November 2008 doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/1362r0
IEEE P802.11
Wireless LANs
Date: 2008-11-11
Author(s):
Name / Affiliation / Address / Phone / email
T.K. Tan / GCT Semiconductor
Rich Kennedy / OakTree Wireless / Austin, TX / +1-281-222-6299 /
WNG SC Meeting Minutes from November 2008 Dallas Plenary Session
Proceedings
Tuesday AM1, Dallas – Recording Secretary, Rich Kennedy – [Landmark A]
Agenda
§ TGy Meeting Call To Order
§ Review IEEE/802 & 802.11 Policies and Rules
§ Approve or Modify Agenda
§ Five presentations
§ Adjourn
1. Meeting was called to order by WNG SC chair at 08:04am CST.
2. Chair stated his affiliation is GCT Semiconductor Systems.
3. Attendance reminder – Electronic using http://newton
4. Chair read IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards and additional Pat Com Guidance. The five slides were shown.
5. After reading the PatCom slides, chair asked if there was anyone who did not understand IEEE patent policy. No response was heard.
6. Chair reviewed topics NOT to be discussed during the meeting including – licensing, pricing, litigation, market share, etc.
7. Chair asked if there are matters regarding essential intellectual property that should be brought to the WG chair. No response was heard.
8. Chair asked if anyone had any essential IP to declare. Nothing heard.
9. Chair discussed the copyright notice and security for equipment notices.
10. Chair discussed the list of presentations for the session and reviewed the agenda in 08/1332r1.
11. Chair asked if there were any changes or modifications to the agenda. None heard.
12. Chair asked if anyone would move to approve the agenda as posted.
12.1. Moved: Rich Kennedy (ETS-Lindgren)
12.2. Second: Marc Emmelmann (Technical University Berlin)
12.3. Motion is approved.
13. The order of the presentations will be:
13.1. Hitoshi Morioka - 08/1337r0 – Broadband Access For High Speed Transportation
13.2. Woong Cho – 08/1273r1 – “Hybrid MAC For VANET”
13.3. Alex Reznik - 08/1259r0 – “Security Of Wireless Networks, How Low-layers Security Can Help”
13.4. Marc Emmelmann - 08/1346r0 – “Topology Discovery And Coverage Area Approximation With 802.11k”
13.5. Peter Ecclesine - 08/1254r1 – “TV White Space FCC Action”
14. The first document was presented by Hitoshi Morioka of ROOT Inc.: 11-08-1337-00-0wng-broadband-access-for-high-speed-transportation
15. Mark asked a question about the overlap time shown in the case studies the presentation. Presenter said they are just examples based on the velocity used to explain the idea.
16. Chair asked if there were any other questions. None heard.
17. Mark commented on the straw poll – this is an important topic and a fairly low cost approach to solving the problem.
18. Chair reminded the group that cost is a topic we should avoid discussing in IEEE.
19. Darcy (SiGe Semiconductor) ashed: What is the advantage of 802.11 over WiMAX or LTE in this application? Presenter said it was because WiMAX and LTE are higher cost alternatives.
20. Chair took a straw poll
20.1. Are you interested in this topic?
20.2. Vote: YES 29; NO 0; ABSTAIN 5
20.3. Straw poll was approved
21. Chair thanked the presenter.
22. The second document was presented by Woong Cho of ETRI: 11-08-1273-01-0wng-hybrid-mac-for-vanet.ppt
23. Chair thanked the presenter and asked if there were any questions. None heard.
24. The third document was presented by Alex Reznik of Interdigital: 11-08-1259-00-0wng-security-of-wireless-networks-how-low-layers-security-can-help.ppt
25. Chair asked if there were any questions
26. Jim Petronavich (“no affiliation necessary for WNG”) said he doesn’t understand why this is worth all the trouble. Woong responded that this is important for attacks that don’t necessarily want to get into, but disrupt your network. Jim said they have to be in the area, and that it is possible to make a jammer that will defeat all of these measures.
27. Frank Whetten (Boeing) asked if the method was extendable; security is always an arms race; what prevents somebody from making attacks look like they come from many directions. Woong said it is better than nothing. He also asked if any estimations have been made on how much horsepower would be needed to accomplish this. Woong said he can’t say.
28. Roger Durand (RIM) stated that the group has in the past looked into defeating DoS attacks, and that most have been dismal failures; solutions have been worse than the problem. He said he fears that some of the techniques could have unforeseen consequences.
29. Woong asked for two straw polls
29.1. #1: Is detection of attacks like Example 1 and Example 2 desirable for 802.11?
29.2. Vote: YES 3; NO 13; NEED MORE INFORMATION 7;ABSTAIN 4
29.3. Straw poll #1 fails to achieve a positive vote
29.4. #2: Is mitigation of attacks like Example 1 and Example 2 desirable for 802.11?
29.5. Vote: YES 2; NO 16; NEED MORE INFORMATION 5;ABSTAIN 4
29.6. Straw poll #2 fails to achieve a positive vote
30. Chair thanked the presenter and asked if there were any questions. None heard.
31. The fourth document was presented by Marc Emmelmann of TU Berlin: 11-08-1346-00-0wng-topology-discovery-and-coverage-area-approximation-with-802-11k
32. Chair thanked the presenter and asked if there were any questions. None heard.
33. The fifth document was presented by Peter Ecclesine of Cisco Systems: 11-08-1254-01-0wng-tv-white-space-fcc-action.
34. Peter stated that with only 25 minutes left, there is probably not enough time to go through all of the commissioners’ opinions. Peter reviewed all of the commissioners’ statements.
35. Carl Stevenson asked why the presenter is showing r1, when he showed r2 yesterday. Peter said r1 is posted; r2 is not. He detailed the differences between r1 and r2.
