IEEE 802.11 Coexistence Workshop Survey Results: Operational Aspects

1. Operational survey results forIEEE 802.11 Coexistence Workshop in Vienna on 17 July 2019 • 6 August 2019 Authors: Andrew Myles, Cisco

2. This report summarises the survey on operational aspects of the IEEE 802.11 Coexistence Workshop • The IEEE 802.11 Coexistence Workshop was held from 1-10 pm on17 July 2019 in Vienna, Austria • After the workshop, a survey was conducted on the operational aspects of the workshop, with results as shown in this report • Note: all comments are included in the Appendices • The results of this voluntary survey only represent the views of those that responded to the post workshop survey on operational aspects: • They may or may not represent the views of other attendees at the workshop (depending on whether the survey sample is random) • They do not represent the views of the many stakeholders who did not attend the workshop (attendance were biased towards Wi-Fi stakeholders) • Care should be taken in using these results to draw any conclusions about coexistence issues between Wi-Fi & NR-U/LAA Andrew Myles, Cisco

3. The workshop was “very good” & “very useful”, providing valuable lessons for future workshops • Workshop survey summary • Q1: Most respondents prefer that their responses are anonymous • Q2: More than half of attendees responded to the operational survey • Q3: The majority of participants had an interest in Wi-Fi rather than NR-U/LAA • Q4: Overall, respondents rated the workshop as “very good” • Q5: Overall, respondents rated the workshop as “very useful” for good coexistence • Q6: The workshop provided a good platform for discussion • Q7: The workshop did not have enough time for discussion or to come to conclusions • Q8: Future workshops should have more discussions & come to a conclusion • Q8: Future workshops should be actively curated & have “better” scheduling • Q9: Six presentations were particularly effective at providing insight into the coexistence issue Andrew Myles, Cisco

4. Q1: Most respondents prefer that their responses are anonymous • Q1 Responses to this survey will be published anonymously, unless you consent to having your name and affiliation publicly associated with your answers. Do you consent? • Given the high proportion who wanted anonymity, the survey collector (Andrew Myles) has decided to maintain anonymity for all Andrew Myles, Cisco

5. Q2: More than half of attendees responded to the operational survey • Q2 What is your name and affiliation? This information will be used to validate your responses. It may also be publicly associated with your responses if you provide consent in Q1. • 74 responses were received (as of CoB on Friday, 2 August 2019) • There were about 145 people in attendance at the workshop, representing a response rate of more than 50% Andrew Myles, Cisco

6. Q3: The majority of participants had an interest in Wi-Fi rather than NR-U/LAA • Q3 In what role did you participate in the IEEE 802.11 Coexistence Workshop? Andrew Myles, Cisco

7. Q3: The majority of participants had an interest in Wi-Fi rather than NR-U/LAA • Q3 In what role did you participate in the IEEE 802.11 Coexistence Workshop? • The “other” category included: • Academics • Researchers • Trade associations • Two “other” respondents were re-categorised base on their comments • One to Wi-Fi • One to both Wi-F and NR-U/LAA Andrew Myles, Cisco

8. Q4: Overall, respondents rated the workshop as “very good” • Q4 Overall, how would you rate the IEEE 802.11 Coexistence Workshop? Andrew Myles, Cisco

9. Q5: Overall, respondents rated the workshop as “very useful” for good coexistence • Q4 Was the IEEE 802.11 Coexistence Workshop a useful exercise in the context of promoting good coexistence between Wi-Fi and NR-U/LAA in 6GHz? Andrew Myles, Cisco

10. Q6: The workshop provided a good platform for discussion & was well organised • Q6: What did you like about the IEEE 802.11 Coexistence Workshop? • Respondents really valued the discussion at the workshop by stakeholders from different communities: • Participation by multiple stakeholders, including academia and industry • Open dialog between stakeholders • Relevant timing of the workshop • Explanation of the key issues by “both sides” • Sharing of perspectives • High technical quality • Respondents also appreciated the logistics • Well organised • Well led • Held in a balanced and neutral environment • At least one person liked the food  Andrew Myles, Cisco

