September 2007doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/2479r0

IEEE P802.11
Wireless LANs

802.11 VHT SG September 2007 Minutes
Date: 2007-09-17
Author(s):
Name / Company / Address / Phone / email
Adrian Stephens / Intel Corporation /
Garth Hillman / AMD /
Eldad Perahia / Intel Corporation /

Minutes of VHTSG session – 17 Sept 2007

  1. Chair: Eldad Perahia – Intel corporation
  2. Speaking to presentation 11-07/2378r1 containing agenda
  3. Chair went through patent policy slides
  4. Chair asked if there were any essential patents.
  5. There was no response
  6. Review from July
  7. Verbal report by Rolf de Vegt
  8. Call for submissions/presentations
  9. see slide 13 of agenda for existing submissions
  10. 11-07/2472. Marc de Courville
  11. Darwin Engwer may have an additional presentation
  12. Submission 11-07/2431, MinyoungPark - Intel Corporation
  13. Topic: efficiency of 802.11n MAC protocol
  14. Peter Ecclesine – Cisco Systems. Starting to have more than one station speaking at the same time. Should be talking about bits/area.
  15. Marc de Courville – Motorola. Should we evolve or go away from .11?
  16. MP: submission is showing current status. But either alternative is possible. Don’t have a preference. Too early to say.
  17. Padam Kafle - Nokia. (didn’t catch the question)
  18. Bruce Kraemer – Marvell. Why choose 10E-5 BER?
  19. This number gives reliable enough data transmission. This corresponds to a PER of 10%. No analysis of BER requirements performed.
  20. Ahmer Hassan – Microsoft. Nice presentation. What would be the first thing to do to the .11n MAC to improve efficiency?
  21. Adrian Stephens – Intel. Defining appropriate metrics will be important. Perhaps focus on aggregate rates, not link rates. Problem is increased PHY overhead.
  22. Darwin Engwer – Nortel. Thankyou for your presentation. We need to look at little futher to find solutions.
  23. Peter Ecclesine – Cisco. (Didn’t catch comment)
  24. Don Schultz – Boeing. Perhaps we should be looking into other groups technologies – i.e., mesh networking.
  25. Submission: 11-07/2359r1, David Britz – AT&T Labs.
  26. “Proposed ITU/WRC Spectrum And Usage Allocation For Terahertz Frequencies”
  27. Johnny Zweig – Apple. Is there a regulatory difference between indoor and outdoor use of THz?
  28. Primary loss is absorption in free air. Doesn’t get through walls – good for in-room.
  29. Marc de Courville – Motorola. Statistical calculations with 5GHz. Loss of something like 55dB at higher frequencies.
  30. Isotropic antennas for in-building makes no sense. Size of antenna 2um. Ideal for silicon. Directional antennas with high gain way to do this.
  31. Bob Miller – AT&T. Have you talked to regulator?
  32. A: in negotiation now.
  33. Peter Ecclesine. What about heating effects of directional radiation?
  34. We are so far down, so heating won’t get past cornea.
  35. Darwin Engwer – Nortel. What is power consumption of THz device? mW per bit?
  36. Hard to get this information. But assuming a low power drain.
  37. Bob Miller – AT&T. Need to change our understanding of communications efficiency and SDMA (e.g., laser pointer example).
  38. Chair: please report back on Thursday following meeting with 802.18.
  39. Yes, will do so.
  40. Submission: 11-07/2371r0. Eldad Perahia - Intel Corporation
  41. Review of TGn’s usage scenarios from 11-03/0802r23.
  42. Adrian Stephens – some learnings from TGn:
  43. Offered loads did not saturate (hence the “plus” scenarios)
  44. Lots of bizarre use cases, but we focussed down on 3 mandatory usage models
  45. Simulations showed that most of the time most STA are operating at the highest rate – small BSS – so link adaptation was not adequately tested
  46. There were no hidden nodes – so protection mechanisms were no exercised
  47. There was no OBSS
  48. Darwin Engwer – Nortel. High collision rate requires protection mechanisms. .11n good with high offered load applications, but not much better than .11a for VoIP applications.
  49. Chair: would be interested to see results
  50. A: will look to see if can present some results.
  51. Don Schultz – Boeing. Has anybody started to create usage cases for VHT?
  52. Chair: has called for submissions asking for this information. WFA working on it. Hasn’t seen much. This is impetus for asking WFA to contribute.
  53. Rolf de Vegt. What is Chair asking for? Probably can only provide use cases for November.
  54. Adrian: usage model is the important thing – use case is easier and relates just to a use of technology/application. Usage case is combination of use cases.
  55. Chair: when wrote the letter, mentally thinking use cases
  56. Myron Hattig – Intel. Use case as used in WFA relies to sequence of steps taken.
  57. Adrian: simulations need to be pseudo-static, so while a step-by-step approach is closer to user’s real needs, simulation needs require we have static application loads.
  58. Marc: new requirements – i.e., HDMI more stringent than use cases in TGn doc.
  59. Bruce Kraemer – Marvell. Thinks usage models will be more helpful
  60. Straw poll: Would you prefer WFA to present “use cases” or “usage models” based on definitions in 11-03/0802r23?
  61. Use Case 16
  62. Usage Model 31
  63. Next session Thursday 13:30 local time.
  64. Submission by Marc
  65. Submission by Darwin
  66. Plan for November.

