Meeting Minutes of the 802 s1

Project / IEEE 802.20 Working Group on Mobile Broadband Wireless Access
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/20/
Title / Draft Meeting Minutes, 802.20 Plenary Meeting - Session #17, Vancouver, BC, Canada, Nov 14-17, 2005
Date Submitted / 2005-11-29
Source(s) / Rajat Prakash, as acting Recording Secretary for the session
QUALCOMM, Incorporated
5775 Morehouse Drive
San Diego, CA, 92121 /
Email:
Re: / 802.20 Session#17
Abstract / Draft of the Minutes of the Session #17;
Purpose / Minutes of the Session.
Notice / This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE 802.20 Working Group. It is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein.
Release / The contributor grants a free, irrevocable license to the IEEE to incorporate material contained in this contribution, and any modifications thereof, in the creation of an IEEE Standards publication; to copyright in the IEEE’s name any IEEE Standards publication even though it may include portions of this contribution; and at the IEEE’s sole discretion to permit others to reproduce in whole or in part the resulting IEEE Standards publication. The contributor also acknowledges and accepts that this contribution may be made public by IEEE 802.20.
Patent Policy / The contributor is familiar with IEEE patent policy, as outlined in Section 6.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual http://standards.ieee.org/guides/opman/sect6.html#6.3> and in Understanding Patent Issues During IEEE Standards Development <http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/guide.html>.

Draft - Meeting Minutes of the 802.20 Session #17

Sep 14-17, 2005

Vancouver, BC, Canada

Rajat Prakash, as acting Recording Secretary

The 17th session of 802.20 was held at the Nov 2005 Plenary meeting of IEEE 802 in Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Contributions and WG documents referenced in these minutes can be found at the

802.20 website, http://www.ieee802.org/20/

See Appendix A for the overall session attendance and participation credit list.

Minutes of 802.20 Monday Nov 14, 2005

Meeting started at 1:30 pm.

Chair went over the presentation C802.20-05/81 (Chair’s opening slides for Plenary).

- Copy Right Rules

- Logistics of the session.

- IEEE 802 meeting conduct

- Sign in procedure for the session

- IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards

- Logistics for the session

- Meeting agenda

Chair stated the manual sign in books for attendance are based upon an honor system. Individuals found signing in and leaving or otherwise attempting to falsify their attendance will lose all attendance credit for the session.

Chair reviewed the proposed detail agenda. The Chair stated the times listed were for time allocation planning and the agenda items would be taken in sequence as approved.

Request from James Mollenauer for addition of fifteen minutes time to TSP discussion time. Request noted by Chair and fifteen minutes added to time for discussion in the proposed agenda.

Motion to approve the Agenda (with fifteen minutes added to time for discussion of TSP). Moved by Jim Tomcik, second by Nancy Bravin. Friendly amendment from Fran O’Brien and Jose Puthenkulam, a nonmember, to postpone voting to a later meeting. Amendment not accepted by mover.

Amendment Motion by Hassan Yaghoobi and second by James Mollenauer to take out all technology selection voting from the agenda for this session. Discussion about the motion.

Motion from Dan Gal second by Hank Eilts to have a roll call vote. 18 Yes, 46 No. Motion passes (need 25% to pass).

Motion of Hassan Yaghoobi fails 47 -18 after roll call vote. For results of roll call vote, please refer to Appendix B.

Request for friendly amendment by Dan Gal: After the presentations all over, have on Wednesday morning, a review of compliance of each of the proposals (1 hour per proposal). The request was declined by the mover (James Tomcik).

Motion by Dan Gal, seconded by Hassan Yaghoobi: Move to add an additional agenda item on Wednesday 8am to 9am for a completeness and compliance review with SRD and Eval. Criteria doc. Motion fails (16 yes, 46 no).

Motion by Anna Tee, second by Hank Eilts: Move to add two hours of Q&A for each proposal if needed. 14 no, 50 No.

Request a Roll Call vote on the Motion of Anna Tee. 10 Yes. 50 no. Motion fails.

Motion to call the question. Moved by Dan Gal, second by Joanne Wilson. Vote on this motion. 49 yes, 9 no. Motion passes and the question is called.

