802.24 Vertical Applications TAG Closing Report

1. 802.24 Vertical Applications TAGClosing Report March 2019 Vancouver, BC, Canada Tim Godfrey, EPRI

2. 802.24 Overview • Officers • TAG Chair: Tim Godfrey • Secretary & TAG Vice Chair: Ben Rolfe • Task Groups • 802.24.1 Smart Grid TG Tim Godfrey • 802.24.2 IoT TG Chris DiMinico • 26 Voting Members • Agenda: 24-19-0007-00 • Meetings for the Week • Monday PM2 24.1 • Tuesday PM2 24.2 • Wednesday PM2 24.1 • Manual attendance tracking for 802.1 & 802.3 members

3. Agenda – 802.24-19-0007r1 Tim Godfrey, EPRI

4. 802.24 TAG • Approve January minutes • 24-19-0005r0 • TAG Action Items from January: • Announce IoT Matrix teleconference on reflector, with call for comments (done) • Re-announce TSN white paper call for comments for March meeting (Done) Tim Godfrey, EPRI

5. Monday 802.24.1 Smart Grid TG Tim Godfrey, EPRI

6. Goals for AR/VR collaboration in 802.24 • 802.21 plans to provide the services layer above the MAC/PHY • AR/VR is an identified vertical application for Smart Grid (electric utilities) for field force, safety, and training • 802.24 will liaise to other WGs if they develop amendments to their standards to support RTC. • 802.21 will provide input on requirements to WGs • Vertical Application areas can provide input on specific use cases • Include representatives from related activities in other WG’s • 802.24 will provide a venue for collaboration (joint meetings) at Plenary Tim Godfrey, EPRI

7. Next Steps • 802.21 to provide text contributions • Goal is to have the real time white paper by 2020? • Bring together various working groups to solve issues for VR and performance. • Application space is driven by ever increasing resolution. Target HDMI 1.2 specification. Resolultion and frame rate drive data rate. Can it be compressed? • This can be seen as alternative to 5G approaches, but standards-based and lower cost to use. • Show how Wi-Fi technology can provide an equally good or better result and performance (bandwidth and low jitter and low latency) • Map identified uses cases on to various IEEE 802 standards. Tim Godfrey, EPRI

8. Liaison with IEC SEG8 • Scope of SEG8: • Assess, provide an overview and prioritization of the evolution of technical development and standardization in the field of communication technologies and architectures • The report includes aspects relevant to both Smart Grid and IoT. • Document shared in 802.24 Private Area • IEC_SEG8_Deliverable2_draft_181118_ext_clean.pdf • Updated version uploaded to private area with annotations • Key chapters relevant to input from 802.24 • IoT Technologies • Single-pair Ethernet (SPE) • Deterministic Networking • Low-Power Wide-Area Networks (LPWAN) • V2V, V2I, V2P and V2N communication technologies • Final Opportunity to review and comment as SEG8 is finishing in next few months • Comments captured. Draft with comments uploaded to private area. Tim Godfrey, EPRI

9. TSN White Paper • Remaining embedded comments resolved • Final review with 802.1 TSN • Updated status of several TSN standards • Update posted as 24-18-0022r3. • Remaining comment for input from 802.21 on VR enablers in utility use cases Tim Godfrey, EPRI

10. Tuesday 802.24TAG Tim Godfrey, EPRI

11. “Network Integration” action item • Action assigned from 802 EC leadership conference in July. • Discussion on role and positioning of IEEE 802 in standards, especially with respect to 3GPP and the publicity on “5G” • What is meant by Network Integration? • Does the IEEE 802 architecture provide a unique value to vertical market? • Is IEEE 802 more suited to deployment in the communication infrastructure of private enterprise, industry, and the individual user? (Compared to 3GPP, which is more oriented towards service providers?) • The IEEE 802 architecture enables networks that are like Ethernet: Well understood, mature, predictable. A “cleaner” integration of disparate technologies under the common architecture and addressing. • Can we develop a clearer definition and description of this distinction and the value for the user / implementer? • Can this be developed into a white paper? Tim Godfrey, EPRI

12. Review of 802.1CF in this context • November Presentation • Max Riegel “Thoughts on IEEE 802 network integration with respect to P802.1CF” 24-18-0026r0 • Discussion • Based on many discussions of the place of 802.11 in 5G. • 5G SC • Conclusions – AANI integrating 802.11 into 5G domain. Nothing corresponding in 3GPP • Industry connections – NENDICA • Flexible Factory IoT, Data Center Bridging • What’s missing – a picture of 802 as a peer to 5G • 5G promises they will do “everything” • But, they don’t do anything wired • 5G requires an extensive PLMN to support it. • It is designed to help the cellular operator grow their market • Verticals might not want an operator in the middle of their network • Value proposition: 802 networks are customer-owned • Example – Santa Clara Emergency services issues Tim Godfrey, EPRI

13. Key Points from Discussion • IEEE 802 is a transport network • IEEE 802 is Layer 2 • 3GPP RAN is layer 3 only, Layer 2 is not available • Direct support of IPv4 and IPv6 or pure layer 2 protocols • Trade-off between flexibility (L2) and scalability (L3) • Routing provides path to higher scale • Smaller scale provide more flexibility • Smaller scale provides opportunity for real-time • IEEE 802 can route via L3 when needed. 3GPP cannot offer L2 • IEEE 802 can also offer L2 routing when appropriate (e.g. 802.15.10) • Not an alternative to L3 routing, but there to address a different problem Tim Godfrey, EPRI

14. Key Points, contd • 802 does not provide as many means control a specific end device and it’s traffic on a path. • There are some management facilities in some standards • 3GPP networks provide more tools for subscriber management • 802 provides local networks that may be (but don’t have to be) connected into an Internet. • Operator networks are focused on services for single devices, while 802 networks support and include multiple devices (networks of networks) – devices can communicate with each other as well as with other networks Tim Godfrey, EPRI

