July 2007doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/2254r1

IEEE P802.11
Wireless LANs

VHT Study Group Minutes, July 2007
Date: 2007-07-17
Author(s):
Name / Company / Address / Phone / email
Rakesh Taori / Samsung /


Monday 16th July 2007. 09:30-11:00 (Ad-hoc session)

  1. Chair – Eldad Perahia, Intel
  2. Secretary – Rakesh Taori, Samsung (this session only)
  3. A sheet was passed around for attendees to sign in
  4. 09:32 The meeting starts.
  5. Document 11-07/2130r0 is chair’s report. R1 will be uploaded after meeting.
  6. Chair reads IEEE patent policy (4 slides, plus 1 slide guidelines)
  7. Chair asks for any questions related to items a):
  8. No questions were asked related to thepatent policy.
  9. Chair asks the group if there are any essential patent claims
  10. There were no essential patent claims reported.
  11. VHT SG Agenda for the July meeting (see slides 10, 11 and 12 ) is presented by the chair.
  12. Chair informs the group that he had issued call for submissions
  13. 6 responses received
  14. Documents: 11-07/
  15. 2113r3, Khandani
  16. 2068r0, Britz
  17. 2062r0, Emmelmann
  18. 2194r0, Kakani
  19. 2140r0, Kraemer
  20. 2187r0, de Courville
  21. Engwerinforms that there may be another presentation by Georgia tech. The presenter was not in the room. Chair informed that if time permits, Georgia Tech presentation may be accommodated – failing which it can be scheduled during a Teleconference. Engwer pointed that there may be a video which will be difficult to present during a call conference.
  22. Chair proposes that the first 3 contributions of the aforementioned list be presented in this ad-hoc session on Monday and the last 3 can be presented during the Tuesday session. 25 minutes each for the presentation on Monday and 30 minutes each for the presentation on Tuesday.
  23. The chair explains the agenda items besides the presentations such as Timelines etc which will be discussed on Tuesday. Chair asks the group to look at the timeline in 2130r1 so that the discussion would be efficient.
  24. 9:40 am Chair asks if there is any objection to approving the agenda. None was noted. The agenda was approved (Slides 12 and 13 of 2130r1).
  25. 1st presentation by Khandani, Univ of Waterloo(begins at 9:41)
  26. Discussion (Chair allows time for just one question)
  27. De Courville: The first few slides in your presentation; do they show cooperative schemes (virtual MIMO)?
  28. No they do not.
  29. De Courville: Can you post the capacity formula?
  30. An update of the presented document 2113r3, will be posted including the capacity formula.
  31. 2nd presentation by Britz, AT&T Labs (begins at 10:10)
  32. Discussion
  33. Brian Hart (Cisco): Can you say something about link budget?
  34. Still working on it. Will have to get back to you on that one.
  35. D. Schultz (Boeing): Issue of LoS: Any methods to mitigate LoS? Is it an advantage or a problem? Timing wise: What kind of time frame do you have in mind?
  36. Yes it is a LoS system. We just have to learn how to utilize LoS. Because of short distances, we cab exploit reuse. So LoS is definitely an advantage in that sense. Timing: Do not see in the next 5 years, but next 10 years. By that time costs will also be down.
  37. de Courville (Motorola): Looking athe path loss exponent, this technology appears to be more suitable for PANs, as opposed to LANs. Can you comment on that?
  38. If you use it with a set of beams with sectored antennas rather than omniwave, then you can cover somewhat larger distances.
  39. De Courville: Sectored antenna: only antenna gains or are you also considering path loss
  40. Path loss is a constant that will remain anyways.
  41. J. Zweig (Apple): Tera Hertz is great. How do you work with this stuff? Can you tell us how to work with this stuff (mechanics with this kind of radiation)
  42. Physics is the same. Wave propagation/beam forming is the same. Antennas change. Metallic --> Glass. Work the same. Think of it like a flash light.
  43. 3rd presentation by Emmelmann (TU Berlin) 2062r1
  44. Discussion
  45. Adrian Stephens (Intel): There is overhead incurred due to the STA signalling the channel state or the AP measuring. Was the overhead included in the results?
  46. Yes
  47. Stephens: How is the signaling performed?
  48. RTS/CTS handshake. Based on channel estimation from the CTS packet.
  49. Brian Hart (Cisco): Slide 15 Shows good gains. Suspect you use 1 antenna. Gain diminishes when you use multiple antenna.
  50. That’s correct.
  51. Hart: Do we want to tie ourselves to be backward compatible?
  52. Emphasize that the main idea is consider Dynamic OFDM. If you find backward compatibility that is fine. But we should include How much it costs to implement.
  53. Vinko Erceg (Broadcom): Why is the single user curve getting saturated (Slide 15). Is link adaptation included?
  54. No. SU gets saturated at lower SNR because you have a lot of overhead.
  55. Solomon Trainin (Intel): How do you order the CTSs?
  56. Modified RTS contains the polling list. CTS is in the same order
  57. Chair informs the group that r1 of 2130 including the agenda for tomorrow.
  58. Chair requests the group to return the 4 sign-up sheets
  59. Meeting recesses at 10:59.

