1 / 36

Coex Ad Hoc May Jacksonville Agenda and Report

Coex Ad Hoc May Jacksonville Agenda and Report. Authors:. Date: 2008-05-15. Abstract. Coex Ad Hoc in May Jacksonville agenda and report regarding comment resolution of LB124 (802.11n). Overview. Latest version of spreadsheet 08/0466r1 Total number of unresolved comments: 51 Goals:

maris-koch
Download Presentation

Coex Ad Hoc May Jacksonville Agenda and Report

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Coex Ad Hoc May Jacksonville Agenda and Report Authors: Date: 2008-05-15 Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  2. Abstract Coex Ad Hoc in May Jacksonville agenda and report regarding comment resolution of LB124 (802.11n) Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  3. Overview • Latest version of spreadsheet • 08/0466r1 • Total number of unresolved comments: 51 • Goals: • Resolve as many Coex CIDs as possible in Jacksonville and finish in July Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  4. Coex Ad Hoc Rules / Procedure • As a general rule, we will NOT be reviewing CIDs on a one by one basis • Resolution of comments will in most cases be based on submissions • Coex Ad Hoc chair will bring resolutions which passed by 75% or more for motion in TGn, with affirmation of Ad Hoc • Votes between 50% - 75% may be brought to TGn for further discussion and votes to break deadlock Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  5. Subgroups • Coex 20-40 • 34 comments • Mainly Clause 11.14 (excluding 11.14.9, 11.14.10) • Assignee • Matt F. – 32 comments • Eldad – 2 comments • Coex cca • 6 comments • Primarily clauses 11.14.9, 11.14.10 • Assignee • Eldad – 4 comments • Brian Hart – 2 comments • Coex GF • 11 comments • Clause 9.13.3, 11.9 • Assignee: Doug Chan Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  6. Review from May 7th Conference Call • Submission by Brian Hart • 11-08-0490-01-000n-coex-hcca-comments.doc • CID 6065 & 6066 regarding CCA sensing and HCCA; changes to 9.9.2.1.3 & 11.14.9 • Brian to investigate addressing dual-CTS, RD error recovery, PSMP recovery in 11.14.9 based on feedback from Adrian • Submission by Matt Fischer • 11-08-0520-00-000n-lb124-cid6098-coex-20-40.doc • Began review of CIDs in 20/40 subgroup • CIDs reviewed with no objection to proposed resolution: • 6098, 6001, 6002, 6296, 6031, 6032, 6083, 6225, 6036, 6034, 6039 • CIDs reviewed with further modification or discussion necessary • 6002, 6317, 6033, 6035, 6037 Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  7. Submissions Related to Comment Resolution • Matt F. • 11-08-0520-02-000n-lb124-cid6098-coex-20-40.doc • Brian • 11-08-0490-02-000n-coex-hcca-comments.doc • Eldad • 11-08-0517-00-000n-coex-40-mhz-comments.doc • CCA sensing - Tues Eve • 11-08-0524-00-000n-secondary-cca-sims.ppt • GF – Th PM1 • Doug • Vinko (+) indicates submission was discussed Red indicates completed submissions Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  8. Agenda for Monday May 12 PM1 • 11-08-0520-02-000n-lb124-cid6098-coex-20-40.doc Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  9. Minutes for Monday May 12 PM1 • 08/520r2 • CID 6002 • No objection to resolution • CID 6317 • Michael: rather not have dynamic HT capability so that STAs do not have to monitor continually the HT capability • Matt: will write a resolution to make HT capability not dynamic • CID 6033 • Tomo: is there a case of TRUE when they are not equal? • Matt: will add “…of TRUE if the two sides are equal and FALSE if the two sides are unequal.” Also incorporated remaining logic into same paragraph. • No objection to updated resolution • CID 6035 • No objection to resolution • CID 6037 • Modified rejection text • No objection to updated resolution • CID 6038 • Modified rejection text • No objection to updated resolution Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  10. Agenda for Monday May 12 PM2 • 11-08-0520-02-000n-lb124-cid6098-coex-20-40.doc Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  11. 08/520r2 CID 6318 Modified rejection text No objection to updated resolution CID 6178 No objection to resolution CID 6041 Changed to counter Minor modification to clarify resolution text (but no change to editor instructions No objection to resolution CID 6044 Changed to counter No objection to resolution CID 6046 No objection to resolution CID 6049 No objection to resolution CID 6053 Additional editing instructions to same paragraph No objection to resolution CID 6084 Withdrawn by commenter (Doug) and will send email CID 6054 Changed from reject to counter Added editor instruction to note No objection to resolution CID 6055 Matt Smith: do you think the beacon interval has the similar problem? Matt F: yes, but not TGn job to fix, TGmb No objection to resolution CID 6057 No objection to resolution CID 6299 No objection to resolution CID 6059 No objection to resolution CID 6060 No objection to resolution CID 6061 No objection to resolution CID 6062 Minor modification to rejection text No objection to updated resolution Minutes for Monday May 12 PM2 Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  12. 