11. Q7: The workshop did not have enough time for discussion or to come to conclusions • Q7: What did you dislike about the IEEE 802.11 Coexistence Workshop? • Universal messages about the workshop content were focused on lack of time, lack of engagement and the lack of conclusions: • Was too much repetition of ideas • Was not enough time for Q&A or discussion • Was insufficient engagement between stakeholders • Were too many hardened positions from stakeholders • Were no real conclusions or next steps • In terms of logistics, there were a few common themes • The workshop was too long/short • The workshop should not be held in parallel with IEEE 802.11 WG Andrew Myles, Cisco

12. Q8: Future workshops should have more discussions & come to a conclusion • Q8: What would you change about the IEEE 802.11 Coexistence Workshop if a similar event was held in the future? • There was a consensus a future workshop should have more time for: • Discussions (although some did not like panel discussions) • Presentations (although some wanted less or shorter presentations) • Breakouts • Networking • There was a general desire for any future workshop to have a more definitive conclusion, or at least an agreement for next steps • Note: it was explicitly agreed that the workshop would not agree on conclusions because not all stakeholders (particularly those from 3GPP) were in attendance • There is some desire for regulators to be more involved in the future • Note: it was agreed to not invite regulators to this workshop (with exception of Andy Gowans) because it is hoped coexistence can be resolved without them Andrew Myles, Cisco

13. Q8: Future workshops should be actively curated & have “better” scheduling • Q8: What would you change about the IEEE 802.11 Coexistence Workshop if a similar event was held in the future? • There was also a general suggestion that submissions in the future should be actively curated for: • Better balance (less repetition) of material • Better quality • No academia • Note: for this workshop it was decided to just ensure papers were in scope because of difficulty of deciding what should/should not be presented • Finally, there was a desire for better scheduling, which variously meant: • Hold workshop on Monday or Friday • Don’t hold workshop at night • Don’t hold workshop in parallel with other events • Hold the workshop over two days Andrew Myles, Cisco

14. Q9: Six presentations were particularly effective at providing insight into the coexistence issue • Q9 Which presentation(s) or panel(s) during the IEEE 802.11 Coexistence Workshop were the best in providing you with significant insight into the coexistence issue? HPE Broadcom AT&T 3GPP RAN Cisco Orange Arbitrary line Andrew Myles, Cisco

15. Q9: Six presentations were particularly effective at providing insight into the coexistence issue • Q9 Which presentation(s) or panel(s) during the IEEE 802.11 Coexistence Workshop were the best in providing you with significant insight into the coexistence issue? • The most influential presentations (above 25%) were • (49%)3-11: Common Preamble Design in the 6 GHz Band – Merits and Challenges (Ralf Bendlin - AT&T) • (38%) 2-1: LAA/Wi-Fi coexistence evaluations with commercial hardware (Stuart Strickland - HPE) • (32%) 1-1: Status Report for Release 16 NR-U (3GPP RAN) • (31%) 3-3: LBT should remain the basis of fair & efficient coexistence in 6 GHz unlicensed spectrum (Andrew Myles - Cisco) • (31%)3-8: Orange view on co-existence between NR-U and Wi-Fi (Benoit Graves - Orange) • (28%) 3-9: On a common preamble between Wi-Fi and NR-U (Sindhu Verma - Broadcom) Andrew Myles, Cisco

16. Q9: There were 5 & 2 presentations respectively in sessions 1 & 2 • Session 1 • 1-1: Status Report for Release 16 NR-U (3GPP RAN) • 1-2: High Efficiency WLAN (802.11ax) Overview (IEEE 802.11 TGax) • 1-3: IEEE 802.11be: Extremely High Throughput (EHT) WLAN (IEEE 802.11 TGbe) • 1-4: ETSI BRAN Update (ETSI BRAN) • 1-5: A 6 GHz regulatory update (Andy Gowans - OFCOM) • Session 2 • 2-1: LAA/Wi-Fi coexistence evaluations with commercial hardware (Stuart Strickland - HPE) • 2-2: Coexistence of LTE-LAA and Wi-Fi: analysis, simulation and experiments (Monisha Ghosh - Uni of Chicago) Andrew Myles, Cisco