Vote on the Motion to Approve the Agenda. 50 Yes, 10 no. The agenda is approved. See Appendix C for original approved agenda.

Comment from James Mollenauer about request for determining affiliation of consultants. Chair responded that definition is stated in the attendance book. It is up to each individual, consultants or otherwise, to review and sign in appropriately.

30 minute break.

Review and approval of the minutes. The chair noted that the list of attendees has been reformatted and revised per comments sent in by Hank Eilts.

Motion to approve minutes by Ayman Naguib, second by Nancy Bravin. Chair asked if there were any objections to the approval. Seeing no objections the minutes were approved by unanimous consent.

Chair noted that if someone has comments/objections to PARs for 11y, 16i and 22.1 groups, they should contact the Chair as comments were on Tuesday.

Chair presented updates on the membership policy of 802. Straw poll on which text is preferred

Membership is lost if a person fails to meet the participation requirement of the working group at two out of the last “THREE” or “FOUR” plenary session.

Straw poll in favor of “THREE”: 13, “FOUR”: 67.

Summary Presentation of “Technology Selection Process” by the Chair, as covered in Chair’s opening slides, C802.20-05/81.

Motion by Hassan Yaghoobi, seconded by Dan Gal to: postpone technology selection voting until the March 2006 Plenary to allow for additional individuals’ proposals to the working group and additional time for study/analysis of existing proposals as per PD07r1 which shows six months between issuance of Call for Proposals and the Final Selection. The chair stated that this is an agenda change of the approved agenda and therefore requires 2/3 majority.

Debate on the motion. Vote on the motion. Yes 16, No 44. Motion fails.

Motion by Dan Gal, second by Hassan Yaghoobi. Amendment to section 3.4.1 of the Technology Selection Process document. If the number of proposals (either TDD of FDD) is equal to or less than three, no initial selection or down selection process steps shall take place (skip steps 1 and 2). Rather, a merger between proposals shall be attempted and followed by presentations and a subsequent elimination process (step 3). The chair stated changing the TSP document requires a 2/3 majority. Yes 17, No 38. Motion failed.

Motion by Al Wieczorek second by Hassan Yaghoobi : Revise the TSP PD-10 document to add a step [Inserted prior to step 3.4] to perform and complete validation of all submitted Evaluation Calibration Reports prior to any selection voting, said validation consisting of a performance results confirmation report by all other proponents. The chair stated changing the TSP document requires a 2/3 majority. Yes 13, No 45.

Recessed until 8am Tuesday. First item for Tuesday is Rotational OFDM transmission scheme technology proposal.

Minutes of 802.20 Tuesday Nov 15, 2005

The session started at 8am.

Chair passed out the attendance books and stated the manual sign in books for attendance are based upon an honor system. Individuals found signing in and leaving or otherwise attempting to falsify their attendance will lose all attendance credit for the session.

Presentation: C802.20-05/70 by T. Suzuki, H. Ishikawa and Y. Hatakawa. Chair noted that the original submission was only a document, and the proponents requested to present a Power Point document that was not part of the original submission. The group accepted the request with no objection.

Questions and answers followed the presentation.

Presentation: C802.20-05/71-74 by Heesoo Lee, ETRI Technology Proposal. Presenters: Heesoo Lee, Youg-Jo Ko, Byung Jang Jeong, Jae Kyun Kwon.

Questions and answers followed the presentation.

Break. 11-11:20am

Presentation: C802.20-05/80Multi-antenna Support for Air Interface Spec. (M. Youssefmir). Chair noted that the original submission was only a document, and the proponents requested to present a Power Point document (C802.20-05/85) that was not part of the original submission. The group accepted the request with no objection. The chair noted that the document 85 is available on the website.

Questions and answers followed the presentation.

Lunch break 12:30-1:20pm

Resumed at 1:20pm

Presentation: C802.20-05/58-62 Jim Tomcik. QFDD Technology Presentation. Presented by Jim Tomcik, Fatih Ulupinar, Alex Gorokhov, Tingfang Ji. It was noted by the chair and Jim Tomcik that Performance Report 2 for the QFDD technology proposal, not required until January, is available on the website.

During the above presentation, some discussion about whether Q&A is allowed during the presentation. Chair ruled that questions are to be asked after the presentation is over. The same process as used for the other presentations.