08/520r2 • CID 6317 • Change resolution to reject based on existing note that says that HT Capability is constant for lifetime of its BSS • No objection to modified resolution • Revisit CID 6055 • Peter: there is issue with dynamic MIB variables, see Table 15-1 in 802.11-2007 • Matt: has does this relate? • Adrian: the MIB variable is where definition of static or dynamic • Peter’s intent to allowing exceeding range of MIB variables • Matt: re-word such that the tx values are obtained from the local values • Change to counter • No objection to modified resolution • No objection to adopting 08/520r3 and bringing to TGn full for motion Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  13. Agenda for Tuesday May 13 AM2 • 11-08-0517-00-000n-coex-40-mhz-comments.doc • 11-08-0490-02-000n-coex-hcca-comments.doc Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  14. Minutes for Tuesday May 13 AM2 • 08/0517r0 • CID 6069 • No objection to resolution • CID 6328 • No objection to resolution • No objection to resolving CIDs with 08/517r0 and bringing to motion in TGn full • 08/0490r2 • CID 6065, 6066 • No objection to resolving CIDs with 08/490r2 and bringing to motion in TGn full Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  15. Agenda for Tuesday May 13 Evening • Eldad, 11-08-0524-00-000n-secondary-cca-sims.ppt • Andrew, 08/633 Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  16. Minutes for Tuesday May 13 Evening • Menzo: was DIFS simulated? • Eldad: was done in 08/145 • Tushar • Total throughput is not fairness, you would always tx with fastest device and none with slowest • A) case spectrum is split between 11n & 11a • B) case time is split even between 11n & 11a • Both cases are fair in terms of the resource being split • Andrew: getting wound up on fairness, need to look at “dumbness” • Luke: what was CW? • Eldad: AC_BE • Luke: throughput is not good measure of unfairness • Luke: option b) is quite fair for both 11a and 11n • Matt: opt a) avoids collisions, opt b) avoid difficult switch, its what we came up a while ago and new sims confirm it • Brian: no DFS issue regarding channel selection and avoiding secondary • Menzo: could modify opt b) such that CW is expanded on retry • Adrian: review of channel selection rules, discussion of traffic pattern, fairness Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  17. Strawpoll: do you support rejecting CIDs 6228, 6229, 6230? • Yes: 13 • No: 8 • Abs: 8 • Strawpoll: Would you support modifications to the CCA sensing on the secondary mechanisms (only ED)? • Yes: 7 • No: 16 • Abs: 5 Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  18. CID 6227 • Andrew’s Proposal, delete red text below • At the specific slot boundaries (defined in 9.2.10) (#5895), determined by the STA based on the 20 MHz primary channel CCA, when the transmission begins a TXOP using EDCA (#2469) (as described in 9.9.1.3), the STA may transmit a pending 40 MHz mask PPDU only if the secondary channel has also (#5895) been idle during the times the primary channel CCA is performed (defined in 9.2.10)during an interval of a (#5895) PIFS (using short timeslot for 5GHz band and long timeslot for 2.4GHz band) immediately preceding the expiration of the backoff counter (#718). If a STA was unable to transmit a 40 MHz (#6079) mask PPDU because the secondary channel was occupied during this PIFS interval (#5895), it has two choices: • Strawpoll: do you support rejecting CID 6227? • Yes:15 • No:5 • Abs:4 Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  19. Menzo discovered that “NOTE.This means that the STA selects a new random number using the current value of CW[AC] and that the retry counters are not updated.” is inconsistent with 9.9.1.5. • Options to correct Note: • Option 1: “NOTE.This means that the STA selects a new random number using an updated value of CW[AC] and that the retry counters are not updated.” • Option 2: create a rule that refers to step a) of 9.9.1.5 that does not update the CW (when CCA becomes busy during channel access) • Menzo, Matt, Adrian to craft resolution, will discuss during Coex Ad Hoc on Wed PM1 Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  20. Agenda for Wed May 14 PM1 • Note in 11.14.9 • Menzo has crafted text • Resolution of CIDs 6227, 6228, 6229, 6230 Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  21. Minutes for Wed May 14 PM1 • CID 6228 • Strawpoll: Do you support rejecting CID 6228 • Yes: 9 • No: 4 • Abs: 2 • CID 6229, 6230 • Reject. The simulation results in 06/608r1, 08/145r0, and 08/524r0 demonstrate that the CCA sensing mechanism in the draft results in fair sharing between 40MHz 11n and legacy when a 40MHz HT BSS shares a secondary channel with a non-HT BSS. • No objection to resolution • No objection to bring to TGn for motion Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  22. Note in 11.14.9 • Two options given in 08/612r2, presented by Adrian • Option 1, modify choice b) in 11.14.9 to be consistent with Note and 9.9.1.5 • Option2, modify Note to update CW • Tomo: in internal collisions, the retry counter increases • Andrew: could delete retry counter phrase • Summary: • Option 1: CW does not increase • Option 2: CW does increase • Strawpoll: which do you prefer? • Option 1: 17 • Option 2: 5 • Abs: 3 • Adrian to bring submission with Option 1 to TGn full for motion Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  23. CID 6228 • Strawpoll: Do you support rejecting CID 6228 with the following resolution text: • Reject. The simulation results in 06/608r1, 08/145r0, and 08/524r0 demonstrate that the CCA sensing mechanism in the draft results in fair sharing between 40MHz 11n and legacy when a 40MHz HT