Thursday Aug 20, 2007 1:30-3:30 PM Minutes of VHT

  1. Chair called meeting to order at 1:30
  2. Thurs proposed agenda:
  3. David Britz,
  4. Bruce/Darwin, IMT-Advanced Update 11-07/2500r0
  5. Gal Basson, 11-07-2587r0
  6. Marc de Courville, 11-07-2472
  7. Group accepted the agenda
  8. David Britz reiterated his concern that the Terra Hertz spectrum may not be reserved for commercial purposes and requested VHT craft a letter of concern addressed to the FCC
  9. Chair noted it would have to go from VHT -> .11-> .18
  10. David agreed to write the letter on behalf of VHT
  11. David also noted that Richard Roberts from Intel is interested in forming a .11 Terra Hertz SG
  12. Darwin Engwer gave an update on IMT-Advanced using doc 11-07-2500r0
  13. Slide 19 – Tuesday night meeting update
  14. Slide 20 – chronological schedule
  15. Weekly conf calls between now and Atlanta Plenary meeting
  16. Three areas that need 802 input:
  17. IMT.Tech
  18. IMT.Eval
  19. Integrated 802 Proposal to start 1Q2008 and complete early 2009
  20. Gal Basson (Wilocity) presented 11-07-2587r0 entitled VHT Applications
  21. Questions
  22. What are the “range” requirements; most of the applications were short range? Answer – historically most of the highest TP ranges have been short
  23. Is 100 MHz BW in 5 GHz band needed? Answer - no application yet
  24. Backward Compatibility? – yes, should leverage 802.11 technology
  25. Other tech forces need to be considered e.g., compression technology to facilitate video and reduce BW requirement
  26. What about latency requirements be? Yes it should be a metric
  27. Mark de Courville presented 11-07-2472 entitled ‘Probing the Will of the SG’
  28. Scoping out .11n enhancements Slides 2 and 3
  29. Meet IMT-Advanced requirements
  30. Aggregated Throughput
  31. Spectral Efficiency and improve reliability of legacy rates
  32. Interoperability with WMAN
  33. Less than 6 GHz and leave > GHz to WPANs
  34. Better outdoor support
  35. Talk Time Constraints – be competitive with WWAN phones wrt battery life
  36. Enhance peer-to-peer
  37. Straw poll questions Marc wants to ask:
  38. IMT-Advanced support
  39. Below 6 GHz operation focus (including IMT)
  40. Support of >57 GHz
  41. 5 GHz operation in the WLAN bands
  42. Requesting BC support
  43. Viewing 11 VHT as a threat to .11n success (timing and different frequency bands)
  44. IMT – advanced – why vote against it?
  45. MAC – does have problems so may not want to vote for BC in this case
  46. Have Mesh and DLS already so do we want to focus on peer-to-peer
  47. IMT-Advanced including licensed and unlicensed
  48. Straw Polls and results:
  49. Shall ISM 2.4 GHz band be out of scope of the proposed amendment? (41,12,27)
  50. Shall the PAR specify below 8GHz operation (licensed and unlicensed) including IMT-Advanced bands allocation? (24,12,27)
  51. Shall the PAR focus on carrier frequencies higher than 8 GHz, like 57 GHz and above? (12, 28, 31)
  52. Shall the proposed PAR include a reference to matching IMT-adv requirements related to nomadic 1 Gbps capabilities? (23,15,33)
  53. For those in support of above 8 GHz operation is this because you consider 11vht schedule combined with unlicensed operation as a threat to IEEE802.11n deployment success? (0,20,11)
  54. In case of 5 GHz operation should backward compatibility be within the scope of the PAR? (33,11,18)
  55. Would you consider 11vht 5 GHz unlicensed band operation as a threat to IEEE802.11n deployment? (1,38,17)
  56. Time Line Discussion:
  57. What should we focus on in November?
  58. Develop skeleton PAR and 5 C
  59. Recall Darwin had posted one in May (11-07-0574r1) and we could use that
  60. Possible technologies and scenarios before PAR and 5C
  61. What should process be? Send out RFP for example? Andrew Myles committed to make a presentation in November on process
  62. WFA will present a scenariopresentation
  63. How many slots in Atlanta? Chair responded - Don’t know for sure but would expect 2 at most
  64. If usage models require evolutionary then so be it
  65. Timing Goals
  66. WG Approval in January (to meet 30 day posting rule for EC)
  67. Mar 2008 – reaffirm Mar 16 and EC approval on Mar 21
  68. NesCom submission by Mar 2
  69. NesCom meeting on June 11
  70. TG starts in July
  71. So goal for November should be PAR and 5C if we
  72. Straw Poll – Should we consider specifying VHT as a new standard (and not as an amendment)? (26,7,28)
  73. Conference Calls:
  74. Any interest? (We have two possible dates) None demonstrated so there will not be any conference calls between now and Nov meeting