Tuesday 17th July 2007. 16:00-18:00

  1. 16:00. Meeting starts
  2. Chair shows the slides on IEEE patent policy (4 slides, plus 1 slide guidelines)
  3. Chair asks for any questions related to items a):
  4. No questions were asked related to the patent policy.
  5. Agenda review
  6. 16:02: First presentation, de Courville, 2187r0
  7. Discussion
  8. SolomonTrainin (Intel): What is your expectation on the throughput?
  9. The group should tackle the part of the IMT advanced requirement., Would go for MIN/MAX req for 1 Gbps.
  10. Eldad Perahia (Intel): Explain slide 3
  11. De Courville explains slide 3 (and both the tables).
  12. : What was the size of the symbol?
  13. Will Get back to you. DO not know off my head.
  14. Marc Emmelmann TU Berlin: Q: Did you use a random assignment? Or optimal assignment?
  15. A: Simulated both. For optimized, Look at slide 10 for optimal assignment
  16. Heidi (UC Davis): Is the assignment to each user? What happens in deep fade?:
  17. We can design to ensure that the fades can be avoided.The key question is how do you get this information to the transmitter
  18. 16:30 2nd presentation: Naveen Kakani, Nokia, 2194r0
  19. Discussion
  20. Solomon Trainin (Intel): How do you plan to reach such a range?
  21. What you would expect to see in TGn. I assume that thee will more directionality and #antenna
  22. How do you see to reach some substantial utilization %age of the increased bit rate?
  23. 1 Gbit/s at MAC (so 50%)
  24. Jim Petranovich (Conexant): Do you have any specific thoughtson coexistence in 2.4 How is it manageable?
  25. Avoid 2.4, if possible.
  26. De Courville: Backward compatibility
  27. Need to be backward compatible with what you have. Need to support legacy deployments.
  28. Adrian Stephens: 2 concerns. 1st: Scared to see 80 Mhz in 5 GHz bands. Because we have solved 20/40 with great difficulty, now 20/40/80. 2nd: Echo Jims comments. Longer range, lower power, etc. This cannot be achieved simultaneously. Result is too compromised. Prefer to avoid that to have a clear focus on the PAR. If this B=VHT, throughout is the focus. Range if it comes for free – then yes. Realistic and well-focussed requirements
  29. Is VHT for very high throughput or evolution of the WLAN. What does the market want?
  30. Stephens: One group who wants high range (portable). One with dense deployments and want high throughput.
  31. J. Zweig (Apple): Quite a different approach from David with 300 GHz and higher. You talk about 2.4 and 5 Ghz. We are a SG. Suggest that we make broad distinction between backward compatibility and legacy type approach versus revolutionary approaches. Comment?
  32. Identify what we are shooting for. Pick oneor two areas. Then zoom further. Purpose of this talk is to stimulate the discussion on the topics that you need toaddress. After agreeing dig deeper.
  33. Discussion moves to the Timelines. Chair puts up the two timelines in 2130r1 (Slides 16 and 17)
  34. Based on the two timelines, what is realistic? What are preferences among the two? Would like to hear opinions
  35. De Courville proposes a friendly amendment to timeline 2.
  36. Chair creates option 3: (See slide 18)
  37. Rolf De Vegt (Qualcomm): Not clear whether we will have 1 Par and 5C. We may conclude that we will have multiple PARs.
  38. De Courville: Where would you like the decision point? Where to split?
  39. Rolf De Vegt: Difficult to say. Depends on presentations and conclusions
  40. Petranovich: Nov is a good time to concentrate on PAR, even pushing back presentations.
  41. Myles (Cisco) Far too early to talk about schedule/timelines. Focus on what do you want to standardize? And whether it is feasible? What makes sense in Market place and when?
  42. Chair: Would you like to make a presentation in September?
  43. Myles: Ask the WiFi alliance to make a presentation
  44. Chair asks the group whether there is there any objection to request have WiFi presentation to 802.11. No objections were raised.
  45. Request WG to have liaison to WFA request WFA for a market requirement document for VHT
  46. Desire of completion of the document in 2007
  47. Chair begins the discussion back to timeline and asks the group what people would like to see prepared for September
  48. Kakani: Do you have any strawpolls prepared?
  49. No. Did not know in advance
  50. Britz: What does this group mean by VHT? What are we talking about?
  51. Chair: Point of setting up the time line is. If we are shooting for #1, then becomes easier to set goals for September
  52. Whatis your assumption: Get the same time as now?
  53. 2 meeting times: 4 hours each.
  54. Chair highlights the key features of each timeline.
  55. Scott Blue: Suggests that the discussion on timeline be deferred to until after the 3rdpresentation Marc:
  56. 5:14pm 3rd presentation: Bruce (Marvell), 2140r2 (r3 will be posted)
  57. Yang (Intel): Timeline for IMT-Adv?
  58. Circular Letter for technology solution for us to consider by Feb 2008. In 2008, request for proposals will be sent out. In 2010 selection will be made. 2012: time frame for deployments.
  59. Blue: Expressions of interest from people who will be doing candidate technology. More than a SG.
  60. Varshneya (Nokia): Section 4: Must be met. Section 5: may be met. We do not need TDD/FDD, We can introduce contention based technology. As long as we meet req in Section 4, we are OK.
  61. Erceg: One tech selected or more?
  62. Not clear. That decision is not made.
  63. Back to the deferred discussion on the timeline
  64. Strawpolls on the 3 proposed time line
  65. Timeline #1; 0
  66. Timeline #2; 25
  67. Timeline #3; 20
  68. Abstain; 20
  69. Strawpolls on preference for how to allocate time during the September meeting
  70. Option 1: Allocate time in Sept for PAR & 5 C: Some hands go up
  71. Option 2: Focus on “call for submissions” presentations: Many hands go up
  72. Chair concludes that an overwhelming majority is in favour of option 2.
  73. Petranovich: Give priority to discussions rather than technology presentations (e.g. market, feasibility) etc
  74. Chair finds it reasonable
  75. Engwer: Counters. Seeing technology presentation helps to make feasibility discussions
  76. Scott Blue: Place for feasibility discussions is WNG
  77. Engwer: WNGhas even less time allocated to it than VHT.
  78. Chair: Utilize call conference times for the discussions.
  79. Chair puts up the Call conference times for discussion:
  80. Chair proposes that the CCs be held on Thursdays (Aug 9, Aug 23 and Sept 6, 2007) at 11:00 AM EST. Duration: 1 hour.
  81. Instead of having CCs at 11:00 AM EST every time, should we rotate the conference times to be fair?
  82. There is very little time left this time to get an agreement on any new timings. We can try to change it during the September meeting.
  83. Chair asks if there is any objection to the dates, time or duration of the CC. No objection was raised
  84. Engwer: Can we request more meeting time for the September meeting?
  85. Q: How much more?
  86. A: At least 2 slots of 2 hours
  87. 18:00 Chair adjourns the meeting