Break 3pm-340pm

Motion: Kazuhiro Murakami moved and Ayman Naguib seconded to amend the agenda to allow for the presentation of the BEST WINE technology proposal from 7pm-9:30pm and allow for more time for Q&A time for QTDD on Wednesday morning and finish all technology presentations today. Results: 39 yes 17 no. Motion passes.

Start of QFDD Questions and Answers.

Some attendees requested that their comments be included in the minutes.

Comments by Farooq Khan:

The evaluation methodology required that the FL and RL be modeled jointly and that the latency be 10 ms. The link to system interface calibration data is not included in the proposal package. With one receive antenna, the spectral efficiency is lower than the requirement.

Comments by Anna Tee: The PA information was not turned in as part of report 1.

Presenters stated that their proposal meets all requirements.

Comment by Jim Ragsdale: The report includes only throughput and not spectral efficiency for Vehicular B.

Presenters stated the information was available to calculate the numbers.

The chair noted that we are running late for the day, and will take another hour and a half as part of Q&A.

Motion: By Hassan Yaghoobi second by James Mollenauer to amend the agenda to recess until 8am Wednesday. Motion Fails: Yes 15, No 47.

Motion: By Hassan Yaghoobi second by James Mollenauer to extend Q&A time from 45 to 120 minutes for QFDD Doc C802.20-05/69 (624 pages). Motion fails Yes 15, No 41.

Presentation: C802.20-05/63-69 Jim Tomcik - - QTDD Technology Presentation. Presented by Jim Tomcik, Fatih Ulupinar, Alex Gorokhov, Tingfang Ji. Chair noted that Q&A on this presentation will be done on Wednesday morning given the agenda amendment to allow for the presentation by the BEST WINE proponents today.

Break from 6:25-7:00pm.

Presentation: C802.20-05/78-79 on BEST-WINE by R. Canchi, K. Murakami, and M. Kithara.

Questions and answers followed the BEST-WINE presentation.

Statement by Jose Puthenkulam, a nonmember, requested to be included in the minutes: As per the IEEE 802 Policies & Procedure Section 7.2.4.3, sub section c) which states ‘If a standard cannot be utilized as is and the modifications or extensions to the standard are necessary, the Working Group, with the concurrence of the Executive Committee, develop these changes itself. Even in the latter case, the Working Group should seek the concurrence of the other organization by joint meetings, joint voting rights or other mechanisms on the changes being made.’ As the BEST-WINE proposal is an enhancement of an ATIS standard, before we consider it as a complete proposal, we need to request the ATIS organization if the enhancements proposed in the BEST-WINE proposal cannot be made by ATIS itself then only it can be considered as a proposal. Hence it should not be treated as a complete proposal in spite of the liaison statement from ATIS which does not state that they cannot make the changes proposed by the presenter.

Response to Jose by Mark Klerer and requested to be included in the minutes: The clause referred to in the P&P refers to an action to be taken by the working group in developing a specification. It does not prevent a member from bringing in a contribution identifying that changes in another SDOs specification are required in order to get WG support for such a change. If the WG agrees to the need for such a change, it is then that the procedure of actions implied by the P&P applies. Indeed prior to having obtained WG consensus on the need for such a change it is impossible for the WG to send a liaison expressing the need for such a change.

9:00pm

Recess until 8:00am

Minutes of 802.20 Wednesday Nov 16, 2005

8:00am session resumed

Question and answers on QTDD proposal. (8-9:30am time budgeted for this, as noted by the chair after the QTDD presentation on Tuesday.).

There was a question about overhead channel performance, and the presenters noted that they will address this in additional time allotted in the afternoon after the initial selection vote.

Motion: Moved by Hassan Yaghoobi, second by James Mollenauer, to extend the Q&A period for QFDD and QTDD for 60 minutes (amended to 120 minutes) starting at 10am on Wednesday to address questions including those in Contribution C802.20-05/91 and 83R1 and 84R1. Friendly amendment to change the timing to 120 minutes. Amendment accepted by the mover. Motion fails Yes 19, No 38.

Mover (Hassan Yaghoobi), asked for a Roll Call vote on the motion. Vote on whether to take a roll call. Yes 13, No 40. Motion fails (need 25% to pass).