Attendees

first name / last name / Monday / Thursday / affiliation / email
tomoko / adachi / x / x / toshiba /
david / bagby / x / calypso ventures /
gal / basson / x / x / wilocity /
john / benko / x / x / france telecom , orange labs /
bjorn / bjerke / x / x / qualcomm /
daniel r. / borges / x / x / apple, inc /
bruce / bosco / x / motorola /
d / britz / x / x / at&t labs /
chris / bussey / x / qualcomm /
eduardo / casas / x / x / intel /
paul / castell / x / qualcomm /
douglas / chan / x / x / cisco systems /
phillip / conder / x / x / victoria university /
todor / cooklev / x / hitachi /
carlos / cordeiro / x / x / intel /
xavier perez / costa / x / nec /
marc / de courville / x / x / motorola /
rolf / de vegt / x / x / qualcomm /
manoj / deshpande / x / qualcomm /
john / dorsey / x / apple /
bas / driesen / x / philips /
roger / durand / x / rim /
peter / ecclesine / x / cisco /
steve / emeott / x / x / motorola /
darwin / engwer / x / x / nortel networks /
vinko / erceg / x / x / broadcom /
yossi / erlich / x / intel /
david / famolari / x / telcordia /
robert / fanfelle / x / x / marvell /
paul / feinberg / x / sony /
matthew / fischer / x / broadcom /
makoto / fujinami / x / x / nec /
pratibha / gupta / x / atheros comm. /
chris / hansen / x / broadcom /
brian / hart / x / x / cisco systems /
amer / hassan / x / microsoft /
vegard / hassel / x / telenor /
myron / hattig / x / intel /
shigeuori / hayase / x / x / hitachi /
garth / hillman / x / x / amd /
jiyoung / huh / x / lg electronics /
yasuhiko / inoue / x / x / ntt /
padam / kafle / x / nokia /
naveen k / kakani / x / nokia /
jeyhan / karaoguz / x / broadcom /
assaf / kasher / x / x / intel /
shu / kato / x / nici /
john / ketchum / x / x / qualcomm inc. /
majid / khademi / x / x / khademi consulting /
bruce / kraemer / x / x / marvell /
victor / kueh / x / x / bt group /
rajendra / kumar / x / x / ittiam systems (p) ltd. /
kwhang hun / kyu / x / etri /
dan / lee / x / etri /
joseph / levy / x / x / interdigital communication llc /
sheung / li / x / x / sibeam /
michael / livshitz / x / metalink /
peter / loc / x / marvell semiconductor /
dan / lubar / x / relay services /
naotaka / maruyama / x / x / netcleus /
sven / mesecke / x / buffalo /
r.r / miller / x / at&t /
tushar / moorti / x / broadcom /
andrew / myles / x / x / cisco /
rohit / nabar / x / marvell semiconductor /
kengo / nagata / x / x / ntt /
chiu / ngo / x / x / samsung /
arul / palanivelu / x / x / marvell /
minyoung / park / x / x / intel /
janath / peiris / x / atheros communications /
eldad / perahia / x / x / intel /
james e / petronovich / x / x / conexant systems, inc /
sebastien / poisson / x / poisson consulting inc /
rob / preece / x / qualcomm /
luke / qian / x / x / cisco /
ali / raissinia / x / qualcomm inc. /
vincenzo / scarpa / x / x / stmicroelectronics /
don / schultz / x / x / boeing /
huai-rong / shao / x / x / samsung /
ian / sherlock / x / texas instruments /
matt / smith / x / atheros /
vinay / sridhara / x / qualcomm /
a p / stephens / x / intel /
andre / stranne / x / teliasonera /
mineo / takai / x / space-time engineering /
keik-kheong / tan / x / gct semiconductor /
eric / tokubo / x / x / motorola /
jason / trachewsky / x / x / broadcom /
allert / van zelst / x / x / qualcomm inc. /
prabodh / varshney / x / x / nokia /
g / venkatesan / x / intel corp /
george / vlantis / x / stmicro /
fujio / watanabe / x / x / ntt docomo /
akiyoshi / yagi / x / mitsubishi electric /
tomoya / yamaura / x / x / sony corp /
lily / yang / x / x / intel corp /
seigi / yoshida / x / x / ntt-mcl, inc /
hongyuan / zhang / x / x / marvell semiconductor /
jing / zhu / x / intel /
johnny / zweig / x / x / apple inc /

Submissionpage 1Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation