January 2011doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0115r0

IEEE P802.11
Wireless LANs

TGai Meeting Minutes for the IEEE 802.11 January 2011 Interim
Date: 2011-01-17
Author(s):
Name / Affiliation / Address / Phone / email
Marc Emmelmann / Fraunhofer FOKUS / Kaiserin-Augusta-Allee 31
10589 Berlin GERMANY / +49 30 34637268 /
Hitoshi Morioka / ROOT Inc. / 2-14-38 Tenjin, Chuo-ku, Fukuoka 810-0001 JAPAN / +81 92 771 7630 /

TGaiJanuary 2011 L.A. Meeting Minutes

Monday PM2 Session:

  1. The Chair pro temp Hiroshi Mano (ROOT) calls meeting to order at 4.02PM
  2. Secretary, Marc Emmelmann sates his affiliations being Fraunhofer FOKUS & ROOT Inc.
  3. Chair presents goal for the week:
  4. Approve of meeting and telephone conference mintues
  5. TGai officier election
  6. Call for submissions & technical presentations
  7. TGai time plain
  8. Information on IEEE Bylaws on Patents and Standards
  9. Chair shows and reads out slides #1 through #5 of IEEE Patent Policy including:
  10. Highlights of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards
  11. Section 6.2 of IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards
  12. Other Guidelines for IEEE WG Meetings
  13. Advise the WG attendees that:
  14. The IEEE’s patent policy is consistent with the ANSI patent policy and is described in Clause 6 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws;
  15. Early identification of patent claims which may be essential for the use of standards under development is encouraged;
  16. There may be Essential Patent Claims of which the IEEE is not aware. Additionally, neither the IEEE, the WG, nor the WG chair can ensure the accuracy or completeness of any assurance or whether any such assurance is, in fact, of a Patent Claim that is essential for the use of the standard under development
  17. The chair provided an opportunity for participants to identify patent claim(s)/patent application claim(s) and/or the holder of patent claim(s)/patent application claim(s) that the participant believes may be essential for the use of that standard
  18. There was no response indicating that any patent-related issues should be brought to the attention of the chair.
  19. Approval of agenda
  20. Chair presents agenda (11-11/0068r0)
  21. Agenda accepted by unanimous consent.
  22. Approval of meeting minutes
  23. Motion: Approve FIA Sturdy GroupDallas face-to-face meeting minutes (11-10/1312r00)
  24. Minutes approved by unanimous consent
  25. All telephone conferences were canceled or did not take place due to lack of participation. No minutes were taken.
  26. Report of Chair
  27. PAR & 5C were unconditionally approved in November by NesCOM
  28. Officer elections
  29. Election of TGai Chair
  30. Hiroshi Mano (Root Inc) runs for election. No other candidates
  31. Marc Emmelmann takes over Chairmenship for chair election
  32. Hiroshi Mano elected TGai by acclamation
  33. There were 30 people in the room
  34. Hiroshi Mano continues chairing the session
  35. Election of Vice Chair
  36. Marc Emmelmann (Fraunhofer FOKUS, Root Inc) is nominated by Hiroshi Mano and accepts to run
  37. No other candidates
  38. Marc Emmelmann elected Vice Chair by acclamation
  39. There were 30 people in the room
  40. Secretary
  41. Hitoshi Morioka (Root Inc) volunteers to act as TGai Secretary
  42. No other candidates
  43. Hitoshi Morioka elected TGai Secretary by acclamation
  44. There were 30 people in the room
  45. Technical Editor
  46. Tom Siep (CSR) volunteers as TGai Technical Editor
  47. The chair asks the group to approve Tom in this position
  48. No other candidates run
  49. Tom Siep is elected Technical Editor by acclamation
  50. There were 30 people in the room.
  51. Technical Presentation:
  52. 11/119r0: Requirements for FILS Submissions coming from PAR & 5C (M. Emmelmann) Requirements
  53. Discussion:
  54. Only ask security experts once for review immediately before going to WG ballot
  55. Flag submissions that could potentially affect security to keep track of them
  56. Motion: Move to create new operation manual documentation for TGai and incorporate table on slide 6 in the document.
  57. Moved: M. Emmelmann
  58. Seconded: Lee Amstrong
  59. Discussion:
  60. Clarification “The document” = the newly to be created operation manual
  61. Vote: Y: 12 No: 0 Abstain: 4
  62. Motion passes
  63. Discussion on further steps
  64. Plan to have single document with use cases / scenarios / requirements
  65. Additional input may be added to them upon TG’s approval
  66. The intention is to have a single point where to look for accepted use cases etc.
  67. Recess at 1.50PM

Tuesday PM2 Session:

  1. Call meeting to order at 4.03 PM
  2. Chair reminder on meeting and patent policy
  3. TGai Operation Manual (11-11/139r0 & 11/11-140r0)
  4. M. Emmelmann presents documents
  5. Motion: Move to accept TGai operation manual in the document 11-11/139r1 and 11-11/140r0.
  6. Moved: M. Emmelmann;Seconded: Lee Armstrong
  7. Discussion on motion: none
  8. Yes: 8 No: 0 Abstain: 2
  9. Motion passes
  10. Technical presentations
  11. 11-10/1106r01: PAR & 5C Transition from FIA to Fast Initial Link Set-Up (M. Emmelmann)
  12. Presentation given to group to allow participants not attending the study group phase to catch up on technical ideas on how to achieve fast link set-up
  13. 11-11/0122r0: 3G <--> WLAN handover (Gabor Bajko, Nokia)
  14. Discussion:
  15. Scope of TG. Work should end when a local IP address is assigned to STA.
  16. Open issue: should a solution require from the AP to request pool of addresses on behalf of potential clients
  17. 11-11/0023r01: Use Case Scenario for TGai (H. Morioka, ROOT Inc)
  18. Discussion:
  19. Is WiFi really the better choice for downloading data as WiFi might use much more energy (reduce battery life). --- There is no black and white answer to this. It depends both on the configuration of 3G parameters in the net as well as on used power save mechanisms of 802.11.
  20. Recess at 5.30 PM