17. Q9: There were 11 presentations in part 1 ofsession 3 • Session 3 – Part 1 • 3-1: RAN and core convergence/coexistence in action (WBA) • 3-2: Coexistence in 6 GHz License-Exempt Spectrum (Sorour Falahati - Ericsson) • 3-3: LBT should remain the basis of fair & efficient coexistence in 6 GHz unlicensed spectrum (Andrew Myles - Cisco) • 3-4: NR-U/Wi-Fi Coexistence in 5/6 GHz bands (Dorin Viorel - Cablelabs) • 3-5: Performance evaluation of channel access mechanisms in 6 GHz spectrum (Jiayin Zhang - Huawei) • 3-6: Coexistence Mechanisms (Sorour Falahati - Ericsson) • 3-7: Efficient and Fair Medium Sharing Enabled by a Common Preamble (Imran Latif - Quantenna) • 3-8: Orange view on co-existence between NR-U and Wi-Fi (Benoit Graves - Orange) • 3-9: On a common preamble between Wi-Fi and NR-U (Sindhu Verma - Broadcom) • 3-10: Collision Detection for Fair LAA/Wi-Fi Coexistence (Vyacheslav Loginov - IITP RAS) • 3-11: Common Preamble Design in the 6 GHz Band – Merits and Challenges (Ralf Bendlin - AT&T) Andrew Myles, Cisco

18. Q9: There were 6 presentations and 2 panels inpart 2 of session 3 • Session 3 – Part 2 • 3-P1: Panel on “common preambles” • 3-12: The use of no LBT for DRS is not justified by history (Andrew Myles - Cisco) • 3-13: LBT for short control messages (David Mazzarese - Huawei) • 3-14: On standalone transmissions with short-LBT (Sindhu Verma - Broadcom) • 3-P2: Panel on “short/no LBT” • 3-15: Coex Simulation and Analysis (James Wang - Mediatek) • 3-16: An Experimental Evaluation of Coexistence Challenges of Wi-Fi & LTE in the unlicensed band (Jerome Arokkiam - CONNECT) • 3-17: A testbed architecture for 6 GHz Wi-Fi/NR-U Coexistence Testing (Leigh Chinitz - Octoscope) Andrew Myles, Cisco

19. Appendices Andrew Myles, Cisco

20. Q6: What did you like about the IEEE 802.11 Coexistence Workshop? • Q6: page 1 of 6 pages • That brought together people with different background and interest in sharing and efficiently using license free spectrum. • Participants were from various different sectors like academia and operators apart from manufacturers • Exploration of technical options, some insight into who does what • Coexistence is very important for the operation in the unlicensed or shared spectrum. It is great to know that many companies are interested in the coexistence between 3GPP and 802.11 technologies, share their experience and research on the coexistence issues in this workshop. • It created a platform for stakeholders of different standards to understand each others more. It served the purpose of exchanging information (to some extend). • Got all sides together, and they recognize the differences. point is, they are talking and learning about each other • I could understand what those NR-U stakeholders think about the coexistence issues through various contributions. • Able to highlight some coexistence issues both from IEEE 802.11 and 3GPP. • Perfectly organized. • The fact that IEEE and 3GPP had come together and kicked off discussion for coexistence in 6GHz Andrew Myles, Cisco

21. Q6: What did you like about the IEEE 802.11 Coexistence Workshop? • Q6: page 2 of 6 pages • Cooperative discussion among stakeholders including industries and academia. • The workshop has set a single stage where Standards/Domain experts came face to face to share their respective thoughts with reasoning. The workshop provided a one shop where both Wi-Fi and 5G standardization efforts status was offered to enable participants visualize what is really on going activity. • Getting Wi-Fi and 3GPP together to talk • Very good logistics. • Stayed on time and to the agenda • The start of discussion between Wi-Fi and NR-U • To Listen arguments from the 3GPP stakeholder • Combining thoughts from both camps. • It provided a consolidated platform to share views and opinions. • Session 1 - Invited Keynote standardization and Regulatory updates, and Session 3: Coexistence Topics • The well-balanced possibilities for the stakeholders of both technologies to present their interests and perspectives. Andrew Myles, Cisco