Attendance

first name / last name / affiliation / email / Mon / Tues
youssef / abdelilah / sandbridge technology / / x / x
tomoko / adachi / toshiba / / x
alex / ashley / nds ltd / / x
keigo / aso / panasonic / / x
malik / audeh / topos / / x
amit / bansal / wipro newlogic / / x / x
gal / basson / wilocity / / x
moussa / bavufa / broadcom / / x
michael / beck / alcatel-lucent / / x / x
john / benko / france telecom , orange labs / / x / x
bjorn / bjerke / qualcomm / / x
scott / blue / inmotion technology / / x
d / britz / at&t labs / / x / x
wietter / buga / proximetry / / x
jim / carlo / huawei / / x / x
philippe / chambelin / thomson / / x
douglas / chan / cisco systems / / x / x
rory / chen / ralink / / x
sungrae / cho / chung-aug university / / x
eunyoung / choi / etri / / x / x
liwen / chu / stmicroelectronics / / x
steven / conner / intel / / x
charles / cook / qwest / / x / x
todor / cooklev / hitachi / / x
sathish / damodaran / arada systems / / x
marc / de courville / motorola / / x / x
rolf / de vegt / qualcomm / / x / x
gang / ding / olympus-cta / / x
yoshiharo / doi / sanyo / / x
john / dorsey / apple / / x / x
brett / douglas / cisco systems / / x
brad / drake / wildpackets, inc / / x
bas / driesen / philips / / x
lei / du / ntt-docomo / / x / x
guy / duryee / wamu / / x
marc / emmelmann / tu berlin / / x / x
darwin / engwer / nortel networks / / x
leonid / epstein / metalink / / x / x
vinko / erceg / broadcom / / x
yossi / erlich / intel / / x
lars / falk / telia sonera / / x
stefan / fechtel / infineon ag / / x / x
paul / feinberg / sony / / x
matthew / fischer / broadcom / / x
makoto / fujinami / nec / / x / x
wen / gao / thomson / / x
jeremy / gasteau / motorola / / x / x
hrishikesh / gossain / motorola / / x
eckhard / grass / ihp / / x
pratibha / gupta / atheros comm. / / x / x
brian / hart / cisco systems / / x / x
garth / hillman / amd / / x
chris / hinsz / motorola / / x
terng-yin / hsu / national chiao-tung university / / x
jiyoung / huh / lg electronics / / x
yasuhiko / inoue / ntt / / x
marc / jalfon / intel / / x
jorjeta / jetcheva / firetide, inc / / x
lusheng / ji / at&t / / x
padam / kafle / nokia / / x / x
naveen k / kakani / nokia / / x
purushotham / kamath / atheros / / x
haiden / karkhanechi / uc davis / / x
assaf / kasher / intel / / x
john / ketchum / qualcomm inc. / / x / x
amir / khandani / univeristy at waterloo / / x / x
eunkyo / kim / lg electronics / / x
joonsuk / kim / broadcom / / x
kyeongpyo / kim / etri / / x
yonsun / kim / etri / / x
kiran / ralink technologies, inc / / x
bruce / kraemer / marvell / / x
victor / kueh / bt group / / x
fred e / kujawski / aircell llc / / x
masaru / kuroda / ricoh / / x
joe / kwak / interdigital / / x
edwin / kwon / samsung electronic / / x
hyungjin / kwon / etri / / x
hans / lackner / qoscom / / x
wooyong / le / etri / / x
steve / ledford / broadcom / / x
sungjin / lee / samsung electronic / / x / x
joseph / levy / interdigital communication llc / / x / x
