March 2006doc.: IEEE 802.11-06/0524r0
IEEE P802.11
Wireless LANs
Date: 7 - 9 March 2006
Author(s):
Name / Company / Address / Phone / email
Filip Weytjens / TransCore / 8600 Jefferson Street NE
87113, Albuquerque, NM / +1 (505) 856-8145 /
Tuesday March 7, 2006,1:30 PM Session
Lee Armstrong chair of the TGp working group opened the meeting at 4:00 PM.
The policies, rules, and objectives were presented to the working group. The main objective of the meeting is to prepare the document for the next meeting in Vancouver.
Lee discussed the agenda and requested whether the agenda was acceptable as submitted to the server.
Tom asked to remove P1556 from the agenda and with this change the meeting was approved.
Tom presented the liaison status with IEEE P1609. The standards 1609.3, .4 past balloting with comments. It was decided by the IEEE 1609 working group to request submission of the documents as a trial standard as a result of the comments. Upcoming meetings were presented.
Lee continued with the election of the TGp officers. The following individuals were selected by unanimous consent:
Chair: Lee Armstrong
Editor: Wayne Fisher
Secretary: Filip Weytjens
Lee continued with a discussion on the PAR. A line in the PAR is inconsistent with the standard that we are amending. As a result line 6b was changed to “6b. The Project is a: Amendment to Std 802.11”
Discussion on action items:
Open action items from previous meeting are action Item 34, 40, and 42.
- ACTION # 34:Provide test clause comments from OmniAir “Device Certification” perspective Randy Roebuck
- ACTION # 40:Richard Noens and Randy Roebuck to get together to submit new comments on test parameters in clause 20.3.10. – (Randy Roebuck, Richard Noens)
- ACTION # 42: Provide, as part of the liaison with TC204, additional information that will be included in the WAVE Announcement action frame for Calm (V2V communications). (Knut Evensen)
Action item 63 was overtaken by events and closed during this session. It was identified by Brian that the comment sheet on the reflector did not include his comments.
Letter ballot 80 passed and comments were submitted to Wayne. About half of the comments were no-vote comments. The following letter ballot will be LB81.
Richard Pain gave an overview of the process TGk went through when balloting and the approval of comments received. Presentation: 11k Lessons learned – doc: IEEE 802.11-06/XXXXr0. 11k received about 300 comments for the first review. The second review 200 comments. The first letter ballot resulted in about 1300 comments; the second and third letter ballot resulted in approximately 1600 for each.
The excel sheet that was used as an example was: “11-05-1049-000k-11k-lb78-comment resolution-spreadsheet.xls”
A lot of work has been put by .11k in organizing and automating the balloting process. It was advised that .11p would use the work already done within 11k to start off its own balloting process.
Richard Roy provided the liaison report with Iso WG 16. He called it “VII on steroids” – multiple media talking from one platform. CALM-M5 (based on 802.11p) “Continuous air interface for Long and Medium Range”. Information can be found on the website:
Lee requested whether Dick would accept to be the official liaison from WG16 to TGp. Dick accepted.
The next WG 16 meeting will be in Philadelphia. This is the same week as ITS America.
The session was recessed at 3:35 PM.
Tuesday March 7, 2006,4:00 PM Session
Lee opened the session at 4:00 PM.
Wayne presented the different classes and assigned responsibilities. This was stored on the server as document doc: IEEE 802.11-06/0439r0.
A template was discussed to document the comments from LB80. This template can be found in doc: IEEE 802.11-06/0437r0.
Lee requested that all of those who have assigned responsibilities start with the resolution of the comments.
The comments can be found in doc: IEEE 802.11-06/0417r0. According to Lee the group is restricted to comments as a result from LB80, which was for 802.11p draft document 0.26.
A discussion started on the procedural issues that are related with having two letter ballots resulting in comments following each other. As a result it was proposed by Lee to:
1. Each individual will be asked to resubmit its comments. This allows one to change the comments if needed.
2. A lot of comments to LB 80 are valid and we can get at least a month or two head start by addressing these comments.
3. We will use the template that was generated to document the resolution of the comments to LB80.
The session was recessed at 5:15PM.
Wednesday March 8, 2006,1:30 PM Session
Lee opened the session at 1:35PM.
Wayne started the discussion on the comments. He presented the persons that were assigned to resolve comments for specific sections and the template that was used.
CID 5/Dorsey: Requires more research.
