September 2009doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0986r0
IEEE P802.11
Wireless LANs
Date: 2009-09-25
Author(s):
Name / Company / Address / Phone / email
Vinko Erceg / Broadcom /
Eldad Perahia / Intel Corporation /
Minutes of TGad session – Tuesday Sept 22th, 2009, 8:00-10:00
Eldad: went over agenda items 09/0984r0
Patent policy read
No patents reported
Agenda items for the week were read, accepted
Shu Kato: requested joint meeting with 15.3c
Eldad: enough material for 3 sessions only, most likely. Evening Tue slot will be most likely cancelled
Eldad: went over July 2009 minutes, moved to approve the minutes, approved
Eldad: conference call minutes in 09/0229r5, approved
Submissions on Selection procedures scheduled for Tuesday.
Matt Fisher: presentation 09/0935r2
Selection Procedure document, noted changes from the previous revision
Q/A:
John Barr: question regarding 75% vote, when changes go into effect, proposal to make it in the session that follows
John Barr: Both Functional requirements and Evaluation methodology should be listed
John Barr: After complete proposal presentations, and as a result, there may be additional ideas for new technologies. There should be a provision for this.
Matt Fischer: proposes to add “new material” in clause 9
Bruce Kraemer: steps 5 and 6: “available” is vague term. Documents are posted 15 days ahead of time without changes. What are the options to make some changes?
Eldad Perahia: change to “initial version of” posted in clause 5
Bruce: in step 4, how long would the “call” be open?
Sudheer: would like to have a trigger from 5 to 6. It would be good to know how many proposals are expected
Eldad: in TGn in June 2004 there was notification to present while proposals were in Sept, enough time
Eldad: not done in TGn
Adrian: Complete proposals may recycle into the next session.
Rolf: seems like that is hard to add new material
Matt: this is already included in new change in Step 9 “and to modify”
John: supports what Matt stated
Bruce: once full proposal is presented, new techniques may be modified or new material and there is now room for that
Rolf: should be easier to bring additional new material after complete proposals
Eldad: there is enough lead time between techniques and complete proposals
Matt: deadline for “initial” version of initial proposals, there is still 15 day period to include new material, we are covered well at this point
Peter Loc: Matt, this is not reflected in the diagram, but I agree with what you said. Look at the complete proposal and allow one more session for merging new proposals
Matt: no need to change anything since it is already accommodated in the text. I can modify the diagram but it is not a normative part of the document
Adrian: step 11, comfortable with it but how large is “modification”?
Matt: change to “significant” modifications
Rolf: call out a step after complete proposals to include a session to introduce new techniques again
Matt: is it already in step 9?
Rolf: I would like to introduce this earlier
Matt: time frame?
Rolf: 2 months, next session
John Barr: supports Rolf but no need for additional step. Change that new technologies “should” be presented before complete proposals instead of “shall”
Adrian: not sure that agrees with John and Rolf. Open to new ideas only if process fails
Peter Loc: allow for mergers
Shu Kato: step 4, deadline, not clear
Matt: make plural to write “ deadlines”
Shu Kato: Strange that step 7 is on it own
Matt, Eldad: historical, did not want to delete the step numbering, we can include it in step6
Shu Kato: ok, no need to change
John Barr: presentation 09/1024r0
John suggested change in step 7, 8 and 9, to give more notice time for voting
Matt: Call for proposals already maps out timing of voting, or it can be anticipated, I disagree
John: It should be obvious
Matt: this is how it was done in the past, I don’t see that there is a problem here
Adrian: I think that changes are not necessary, these items already have special attention, we are here to do business interactively
Jason Trachewky: slide 3, last bullet, if people are not here, why should they be voting? 30 day notice is unprecedented in .11.
Bruce Kraemer: agenda can be used for this purpose, I don’t think that we need special rules, sometimes group wants to moves faster, sometimes slower
Eldad: show of hands who would support 30 day rule
Outcome: majority “no”, about 15, only 5 “yes”
John: how about 24hrs?
