January 2001doc.: IEEE 802.11-00/116

IEEE P802.11
Wireless LANs

Minutes of 802.11 Task Group H January 2001 Interem

Date:January 15, 2001

Authors:Juha Heiskala
Nokia
Phone: 972-894-5516
Fax: 72-894-4589
e-Mail:

Amjad Soomro

Philips Research

Phone: (914) 945 6319

Fax: (914) 945 6580

e-Mail:

Minutes of the IEEE P802.11 Task Group H January 2001 Interem

January 15 - 19, 2001

Hyatt Regency Monterey, Monterey, CA

1. Monday

1.1. Meeting TGh Cypress 1-3

1.1.1. Agenda presented and revised

Item 3.2 to introduce the three documents. Not to discuss the documents in detail. Left as it is.

Requests for motions and objections

Motion to approve the document – Passed with no objections

1.1.2. TGh introduction

Scope of the task group presented

Purpose of the project presented: Change both MAC & PHY

Request for comments - No comments.

1.1.3. SMASG Functional Requirements

SGh Comparison Criteria

Draft SMa Study Group Proposal Selection Process

AI- To prepare a call for initial proposals – Mika Kasslin

Two teleconferences since Tampa mtg.

2 Procedures to ensure that regulatory requirements are met.

Any questions or comments – No comments

1.1.4. Action Item 4

2nd teleconference. If the standard is to be effective the

ERC requirements should be addressed.

ERC/DEC/(99)23 – available on server. Defines the requirements that apply to H/2 – DFS – TPC

Bands 5150 – 5350, 5470 – 5725

DFS required – Avoid interference with radar system. Uniform spectrum loading 330MHz or 255MHz in later band

IEEE doc 802.11-01/0333

Designated bands, TPC required

EU Directive => ETSI Guide Directive 1999/?

EN – European Norm. Recognized by European union – Radio conformance test. Approved in the Dec meeting. Public inquiry through EC initiated. ETSI to ask different countries for comment.

1.1.5. Invitation for discussion. General Discussion.

Limit Tackle European requirements

Objective to define apparatus in presence of licensed operators

Challenge: Detect most weak licensed operators. It is not in current standard.

It is an implementation issue - Jamshed

To take more active role in defining spectrum management requirements.

Satisfy primary users that bands can be shared.

Problem in IEEE std. –32 dbc third channel assessment. Greater sensitivity may be required.

Basic requirements of co-existence – DFS. For IEEE 802.11 too

DFS is also an operational issue for co-existence - Jamshed

DFS-TPC as a spectrum efficiency mechanism.

Carl: Difficult to specify requirements. Requirements are moving targets. Requirements set on ongoing basis. The groups are not known or decided.

Requirements do not even exists.

France: Asking for testing DFS so that it actually works.

Process: How do we decide who the bodies are?

Mika: Cooperate with ETSI BRAN. Do not know other bodies.

Good opportunity to discuss with regulatory group.

Spectrum in UK: lose middle part and then loose start point as well due to spreading requirement.

Session extended for ten minutes.

Peter Ecclesine – Cisco

Radio LANS are not the primary users of the band. To avoid interference with other users.

Already low power measurement apparatus. New Primitive suggested:

Next meeting tomorrow with R-Reg Tue 1/16 3.30 – 5.30

1.2. Meeting adjourned at 5:25 PM

2. Tuesday Evening

2.1. Participants

Juha HeiskalaNokia

Mika KasslinNokia

Peter EcclesineCisco

Andy GowansRA

Stefan MangoldAachen University

Amjad SoomroPhilips

Joonsuk KimBroadcom

Le Scolan LionelCanon Research Centre France

Takeo IchikawaNTT

Takashi OnizawaNTT

David SkellernRadiata

Weiyi LiComSilica

Christopher HansenBroadcom

Dmitri VarsanofievResonext

Peter MurrayIntersil

David BaddeleyMotorola

Sunghyan ChoiPhilips

Evan GreenIntel

Bill McFarlandAtheros

Bob HuanaSony

2.2. Secretary

2.2.1. Juha Heiskala

2.3. Call to order

2.3.1. 6:50 PM

2.4. Agenda

2.4.1. Presentation of contributions

2.4.1.1. Document 01/062: "Discussion of TGh Requirements (00/369) and Comparision Criteria (00/421) Documents," Bill McFarland, Atheros Communications