Note: There were approx. 25 people in the room

TuesdayEVE Session:

  1. Call meeting to order at 7.35pm
  2. Discussion on Use Cases:
  3. 11-11/148r0: Use Cases Requiring Fast Initialization (Lee Armstrong, US DoT)
  4. Lee emphasizes that this is work in progress and he plans to have a final version by Thursday.
  5. Discussion
  6. Q: Why are all these vehicular applications not enabled with 11p?
    A: 11p focus in vehicle-to-vehicle safety applications enabled by operating “outside the scope of a BSS”. All these applications would rather be deployed in a BSS-like environment with fast link-set-up as targeted by 11ai.
  7. Latency requirements basically driven by the dwell time of user within coverage
  8. Request to identify which of these applications could also be realized by 11p (plus some other, higher layer functionalities)
  9. Focus on study group was on bringing down the link set-up time to a few hundred milliseconds. Some of your applications require latency less than 20ms. We should not extend our work for ever just to find solutions for “below 20ms benchmark”.
    Reply by Lee: Intend is to identify what TGai can do and what not.
  10. Tom Siep will prepare an example use case indicating what should be included in use case descriptions.
  11. Evaluation criteria: not hard numbers. There should be viable proof that significant improvement can be achieved with new approach as compared to what as been done in the past.
  12. Recess at 8.30pm

Note: There were approx. 20 people attending the session.

Thursday PM2 Session:

  1. Call meeting to order at 4.02pm
  2. Technical Presentations
  3. 11-11/0191r0 Use Case Discussion (Tom Siep, CSR)
  4. Discussion:
  5. Q: How to would you roll in the dwell time / time to stay within the coverage of an AP
  6. A: either in goal or in scenario
  7. Use case environment (crowded place, etc.) would be part of the scenario, e.g. crowded train station vs. empty train station
  8. Example given:
  9. Use case “electronic payment”
  10. Scenarios
  11. State park walk by: only one user, “long” dwell time in AP coverage
  12. Train Station: same as State park but lots of users simultaneously entering the coverage (change in number of people – crowded place)
  13. Highway toll station: very short dwell time in coverage. Could be two scenarios dependent on number of cars driving by simultaneously (again high / low crowd)
  14. Move to approve 11/11-0191r0 and instruct the editor to add use case template to 11/11-0139
  15. Moved: Tom Siep, CSR;Seconded: Lee Armstrong, US DoT
  16. Discussion: none
  17. Yes: 11No: 0Abstain: 3
  18. Motion passes
  19. 11-11/0148r1: Use Cases Requiring Fast Initialization (Lee Armstrong, US DoT)
  20. Discussion:
  21. Add information if applications need a “secure” link set up or if they could live with unsecure, open authentication
  22. Given the document and Tom Siep’s use case template, you would have one “Payment” Use Case with several scenarios having different requirements
  23. Move to create a TGai Use Cases Document and derive from agreed use cases a TGai Functional Requirement Document and a TGai document containing evaluation criteria.
  24. Moved Dwight SmithSeconded: Lee Armstrong, US DoT
  25. Discussion: none
  26. Yes: 11No: 0Abstain: 0
  27. Motion passes
  28. Time Line of Task Group
  29. Discussion if prototyping could be required to meet the timeline:
  30. Robert Moskowitz: We anticipate a change in MLME behavior, i.e. eventually IP address assignment may be pushed “before” we have completed the link-set up. We will need prototypes showing that the concept work We need to get in touch with development community to work on proof-of-concept implementations showing that it works.
  31. Tom Siep: Though not required, prototypes will definitely be required if we want to achieve the goal “going fast track”.
  32. Challenge is rather seen on STA side as “upper layer processing” might not even be accessible before you get a link-up signal.
  33. Goals:
  34. Finish Use Cases Document and Functional Requirements in March Plenary
  35. Proposals including self-evaluation in May 2011
  36. Evaluation and down-selection in July and September
  37. Straw Poll:
  38. Does TGai may work in the above time line?
  39. Yes: 7No: 6Abstain: 5
  40. New suggested internal time line
  41. Use case scenario & Functional Requirements: March 2011
  42. Technical Requirements: May 2011
  43. Proposals: July
  44. Downselect: Sept 2011
  45. Straw Poll:
  46. Are you in favor of above time line
  47. Yes: 3No: 0Abstain: many (not count)
  48. Official time line to be sent to working group (as shown on slide 24 of 11-11/0068r1)
  49. No objections by TGai members to using the time line
  50. Plan for March Meeting and Teleconferences
  51. Goal for March: Finish on
  52. Move to approve the following schedule of weekly teleconferences on
    Tuesdays 08:00 EST (NY Time)
    Duration 1 hour
    Using Web-Ex that will be provided by TG Chair
  53. Moved: Lee ArmstrongSeconded: Marc Emmelmann
  54. Discussion: none
  55. Yes: 9No: 0Abstain: 3
  56. Motion passes
  57. Request made to the Chair to send an official call for submissions of use cases to be presented at telephone conferences.
  58. Adjourn at 6.02 PM

Note: approx 20 people attended the session.

Submissionpage 1Marc Emmelmann, Fraunhofer FOKUS