BSS shares a secondary channel with a non-HT BSS. • Yes: 14 • No: 2 • Abs: 7 • No objection to bring to TGn for motion • Andrew: will bring these comments back the next letter ballot and urges people to review 08/633 prior to the next meeting in preparation to discuss Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  24. CID 6227 • Strawpoll: do you support rejecting CID 6227? • Yes: 13 • No: 2 • Abs: 4 • Reject. The timing of CCA measurements in the primary channel is defined precisely by 9.2.10. Making the proposed change leaves the timing of the secondary CCA measurement poorly defined but one interpretation is that it is continuous within a period of PIFS before the end of the backoff. An implementation is therefore required to perform CCA measurements on the primary and secondary channels with different timing. The text removed by the proposed changed was introduced in response to a prior comment in order to make the timing of CCA measurements on the primary and secondary channels identical. • Andrew: this rejection text does not address part of the comment Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  25. CID 6227, continued • Strawpoll: do you support rejecting CID 6227 with the following: • Reject. The timing of CCA measurements in the primary channel is defined precisely by 9.2.10. Making the proposed change leaves the timing of the secondary CCA measurement poorly defined but one interpretation is that it is continuous within a period of PIFS before the end of the backoff. An implementation is therefore required to perform CCA measurements on the primary and secondary channels with different timing. The text removed by the proposed changed was introduced in response to a prior comment in order to make the timing of CCA measurements on the primary and secondary channels identical. • Yes: 13 • No: 1 • Abs: 6 • No objection to bring to TGn for motion Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  26. Agenda for Th May 15 PM1 • GF/DFS • 08/672r2, Doug Chan • 08/666r0, Doug Chan Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  27. Minutes for Th May 15 PM1 • 08/672r2 • Matt: if there is nothing happening in the OBSS, protection is not necessary. Change is not warranted • Strawpoll: Do you support the changes in 08/672r2? • Yes: 10 • No: 5 • Abs: 5 • Discussion tabled and will be brought up in TGn full Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  28. 08/666r0 • Vinko: • this excludes VoIP and increase power consumption in handheld devices. • On slide 3 did you only do measurements close from the wall • Doug: measurements were made away from wall as well and there were no detects Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  29. Do you support rejecting CIDs 6181, 6326, 6073, 6196, 6137, 6074, 6304, 6231, 6179, 6067 with the following resolution? • “Reject: The problem of false detections in legacy devices is not limited to GF receptions. TGn does not feel this is an issue to act upon until further evidence is provided.” • No objection to resolution and bring to motion in TGn full Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  30. Approved Motions Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  31. Motion # 318 • Moved: Approve resolution of CID 6069 found on the tab labelled “coex pending motion set 1” in document 11-08/0466r2. • Based on resolutions in the following submissions: • 08/517r0 • Resolves CID with Reject • passed by no objection • TGn vote: 15-1-2, motion passes Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  32. Motion # 319 • Moved: Approve resolution of comments found on the tab labelled “coex pending motion set 1” in document 11-08/0466r2, except CID 6069. • Based on resolutions in the following submissions: • 08/520r3 • 08/517r0 • Resolves all 32 Coex 20-40 sub-group comments with As, Cs, and Rs • All passed by no objection • TGn vote: passed by no objection Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  33. Motion # 320 • Moved: Approve resolution of comments found on the tab labelled “coex pending motion set 2” in document 11-08/0466r2. • Based on resolutions in 08/490r2 • Resolves CID 6065 and 6066 in Coex CCA sub-group comments with A and C, respectively • All passed by no objection • TGn vote: passed by no objection Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  34. Motion # 329 • Moved: Approve resolution of comments found on the tab labelled “coex pending motion set 3” in document 11-08/0466r3. • Resolves four Coex CCA sub-group comments with Rs • Coex Ad Hoc Vote Results: • CID 6229, 6230: no objection • CID 6228: Y:14, N: 2, A: 7 • CID 6227: Y:13, N: 1, A: 6 • TGn vote: no objection Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  35. Motion # 330 • Moved: Approve resolution of comments found on the tab labelled “coex pending motion set 4” in document 11-08/0466r4. • Resolves 10 Coex GF sub-group comments with Rs • passed by no objection • TGn vote: no objection Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  36. Motion # 335 • Move to counter CID 6075 with the following resolution • TGn believes it is sufficient to let the invocation of this protection mechanism be optional and leaves the decision to when to invoke it to the implementers. But the TG feels it should provide additional informative guideline on this aspect. Editor to make changes in 08/0672r3. • TGn vote: no objection Eldad Perahia (Intel)

More Related