September 2006doc.: IEEE 802.11-06/1361r1
IEEE P802.11
Wireless LANs
Date: 2006-09-06
Author(s):
Name / Company / Address / Phone / email
Stephen McCann / Roke Manor Research Ltd (A Siemens Company) / Roke Manor, Old Salisbury Lane, Romsey, Hampshire, SO16 8LT, UK / +44 1794 833341 /
Eleanor Hepworth / Roke Manor Research Ltd (A Siemens Company) / Roke Manor, Old Salisbury Lane, Romsey, Hampshire, SO16 8LT, UK / +44 1794 833146 /
Hong Cheng / Panasonic / BLK1022 TaiSeng Ave #06-3530
Singapore 534415 / +65-65505477 /
Recorded Attendees
Stephen McCann (Chair, TGu)
Frans Hermodsson
Necati Canpolat
Eleanor Hepworth
Hong Cheng
Sabine Demel
Dave Stephenson
George Bumiller
Anne-Laure Selignan
Matthew Gast
Proceedings:
Chair opened the teleconference at 10:05 ET.
There were no objections to everyone being aware of IEEE –SA policies.
Chair stated that the objective of this teleconference is basically to arrangethe agenda and list opne issues issues for the Melbourne (September 2006) meeting.
Q: Is there an agenda for this teleconference
Chair: Yes, it was distributed by email on 4th September, entitled “6th September Teleconference”
Baseline Draft
The editor (Necati) has now produced a baseline draft P802.11u-D0.01.doc. Unfortunately, Necati and I have not had enough time to ask Harry Worstell to place this document within the TGu area of the private members website. Hopefully this will occur during the next day or so.
The URL for this website is:
(You will require the IEEE 802.11 members password to access this page)
Many thanks to Necati for producing an excellent first draft.
Chair: Once this draft appears, please review it and bring any editoral comments to the Melbourne meeting. Technically it is not complete and there will be plenty of chance for an internal review during the next few months.
Liaison Issues
Following the mistaken approval of incorrect document numbers, 3 liaisions will require to be approved during the Melbourne meeting:
11-06-1113-02-0000-liaison-to-TIA-TR-41-4.doc
11-06-1127-01-0000-liaison-to-3gpp-sa3.doc
11-06-1128-01-0000-liaison-to-etsi-tispan.doc
The liaison to the IETF is no longer required, as the chair sent an informal email to the IETF EAP co-chair Bernard Aboba, mentioning that TGu had no comments about their IETF EAP Internet draft.
Melbourne volunteers
Since the chair will not be present in Melbourne. Harry Worstell will be chairing the meeting. Hence it would be useful for TGu members to help and assist as much as possible with the smooth running of the meeting. If you are able to help, please email the current chair (Stephen), with your offer.
Specific areas are:
- Liaisons (George Bumiller, Dave Stephenson)
- Joint meeting with IEEE 802.21
- Draft Baseline Document presentation & discussion (Necati Canpolat)
- Plans for November 2006 meeting
MelbourneAgenda Items
Requests for timeslots have come from:
New submissions
- Dave Stephenson
- Anne-Laure Selignan
- plus 2 others which have been privately emailed to the chair.
Cluster Proposals
- Necati Canpolat x2
- Authentication (perhaps)
- Online Enrolment (perhaps)
Hence the chair suggested that 45 minutes should be allocated to the cluster proposals and 30 minutes for the new submissions
Open Issues
Q: When are we going to discuss the new baseline draft?
Chair: Proably best to introduce this on the Monday (e.g. 1 hour), then allow people to digest it and allocate a 2 hour slot for further discussion later in the week (e.g. Wednesday).
Chair: I’ll be talking to Harry Worstell on Friday (September 8th), so if there are any problems/open issues for TGu to resolve, please tell me before hand and I’ll discuss them with him.
Chair: Please can everyone think about all their motions, especially those for liaison approval and proposal approval. Please refer to submission:11-06-1008-02-000u-motions.pptfor examples. Also –please be aware that the 4 hour rule will now be applicable for all motions which propose a change to the baseline draft document.
Baseline Draft update procedure
The group needs to agree upon a procedure to allow updates to be made to the baseline draft document.
Matthew Gast has volunteered to help to do this. It is recommended that a flow chart be generated based on the submission 11-06-0976-00-000u-down-selection.ppt.
Hopefully this procedure can be approved on the Monday of the Melbourne meeting.
MelbourneIEEE 802.21 Joint Meeting Agenda
There will be a joint meeting with IEEE 802.21 on Tuesday 19th September 2006. The chair asked if there were any agenda items for this meeting.
Chair: Perhaps two initial items are 1) overview of TGu 2) discussion of the interface between the two projects (IEEE 802.11 and IEEE 802.21)
Comment: The draft is currently in a fluid state, half complete, half not. How can we discuss a half finished draft during the joint meeting?
Comment: Yes, but there is only 1 proposed solution on the table (within TGu) for the un-finished parts of the draft, so what’s the problem.
Chair: Sure, but is that fair to the rest of TGu. In other words, should proposed solutions be discussed within a formal IEEE 802.11u/IEEE 802.21 meeting, when it has not been approved?
Q: In the last TGu meeting, following the presentation of the network selection cluster proposal, there were concerns raised about using IEEE 802.21 IEs and protocols for transporting Network Selection information from the AP to the STA, for the case when the STA has not yet attached to the AP. IEEE 802.21 might design their IEs and protocols for use over layer 3 transport, leading to inefficiences over layer 2 protocols. For transporting of network selection information to satisfyIEEE 802.11 network selection requirements,a tight encoding and no wasted message space is required. Do we want TGu to resolve this or leave it up to IEEE 802.21 to define the IEs. It seems that IEEE 802.21 has different requirements, only related to mobility cases, whereas IEEE 802.11 wants to solve the issue of initial network selection of a STA, without already being attached to another network.
A: There are only 2 hours in the joint meeting to discuss this, so we may not have enough time to go into fine detail.
Comment: An additional agenda item is: “Will IEEE 802.21 tell us about their proposed query language and TLVs etc?”.
Chair: Perhaps you can all send me a private email to catpure these questions as specific agenda items for the joint meeting. (Chair was interrupted by fire alarm at his office during this discussion)
Q: Can the chairman state whether there are any other Network Selection proposals on the table, other than the update to 11-06-1014r2.
Chair: At this moment, I’m not aware of any others.
AoB
No other business
Chair adjourned the meeting without any objection.
Submissionpage 1Stephen McCann, Roke Manor Research