Outcome: about split voting outcome
Eldad: matt would you like to have a vote on your document?
Matt: maybe later slot
Eldad: back to the agenda, completed today’s planned material presentations, on the schedule not to have Tue evening slot. There were no objections. Recess to Wed 4 pm, channel model document.
Rolf: Need some time for selection procedure
Eldad: including it in Thursday slot
Meeting concludes
Minutes of TGad session – Wednesday Sept 23th, 2009, 16:00-18:00
Eldad: joint meeting with TGac and 802.15.3c, presentations for today are for channel models, 3 presentations scheduled, agenda accepted
Tian-Wei Huang: presentation 09/0995r1
Presentation on channel modelling, reflection coefficients and penetration coefficients presented as well as delay profiles
Q/A
Shu Kato: you show polarization results, do you plan to use right hand and left hand circular polarization
Tian: Cross polarization levels were too low, noisy
Shu Kato: Are you planning to include channel model with distant paths?
Vish: we would like to contribute parameters to Intel’s model, not a channel model
Sudheer: slide 20, question about figure
Tian: figure shows vertical to vertical polarization on the top
Sawada: theoretical equation in slide 21 can be used to calculate loss
Tian: we haven’t included formulas yet
Phillipe: slide 22, what is the material of the table?
Tian: wood
Philippe: in slide 25 we are finding same numbers for path loss
Alexander Maltsev: presentation 09/1011r0
Verification of polarization model, “polarization impact model” description, polarization matrices, measurement results also shown
Q/A
Shu Kato: very important data, do you see any path loss difference between ceiling and wall reflected rays?
Alexander: I don’t remember, but reflection coefficients are not very much different
Shu Kato: I see a difference in mean value, circular pol has 5-6 dB higher loss - correct?
Alexander: we describe properties of reflection surfaces, different reflection coefficient for vertical and horizontal components, our model takes this into account
Shu Kato: next figure - they both have 10dB mean values, as a designer I can not use cross-polarization
Alexander: we take into account these effects in our channel model
Hossein: why this large range of values exists?
Alexander: we use Gaussian distributions, parameters were calculated from experimental data
Hossein: what does this 5% number mean?
Alexander: probability of mistake, confidence interval
Hossein: but you don’t test variance
Alexander: we can not do that
Hossein: what antennas you used? Used rotation?
Alexander: Yes, rotated, horn antennas, 9 deg beamwidth (?)
Hirokazu Sawada: presentation 09/0936r1
Inter and intra cluster parameters and antenna beamwidth effect, polarization effects, measurement setup, results
Q/A
Vinko: was it ever published that intra cluster parameters change for different antenna beamwidth?
Hirokazu: No, this is new result
Alexander: for inter cluster parameters we should include all rays, not only reflection from walls
Alexander: did you compare time-of-arrival from measurements with ray-tracing model?
Hirokazu: we can use ray-tracing also
Eldad: slide 31 - are there any differences between red and black numbers?
Hirokazu: we highlight significant differences in values by that
End of presentations
Eldad: we can go to early social or continue presentations
Decision was made to recess early, end of meeting.
Minutes of TGad session – Thursday Sept 24th, 2009, 13:30-15:30
Eldad: agenda is in 09/0984r1
Proposed conference calls Oct 29 and Nov 12 10:00-12:00 ET. No objections. Mostly on channel modelling, Vinko will head the calls.
Eldad: Goals for November is to continue on task group documents and technical presentations
Jeyhan Karaoguz: presentation 09/0960r0
Wireless HD coexistence capabilities, recommendation from WHD study group. I will take message to the group from this meeting. Overview if WHD.
Q/A
John Barr: would WHD consider specification such as 15.3c
Jeyhan: That would be good idea
Sudheer: In your first slides you mentioned 15.3c, is PHY similar?