CID 69/Stanley: Wayne will revisit and resolve any inconsistencies with the use of provider and user. - Open
CID 67/Stanley:
Straw pole on whether we should take out RSU and OBU and replace it with a different definition. The majority of TGp was in favour of keeping the terms RSU and OBU in the document.
Lee will look at the definition for RSU and OBU and will propose a new suggested definition. It was requested to provide any input to Lee by COB.
CID 2/Eastlake: Proposed language documented in the comment-resolution document.
CID 70/Stanley: Requires additional research.
Wayne proceeded with his proposed comments.
CD 11/Perahia: further information will be provided.
CD 84/Stanley: Editorial change – Accepted – Closed
CD 85/Stanley: Statement will be deleted.
The session was recessed at 3:25PM.
Thursday March 9, 2006,1:30 PM Session
Lee opened the session at 1:35PM.
The process was discussed and an update provided on comments received. To date about 100 comments were received. Version 1 of the template was uploaded to the server as 11-06-0437-01-00p-tgp-comment-resolution-forms.doc.
Susan continued with a discussion on the following comments. (11-06-0511-00-000p-clause-7.3.2.22.11.doc) For each comment, a solution was proposed and background provided.
Comments addressed: CID 59, CID 78, CID 30, CID 48, CID 42, CID 60, CID 115
Changes were made during the meeting and Susan will submit them under revision 1. It was requested whether there was any discussion on the recommended solution.
Brian continued with a discussion on following comments (No IEEE Doc number): CID 8, CID 117, CID23. The document with the proposed resolution will be placed on the server.
Stuart Stressed that the comment resolution should be clear such that the editor knows exactly what needs to be done.
A concern was discussed on what the impact would be if the assignment of control and service channels were deleted. Brian will document the impact to the document and present it at the 4:00PM Session.
The meeting was recessed at 2:55PM.
Thursday March 9, 2006,4:00 PM Session
Lee opened the session at 4:10 PM.
Brian continued with a discussion on a proposed resolution for the following comments. The discussion was documented in 11-06-0521-00-000p-LB80-comment-resolution-clause-9-15.doc
Comments addressed:
Comment: CID 54
It was requested to have a motion on the resolution that the group came up with. Since we could not make the change to the document, we cannot have a formal vote. Also, it was not decided whether a primitive was used or whether we would use the MIB.
Straw poll: Does the TG agree that the proposed resolution is the direction we want to move?
Following up on the request for this motion it was brought up that we were making these changes without agreeing on removing references to control and service channel from the 802.11p draft. Therefore the following straw poll:
Straw poll: Does this TG agree that it is beneficial to consider removing all Control and Service channel references in 802.11p D1.0.
Vote: 10-0-1
Does the TG agree to create an ad-hoc group to examine and report on the impact of removing all Control and Service channel references in 802.11p D1.0?
Vote: 10-0-0; Brian will lead the group with following participants: Jason, Dick, Suzan, and Filip
Comment: CID 119
The ad-hoc group established for comment 54 will address this comment.
Comment: CID 120 - Accepted
Doc 11-06-0521-01-000p-LB80-comment-resolution-clause-9-15.doc
Doug continued with a proposed resolution for following comments. The discussion was documented in doc: 11-06-0523-01-000p-tgp-LB80-comment-resolution-dmk.doc.
CID 39: Proposed to be rejected
Comment CID 41: Proposed language documented
Comment CID 94: Proposed language documented. Comment proposed to be rejected.
The proposed changes were posted to the server. (doc: 11-06-0523-03-000p-tgp-LB80-comment-resolution-dmk.doc)
One motion will be presented at the plenary to support teleconferences.
Those who submitted comments to LB80 should resubmit the comments for LB81.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 PM.
Action Items
- ACTION # 34:Provide test clause comments from OmniAir “Device Certification” perspective Randy Roebuck
- ACTION # 40:Richard Noens and Randy Roebuck to get together to submit new comments on test parameters in clause 20.3.10. – (Randy Roebuck, Richard Noens)
- ACTION # 42: Provide, as part of the liaison with TC204, additional information that will be included in the WAVE Announcement action frame for Calm (V2V communications). (Knut Evensen)
- ACTION # 64: Setup an ad-hoc meeting to discuss CID 54. (Brian)
- ACTION # 65: Those who submitted comments to LB80 should resubmit the comments for LB81.
Submissionpage 1Filip Weytjens, TransCore