qing / li / hitachiamerica / / x
wei / li / orange / france telecom / / x
euntaek / lim / samsung electronics / / x
michael / livshitz / metalink / / x
peter / loc / marvell semiconductor / / x / x
hui-ling / lou / marvell / / x / x
hui / ma / huawei / / x / x
sudheer / matta / trapeze networks / / x / x
darren / mcnamara / toshiba / / x / x
dang / meimei / catr / / x
mark / merrill / netgear / / x
eisuke / miki / docomo usa labs / / x
james / miller / interdigital communication / / x / x
r.r / miller / at&t / / x / x
hidekazu / miyoshi / sumitomo electric / / x
tushar / moorti / broadcom / / x / x
yuichi / morioka / sony corp. / / x / x
jorge / myszne / wilocity / / x
rohit / nabar / marvell semiconductor / / x / x
yukimasa / nagai / mitsubishi electric / / x
chiu / ngo / samsung / / x
eero / nikula / nokia / / x / x
huaning / niu / samsung / / x
erwin / noble / datapath, inc / / x
jisung / oh / samsung electronic / jisung0714.oh@ / x
chandra / olson / lockheed martin / / x
pascal / pagani / france telecom / orange lab / / x
arul / palanivelu / marvell / / x / x
mike / paljug / conexant / / x
thomas / pare / ralink technology / / x
minyoung / park / intel / / x / x
eldad / perahia / intel / / x / x
james e / petronovich / conexant systems, inc / / x / x
victoria / poncini / microsoft / / x / x
ali / raissinia / qualcomm inc. / / x / x
joseph / repice / spirent communications / / x
bahareh / sadeghi / intel / / x / x
atul / salhotra / marvell / / x / x
vincenzo / scarpa / stmicroelectronics / / x / x
don / schultz / boeing / / x / x
semih / serbetli / philips / / x / x
huai-rong / shao / samsung / / x
ian / sherlock / texas instruments / / x
shusaka / shimada / yokogawa co. / / x / x
changsub / shin / etri / / x
massimiliano / siti / stmicroelectronics / / x / x
yoram / solomon / texas instruments / / x
a p / stephens / intel / / x / x
john / stine / the mitre corp / / x / x
hyung sik / suh / lge / / x
mubashir / syed / vocollect, inc / / x
tsuyoshi / tamaki / hitachi ltd / / x
rakesh / taori / samsung / / x / x
allan / thomson / cisco / / x
solomon / trainin / intel / / x / x
satoshi / ueda / sony lsi design inc / / x / x
ashley / uyehara / marvell / / x
richard / van nee / qualcomm / / x / x
prabodh / varshney / nokia / / x / x
g / venkatesan / intel corp / / x / x
waroop / venkatesh / marvell semiconductor / / x / x
tim / walsh / nicta / / x
dennis / ward / sirius satellite radio / / x
pengfei / xia / samsung / / x
akiyoshi / yagi / mitsubishi electric / / x
akira / yamada / ntt-docomo / / x / x
katsuhiko / yamada / nec / / x
tomoya / yamaura / sony corp / / x
lily / yang / intel corp / / x / x
kanji / yokohira / yokogawa electric corp / / x / x
seigi / yoshida / ntt-mcl, inc / / x / x
jianlin / zeng / aerohive networks / / x
hongyuan / zhang / marvell semiconductor / / x / x
huimin / zhang / huawei technologies / / x
johnny / zweig / apple inc / / x

Submissionpage 1Rakesh Taori, Samsung