36. Peter discussed the need for a Study Group to explore the potential of this band; what are the most significant gains that can be achieved by using it.
37. Peter proposed we postpone his motion to allow for discussion.
38. Chair stated that the WNG SC session will continue this evening at 7:30 in Landmark A.
39. Recessed at 10:00am CST.
Tuesday Tutorial 1, Dallas – Recording Secretary, Rich Kennedy – [Landmark A]
40. Chair called the meeting to order at 7:31.
41. Chair stated we will pick up where we left off this morning.
42. Presenter (Peter E.) reviewed the presentation: the FCC Press Release and the comments of the commissioners.
43. Peter asked if there were any questions.
44. Charlie Einhof (North American Broadcasters Association) asked why the presentation ignores 802.22, and all the work they have done.
45. Peter stated that this was prepared for an EC meeting for an EC Study Group. He said that the 802.22 work is relevant, but the personal portable work is historically what 802.11 has done, and he doesn’t want the issue to be debated for years; it should be capable of being completed in three years. The reality is that 802 is not structured to respond to this ruling.
46. Steve Shelhammer, the 802.19 Coexistence TAG chair (Qualcomm) said he has a few slides to stimulate the discussion. Should we do something at the 802 level that cuts across multiple groups that contemplates the coexistence and so forth issues?
47. Roger Durand spoke in favour of the motion. Smart devices are capable of succeeding with coexistence.
48. Matt Sherman (BA Systems) said that “nobody doesn’t want to study this”, but that if it cuts across multiple groups the communications between the groups has to be better.
49. Peter yields the floor to Steve.
50. Steve presented 08/19-0036r0 which posits some of the specific things the study group could study.
51. Matt said the motion could be an 802 motion.
52. Steve asked if there were any comments. Peter reverted back to 1254r1. He said we could remove the term “TV” from the motion so that it is just for white spaces.
53. Kelly Williams (National Association of Broadcasters) said he liked Peter’s changes to the motion. He said we need to see what the FCC says with more specificity first.
54. Ivan Reede (Amerisys) stated that he has been working very hard over the past four years on 802.22, and would suggest that the wording say “review the opportunities”, as 802.22 did do the initial review. He also stated that what is being installed today is reworked 802.11 equipment, so we need to consider the 802.11 route to make the equipment affordable. He spoke in favor of the 802.11 TG approach, with propoer EC oversight.
55. Peter informed the group that in WNG we all can vote.
56. Matt stated that the presentation made by Steve was a quick take on some ideas.
57. Apuvra Mody (BA Systems) suggeted the “TV” be removed from the motion.
58. Kelly said that the term white spaces actually means the unused spaces between TV channels.
59. Roger said he is now confused as to what the motion is trying to do. He is worried that proprietary methods could pass us by if we follow the standards method.
60. Matt responded to Rogers concerns; the motion will need a champion at the EC session. He believes it could eventually become a TAG.
61. Peter suggested we have an evening session at the March Plenary, once the ruling is released.
62. Steve suggested that we have a tutorial in March.
63. Garth Hillman (OakTree Wireless) asked how has 802.22 got started. Kelly said it was the result of an FCC Notice of Inquiry.
64. Garth said he thought it should be at the 802 level.
65. The discussion of removing “TV” continued. Kelly strongly disagreed with removing it.
66. Matt said that he agrees taking out “TV” does not affect the motion.
67. Ivan wants to take out “TV white spaces” and replace it with “newly available spectrum”.
68. Peter disagreed with the change.
69. Roger stated that 802 addresses on a number of different technologies, and would want the SG to have an international focus.
70. Winston Caldwell (News Corporation Fox) asked if the issue is the statement in the Press Release “The rules will allow for fixed…”.
71. Peter said he is responding to the FCC release, and that 802.22 does not address it.
72. Winston said we should study what 802.22 has done. He said that the intent was to add an amendment to 802.22 to add personal portable devices if there was interest.
73. Apuvra explained why 802.22 did not start with personal portables.
74. Peter asked if indoor geolocation has been addressed.
75. Matt discussed how the process works, and how they decide which group should get the project.
76. Ivan said that 802.11 spawned 802.15, which spawned 802.22; we don’t know how this will end up.
77. Steve said the EC is rational.
78. Peter said he belives that this motion is all we can achieve this week.
79. Charlie is concerned that the motion does not address the possible modification of an existing PAR.
80. The motion was modified.
81. Request approval by IEEE 802 LMSC to form an 802 Study Group to review TV white space in the light of the FCC’s TV white space actions of November 4, 2008, with the intent of creating a PAR and five criteria.
81.1. Moved: Ivan
81.2. Second: Roger
81.3. No discussion was heard
81.4. Vote: 47 YES; 7 NO; 23 ABSTAIN
81.5. Motion passes.
82. Matt said he would like a straw poll of which groups are represented.
82.1. 802.22 - 16
82.2. 802.21 - 0
82.3. 802.20 - 0
82.4. 802.16 - 4
82.5. 802.15 - 1
82.6. 802.11 - 43
82.7. 802.3 - 0
83. Chair adjourned the meeting at 8:58pm CST.
Documents presented:
11-08-1337-00-0wng-broadband-access-for-high-speed-transportation
11-08-1273-01-0wng-hybrid-mac-for-vanet.ppt
11-08-1259-00-0wng-security-of-wireless-networks-how-low-layers-security-can-help.ppt
11-08-1346-00-0wng-topology-discovery-and-coverage-area-approximation-with-802-11k
11-08-1254-01-0wng-tv-white-space-fcc-action
19-08-0036-00-0000-address-white-space-across-802
Submission page 6 Rich Kennedy, OakTree Wireless