15. Non-802 wireless IoT networks • Commercial, proprietary IoT services • They don’t have an ethernet like L2. The system does not have the concept of a LAN. It is terminal to central “gateway” only. Star topology only. • Similar to LTE UE to UE traffic that must route through core. (DTD Proximity services have addressed that to some extent) • 5G URLLC, and MMTC. • IEEE 802 has already developed TSN in wired, and now being developed for wireless. • Latency is impossible to guarantee in unlicensed, shared spectrum. However it can be highly optimized by the MAC layer. • IEEE 802 has a history and internal coordination of coexistence between different standards operating in unlicensed spectrum. 3GPP is oriented towards exclusively licensed spectrum, “sharing” is a foreign concept. • 3GPP has a common strategy for the three use cases. IEEE 802 has a common architecture, but not a common business strategy. • License exempt can provide higher economic value per MHz of spectrum. • See WFA economic value. Cisco Visual Networking Index. Wi-Fi carries more data than all cellular spectrum • Wi-Fi created the expectation of broadband wireless that led to the development of LTE • What would it look like to combine multiple IEEE 802 standards into a single offering? • Some vendors already do that – integrating 802 technologies into systems. • The “Package” offered by the “5G” ecosystem is clearly articulated. • What is the comparable offering from IEEE 802? Tim Godfrey, EPRI

16. Key Points, contd. • IEEE needs to think about how to create that package without a “subscription model” • IEEE 802 is often free • IEEE 802 is deployed in vertical markets, where the network is owned and operated by the user of the services. • Are there other models for IEEE 802 other than subscription that can provide ancillary economic value? • Is management of shared spectrum a candidate? • IEEE 802 and unlicensed spectrum enables faster innovation • Many of the breakthrough innovations were not as planned • The story of why IEEE 802 complements everything else, and everything else (alone) is not sufficient. • IoT is built around many specialized niches. The challenge is meeting the diverse requirements. IEEE 802 provides multiple standards to address multiple IoT applications. Tim Godfrey, EPRI

17. Next Steps • Do we pursue a white paper in this area? • Yes, there is a good reason, and a starting point • Volunteers to assemble notes into a draft white paper • Discuss at next meeting of TAG - May in Atlanta, and also in July in Vienna Tim Godfrey, EPRI

18. Wednesday 802.24TAG Tim Godfrey, EPRI

19. ITU and Radio Regulatory Items • Update from 802.18 – Jay Holcomb • 900 MHz licensed spectrum NPRM • Will be discussed at Open Meeting of FCC • Call 900 MHz Broadband, but is not related to ISM band. • 896-901 and 935-940 MHz. Propose to transition part of band from channelized LMR to 3x3 MHz. Move LMR into remaining portion of band. • Up to 400W/MHz PSD ESD on towers 304m. (similar to narrowband paging at 1KW) • Is there a possible interference concern with ISM systems in 902-928 MHz? • OFCOM – 2390-2400 MHz consultation • High power devices could interfere with lower end of 2.4 GHz ISM band • This is planned as licensed spectrum • 802.18 will consider a late filing Tim Godfrey, EPRI

20. Liaison with ATIS TOPS Council IoT Categorization Focus Group • ATIS: Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions • Review and comment on IoT Characteristics Matrix provided by ATIS • Review completed and matrix with comments posted as 24-19-0004r4 • Will be forwarded back to ATIS committee Tim Godfrey, EPRI

21. “Low latency” White Paper • Achieving low latency with IEEE 802 standards • Including wired and wireless communications • An alternative (or complement) to 5G URLLC • A set of vertical applications enabled by low latency • The challenges of reliable low latency in unlicensed spectrum. • Adapting TSN’s “FRER” feature • Adapting 802 wireless to licensed spectrum? • Operating over multiple bands or channels? • Special cases for high data rates for immersive video • Oliver Holland is leading white paper development • Outline draft discussed, edited, and updated as 24-19-0003r1 Tim Godfrey, EPRI

22. 802.15.4g and 802.11ah Coexistence (802.19.3) • 802.24 will develop a whitepaper/document for application-specific use cases. Identifying where each standard is most suitable, and how to make best use of other changes. • Identify use cases where 802.15.4g is not sufficient and both are needed • Could be choices of applications, channel guidelines, duty cycle, • Avoid perception that 802 standards are unable to coexist • Evaluate and describe potential application-level implications of delay/latency increases due to mutual interference • 802.19.3 project schedule: • A draft ready by April • WG Ballot Sept 2019 • SA Ballot November 2019 • Consider starting a white paper in 2nd half of year. Review in July Tim Godfrey, EPRI

23. 2019 TAG Activity Plan • “Low latency” White Paper • Continue in May • Include 802.21 AR/VR activity • Nendica FFIOT might also fit into this • “Network Integration” white paper about unique benefits of IEEE 802 architecture • Develop notes from discussion this week into outline for white paper • A whitepaper/document for application-specific use cases of Sub 1GHz standards 802.15.4g and 802.11ah. Identifying where each standard is most suitable, and how to make best use of mechanisms proposed in 802.19.3 TG. • Can this also include applying 802.15.4s in sub-1GHz spectrum? • 2H 2019 for starting • TBD • 802.24 white paper on IoT and P2413 • Update of first Smart Grid white paper to address latest amendments of 802.15.4 u, v, w, x, y, Revmd Tim Godfrey, EPRI

24. 802.24 TAG closing • Action Items from this meeting • Get latest P2413 draft for private area • Subir Das to provide VR text for TSN White Paper • Any New Business? Tim Godfrey, EPRI