2.4.2. Process documents

2.4.2.1. 00/369 SMASG Functional Requirements Recommendations
2.4.2.2. 00/421 SGh Comparision Criteria
2.4.2.3. 00/284 Draft SMa Study Group Proposal Selection Process

2.5. Presentation of contributions

2.5.1. Document 01/062: "Discussion of TGh Requirements (00/369) and Comparision Criteria (00/421) Documents," Bill McFarland, Atheros Communications

2.5.1.1. Discussion
2.5.1.1.1. What are the essential requirements in Europe?
2.5.1.1.2. Problems with the current functional requirements and comparision criteria documents.

2.6. Process documents

2.6.1. 00/369 SMASG Functional Requirements Recommendations

2.6.1.1. Discussion
2.6.1.1.1. Status of the current version of the document.
2.6.1.1.2. Change the document name and number to reflect TGh status.
2.6.1.1.3. Proposed requirement 1.2 not adopted.
2.6.1.1.4. Requirement 1.1 left as is.
2.6.1.1.5. Requirement 1.3 left as is.
2.6.1.1.6. Requirement 1.4 left as is.
2.6.1.1.7. New requirement about the required compliance of the requirements of the new standard was added.
2.6.1.1.8. Requirement 1.5 left as is.
2.6.1.1.9. Requirement 2.1 left as is.
2.6.1.1.10. Requirement 2.2.1 replaced by a suggestion from document 01/062.
2.6.1.1.11. Requirement 2.2.2 relexed to be equal with the ERC recommendation.
2.6.1.1.12. Requirement 2.3.1 text made more abstract about the required management MAC frames.
2.6.1.1.13. Requirement 2.3.2.1 left as is.
2.6.1.1.14. Requirement 2.3.2.2 left as is.
2.6.1.1.15. Requirement 2.4.1 left as is.

2.6.1.1.16. Requirement 2.4.2 word 'power' removed.

2.6.1.1.17. Requirement 3.1.1 left as is.

2.6.1.1.18. Requirement 3.2.1 left as is.

2.6.1.1.19. Requirement 3.2.2 left as is.

2.6.1.1.20. Requirement 3.2.3 the definition of which entity requests channel state information removed.

2.6.1.1.21. Requirement 3.2.4 some word smithing to better convey the intent of the requirement.

2.6.1.1.22. Requirement 3.2.5 moved to comparision criteria.

2.6.1.1.23. Requirement 3.3.1.1 specific reference to AP removed.

2.6.1.1.24. Requirement 3.3.1.2 specific reference to AP removed.

2.6.1.1.25. Requirement 3.3.1.3 left as is.

2.6.1.1.26. Requirement 3.3.1.3 left as is.

2.6.1.1.27. Requirement 3.3.2.1 text about meeting requirements removed.

2.6.1.1.28. Requirement 3.3.2.2. left as is.

2.6.1.1.29. Requirement 3.3.2.3 left as is.

2.6.1.1.30. Requirement 3.4.1 left as is.

2.6.1.1.31. Requirement 3.4.2 left as is.

2.6.1.1.32. Editor will get a new document number and implement the decided changes.

2.7. Adjourn 9.25pm

3. Wednesday morning

3.1. Secretary

3.1.1. Juha Heiskala

3.2. Call to order

3.2.1. 10.30AM

3.3. Agenda

3.3.1. Presentation of contributions

3.3.1.1. Document 01/062: "Discussion of TGh Requirements (00/369) and Comparision Criteria (00/421) Documents," Bill McFarland, Atheros Communications

3.3.2. Process documents

3.3.2.1. 01/071 TGh Functional Requirements Recommendations
3.3.2.2. 00/421 SGh Comparision Criteria
3.3.2.3. 00/284 Draft SMa Study Group Proposal Selection Process

3.4. Presentation of contributions

3.4.1. Document 01/062: "Discussion of TGh Requirements (00/369) and Comparision Criteria (00/421) Documents," Bill McFarland, Atheros Communications, presentation of the second part of the document referring to the comparision criteria

3.4.1.1. Discussion

3.4.1.1.1. How to integrate suggested changes.

3.5. Process documents

3.5.1. 00/421 SGh Comparision Criteria

3.5.1.1. Discussion

3.5.1.1.1. Add a new robustnerss criteria topic

3.5.1.1.2. Criteria 1 changed to refer to the functional requirements document.

3.5.1.1.3. New criteria added from document 01/062 for power saving, probing and association, roaming and hanoff, security, QoS

3.5.1.1.4. Marketability category changed to System performance

3.5.1.1.5. New criteria added from document 01/062 under Robustness category for stability, error recovery, robustness to channel assessment errors, fairness in thruput in the presence of co-channel radio users.

