April 2002IEEE 802.11-02/283r1

IEEE P802.11
Wireless LANs

TGe HCF Ad Hoc Group Teleconference Minutes

Date:4/16/02

Author:Srinivas Kandala
Sharp Labs of America, Inc.
5750 NW Pacific Rim Blvd., Camas, WA 98607 USA
Phone: (360) 817-7512
Fax: (360) 834-8696
e-Mail:

Apr. 16th (Tues) 9am PST

Participants:

Mathilde Benveniste

Sunghyun ChoiPhilips

Sandesh GoelWoodside Networks

Bobby Jose

Srinivas KandalaSharp Labs of America

Isaac Lim Wei LihPanasonic

Javier del PradoPhilips

Ed ReussPlantronics

Sai ShankarPhilips

Matt ShermanAT&T

Minutes:

  1. Agenda:

Call to order, Roll call, Approval of Agenda, Approval of the minutes of the teleconference on Apr. 9nd, Discussion on CC/RR, Discussion on HC Backoff, Planning for the next meeting, Adjourn.

  1. Approval of Agenda

No objections

Resolution: Agenda approved.

  1. Approval of the minutes of the teleconference on Apr. 9th.

Add Isaac to the participant list. One change suggested by Bobby in the main point of seeking removal of Queue Size in Bytes: The main objective is to make it more simple, that one way is sufficient. Considering rate fall, time seems a better way of specifying than bytes even for streams.

Resolution: Minutes approved with the changes.

  1. Discussion on CC/RR

The document that is being discussed is 289r0 – solution 1

Q: Are we going to have a fixed size or variable?

A: It can be a constant through a MIB variable.

O: Cant be variable, may be through beacon

A: Make it configurable basis.

Q: Why is it needed if it is going to be sent at a low frequency.

A: Will be sent for feedback.

Q: Why cant use individual frames?

O: Not opposed to it, but I am happy with the way it is.

Solution 2 in 289r0

O: We should not discuss removing CC/RR here. I think it is best to take it floor.

O: A reasonable minority wants to keep it.

O: I am fine with having a single TXOP request frame.

O: Should be called RR frame to keep it consistent.

Q: Do we need acknowledgement?

O: We are ok with it.

O: We want to get rid of CC/RR, so I would like to have an acknowledgement.

General conesus is to have option 2, Solution 1. Keep it fixed and make it 4?

Philips does not agree to this. So, this can not be a consolidated change.

Discussion on Solution 3:

Q: Are AIFS same as for HC.

A: Only during CTOP when HC doesn’t contend.

O: Contention in a protected session is less efficient than EDCF. Also, it uses away bandwidth. Better to make it the highest priority.

O: I don’t know why Slotted Aloha is picked but I think having CC allowing more types of frames than just RR. For cases where all STAs can’t hear each other, CSMA like access makes more sense.

O:Look at 3a, it might help for implementation.

Straw Poll: All who support Solution 1: 1 Yes 3 No 2 Abstains

Sulution 2: 3 Yes 2 No 1 Abstain

Solution 3: 1 Yes 2 No 2 Abstains

  1. Planning for the next teleconference

Next week topics:

  1. QoS Control time vs byte
  2. Rest of Clause 9

Resoution: The teleconference on 23rd will deal with the above topics.

  1. Review of Action Items
  1. Send out the minutes.
  2. Send out a straw poll.
  1. Adjourn

The teleconference is adjourned until the next teleconference on Apr. 23rd.

Submissionpage 1