sensing to authenticate the beacon. The WRAN has 100msec aggregate transmission time over 2 seconds to switch channels which should be adequate to both maintain QoS and switch channels.

o  Comment 123
This comment refers to confusion over the use of the term “subchannel” in the context of the beacon. It was agreed to use a different term. Please refer to the comment resolution.

o  Comment 491
The comment states that the requirement for unlicensed devices to decode the beacon sub frames should apply only to WRAN or similar networks whose transmit range is much greater than the sensing range”
It was decided that this is out of scope for TG1. TG1 anticipates that the beaconing devices will fall under Part 74 or equivalent rules in other regulatory domains. TG1 does not specify what devices or systems must defer to a Part 74 device or under what conditions Part 74 applies.

o  Continue to resolve TRs followed by Ts.
NOTE: At this point (7:00 PM EST) Bill Rose had to leave the call. The call continued with Vice Chairman Greg Buchwald as the acting chairman of the meeting.
Steve K will send out an updated version of 22-08-xxxx-00-0001_New_table-2.doc that will include updates to 6.8.7, since this subclause must be in agreement with any changes made to 6.8.6.

o  Comment #109 from George Vlantis. The comment says, "The three parameters at the left of Table 1 in subclause 6.1 need some explanation. Obviously, the Symbol Rate is the Chip Rate divided by eight, but how does one derive the Chip rate and the Frequency Offset?" We need feedback from the commenter to better understand his concern with the frequency offset. Steve K's thought is that it may be difficult to synthesize 309.4406 kHz. Also this number suggests an unrealistic precision. The group decided to change the beacon frequency offset to 309.4 kHz.
Action: Monique to contact George for more info.

o  #111 from George Vlantis. The comment says, "'This statement is a mouthful. I'd like to see an equation here for what is being specified." An equation exists for an ideal infinite duration pulse, but this is not very useful. We would then need to get into implementation details such ashow to limit such a pulse.
Action: Monique to contact George for more info.

o  #144 from Jianwei Zhang is under discussion on the email reflector. Monique wanted to discuss the comment on the call to try and get more opinions. The issue is what should a new PD do if it hears one or more PPDs? In D2, the text says that the PD will not automatically become an SPD. It may take factors such as keep out zone and location into consideration (note that #125 suggests better wording for the current text). The comment says that the PD should first become an SPD upon hearing a PPD. The consensus on the call is to reject the comment. Greg said that just because a PD can hear a PPD, it doesn't mean that the PPD's keep out zone is appropriate for the PD. Chris was concerned that the PD would be setting itself up to be unprotected for some amount of time if it automatically became an SPD.
Action: Monique to contact Jianwei regarding the call discussion.

6.  Open Business
There was no other business.

7.  Next Meetings

o  Please note there will be no meetings of TG1 at the Taipei, Taiwan January 14th – 18th face to face meetings.

o  Conference calls:

§  PHY Comment Resolution Call: Tuesday, January 22nd at 6:00 PM EST and every Tuesday at 6:00 PM EST thereafter until the Orlando meetings in March.

§  MAC Comment Resolution Call: Thursday, January 24th at 6:00 PM EST and every Thursday at 6:00 PM EST thereafter until the Orlando meetings in March.

1. Adjourn

Submission page 1 William Rose, WJR Consulting Inc.