3.5.1.1.6. Overall network thruput added to performance criteria

3.5.1.1.7.

3.6. Adjourn

3.6.1. 12.05PM

4. Thursday afternoon

4.1. Secretary

4.1.1. Juha Heiskala

4.2. Call to order

4.2.1. 1.05PM

4.3. Agenda

4.3.1. Presentation of contributions

4.3.1.1.

4.3.2. Review documents

4.3.2.1. 01/071 TGh Functional Requirements Recommendations

4.3.2.2. 01/085 SGh Comparision Criteria

4.3.2.3. 01/093 TGh Proposal Selection Process

4.3.3. Adopt documets as official TGh documents

4.3.3.1. 01/071 TGh Functional Requirements Recommendations

4.3.3.2. 01/085 SGh Comparision Criteria

4.3.3.3. 01/093 TGh Proposal Selection Process

4.3.4. Reissue Call for Proposals

4.4. Presentation of contributions

4.4.1. None

4.5. Process documents

4.5.1. 01/093 TGh Proposal Selection Process

4.5.1.1. Discussion

4.5.1.1.1. Exact meaning of item 13 commented.

4.5.2. Review of document 01/071 TGh Functional Requirements Recommendations

4.5.2.1. Discussion

4.5.2.1.1. Comment on item 4.4.1 about new channel definitions.

4.5.3. Motion to accept document 01/071 as the Functional Requirements for TGh.

4.5.3.1. Move: Raju Gubbi

4.5.3.2. Second: Evan Green

4.5.3.3. Discussion: none

4.5.3.4. Vote: 10/0/0 pass

4.5.4. Review of document 01/085 TGh Comparison Criteria

4.5.4.1. Discussion

4.5.4.1.1. Update document numbers.

4.5.4.1.2. Clarification to items 2.1 and 2.2

4.5.4.1.3. Some questions regarding performance sub items.

4.5.5. Motion to accept document 01/085r1 as the comparison criteria for TGh.

4.5.5.1. Move: Raju Gubbi

4.5.5.2. Second: Sunghyun Choi

4.5.5.3. Discussion: none

4.5.5.4. Vote: 11/0/0 pass

4.5.6. Review of document 01/093 TGh Proposal Selection Process

4.5.6.1. Discussion

4.5.6.1.1. Change to item 1 to allow incomplete proposals.

4.5.6.1.2. Change item 2 to cover incomplete proposals.

4.5.6.1.3. Item 6 modified to require chair to notify TGh within two weeks after the cut-off date.

4.5.6.1.4. Comments on item 7 and when proposals have to be complete.

4.5.6.1.5. Discussion on the overall selection process.

4.5.6.1.6. Item 13 clarified.

4.5.6.1.7. Items 19 and 20 clarified.

4.5.7. Motion to accept document 01/093r1 Proposal Selection Process as TGh proposal selection process.

4.5.7.1. Move: Raju Gubbi

4.5.7.2. Second: Carl Temme

4.5.7.3. Discussion: none

4.5.7.4. Vote: 12/0/0 pass

4.6. Motion to set a cut-off date for proposals no sooner than March 31th 2001.

4.6.1. Move: Raju Gubbi

4.6.2. Second: Evan Green

4.6.3. Discussion: none

4.6.4. Vote: 10/0/0 pass

4.7. Motion to authorize teleconferences February 15th 2001 and March 1st 2001 at 8.00 AM Pasific Standard Time. Chair shall organize logistics.

4.7.1. Move: Chris Hanson

4.7.2. Second: Evan Green

4.7.3. Discussion: none

4.7.4. Vote: 10/0/0 pass

4.8. Adjourn

4.8.1. 3.00PM

Submissionpage 1 Juha Heiskala, Nokia, Amjad Soomro, Philips