Jeyhan: Channelization is similar
Sudheer: would there be synergy between WHD and 15.3c
Jeyhan: Channelization is common
Shu Kato: for dynamic channel selection you need multiple channels
Jeyhan: Yes, but now we are mandating only channel 2
Phillipe: you are talking about coex between WHD, TGad, and 15.3c. What about ECMA?
Jeyhan: Not presenting on ECMA at this point, in this presentation we are considering only with TGad
JohnBar: are you considering also coex with 15.3c?
Jeyhan: yes, energy detect, channel scanning as examples
Peter: LRP modes and channels, can someone do LRP mode 2 if LRP mode 1 started?
Jeyhan: yes
Vinko Erceg: presentation 09/0935r3
Updates based on Tuesday discussion and edits.
Added doc numbers for Func Req and Eval Methodology Docs
Shall changed to Should for New Techniques proposals.
(4) updated to clarify how call for NT an CP would be approved and what it should contain for clarification.
Noted that initial versions of proposals should be available 15-days before session. Updates could be mace up to presentation at the session.
Confirmation vote scheduled via special orders.
Opportunity to discuss possible mergers between NT and CP following presentation of CPs.
Significant changes to CP or NT could trigger new round of presentations without a new call for contributions.
Questions on current edits: None
Rolf de Vegt: presentation 09/1066r0
Power point slides, proposed changes to selection proposal documents
Q/A
John Barr: after new technologies are presented first then complete proposals can consider them. There is also an opportunity to merge and change them in the case there are modifications
Rolf: people can not complete modifications in such a short time
Mark: I am against proposed changes, 7 years on 11n and lot of work was done by Eldad to cut time. If complete proposals get 75% then people think that it is ok, if not then things will reset and allow for changes. Change proposed will delay process.
Rolf: you misunderstood the proposal, I just propose to flip the sequence, same time interval
Adrian: I agree with John and some points from Mark, what does group do in the meantime while it is waiting for new techniques?
Jason: echoing John that new techniques should be shown first, someone can show new techniques even now
Rolf: it will unlikely that new techniques will be considered in complete proposals
Jason: Call for proposal would call for timelines, but that is shown in your slides
Rolf: I am missing your point
Jason: new techniques can be presented in the same time as complete proposals
Rolf: but original document (revision 3) is advocating that new techniques should be presented before complete proposals
Jason: just a matter of opinion
Sudheer: I am neutral to both, one or the other gets more time
Peter Loc: slide 6, IEEE sessions?
Rolf: 2 month period
Peter: you proposal is inefficient, I agree with Jason that new techniques can be presented any time
Shu Kato: how about to make step 5 and 6 in parallel?
Rolf: time wise this will not be possible
Shu Kato: they may happen in the same day, same meeting
Rolf: it is hard to include changes to the complete proposals in such a short time
Vinko: I would like to see proposals right now, also procedure can be reset if there is no 75% confirmation vote
Mark: procedure can be reset if there is no 75% confirmation vote
Rolf calls for straw poll if changes that he proposed are acceptable:
16YES/26No/13ABS
Vinko calls for motion to accept document 09/0935r3, motion on the screen, there are some questions about the motion
Q/A:
Alireza: what does it mean first draft?
Eldad: to emphasize that this is initial document that can be changed later
Sudheer: going back to partial and complete proposals, will everyone have time to present
Eldad: yes
Yongsung: which revision are we voting on?
Eldad: rev3, but we should release also rev5
Peter: I am speaking in favour of the motion, in the previous revision it was not clear if there is enough time, now there is 15 days before the presentation plus time to merge proposals
Rolf: based on TGn history partial proposals will not be seriously considered
Motion results:
26YES/11NO/9ABS
Eldad: motion fails, we can discuss how to reach compromise of to table this for now. Decision was made to end the meeting.
Submissionpage 1Eldad Perahia (Intel Corporation)