22. Q6: What did you like about the IEEE 802.11 Coexistence Workshop? • Q6: page 3 of 6 pages • It is a good opportunity to discuss the coexistence issues between WiFi and NR-U for both stakeholders. Some meaningful simulation and experimental results were presented. • Quality technical analysis representing diverse views • Wide range of presentations and viewpoints • Organization and information shared that covered a wide range of topics. • It was constructive, it became quite clear which combination of coexistence methods will work • Depth range of presentations covering many of the aspects of coexistence issue, prominent role is really trying to address the issue • It provided a neutral environment for all coexistence stakeholders to share their perspectives • I can understand better what the hot issues of coexistence between Wi-Fi and NR-U is and what they wants to do for solving it. • Understanding of each other (NR-U and 802.11ax) • The timing for holding the workshop, which is good for information sharing and coexistence discussion of 6 GHz Andrew Myles, Cisco

23. Q6: What did you like about the IEEE 802.11 Coexistence Workshop? • Q6: page 4of 6 pages • For the most part, the discussion and information was balanced and fair. The Workshop provided a forum for discussion and I think will promote further discussions. • Useful update from both perspectives across a range of topics. • I could learn the "issue". • Hearing 3GPP views directly • The workshop was planned and managed well. It was conducted in a timely and organized manner. All the presenters got to present their views. Seating was adequate. • Participation of many stakeholders. • Bring together the stakeholders and exchange good information and viewpoints • Very good technical presentations - Clarification about the historical context • The open dialog and exchange between IEEE and 3GPP • The variety of papers gave a good overview of the coexistence challenge. • Variety and balance of presentations and discussions • We were able to hear diverse voices (Wi-Fi stakeholders, LAA/NR-U stakeholders, universities, etc.) about the coexistence of Wi-Fi and LAA / NR-U at 5/6 GHz. Andrew Myles, Cisco

24. Q6: What did you like about the IEEE 802.11 Coexistence Workshop? • Q6: page 5 of 6 pages • Lots of presentations from different companies and their view of the problem explained. For someone with little knowledge of 3GPP side, it was very handy to see basics explained to set the ball rolling. Agenda was good. expectation was set clearly at the start. • That it brought together many stakeholders from both camps and, through their presentations as well as the interaction with the audience provided a good overview of the coexistence issue. • It provided a good platform to bring the stakeholders from various industries together • The workshop was a good forum to come up to speed on the stat-of-the-art on both 802.11 and 5G NR. However, it should happen on a regular basis, not once every 4 years. • Seeing the differing viewpoints. We tend to have a very wi-fi-centric view of things, so it's good to see what the "other side" is saying. • Discussions and topics • The problem statement and the proposed solutions that hopefully will be accepted by 802.11 and 3GPP • Excellent discussion led by chairs which resulted in mild and generous exchange of opinion from each different party Andrew Myles, Cisco

25. Q6: What did you like about the IEEE 802.11 Coexistence Workshop? • Q6: page 6of 6 pages • Very good organization Different time slot durations allocated for different contributions dependent on their content significance. • It eventually crystallized not only the primary technical issues, but also made clear the various positions of the main stakeholders. • Reasonably clear articulation of the coex issues as observed from both technologies. • Listen to the views from both Wi-Fi and NR-U/LAA • Presentations were good. Good to hear points of view directly from those concerned • A range of topics discussed • Workshop flow, logistics and speaker quality • Many people in the same room • Presentations and invited papers represented a variety of stakeholders and organizations. • Very good presentations and clear points of view • Professional Organisation, good Drinks and Food • The different point of views • Bringing the key issues on the table • Open position sharing. • Face-to-face interactions with key people. Andrew Myles, Cisco

26. Q7: What did you dislike about the IEEE 802.11 Coexistence Workshop? • Q7: page 1 of 7 pages • It was a little bit too dense, too many presentations and therefore not enough time for discussions and brainstorm. • Not sufficient seats in the lunch hall • Dislike is too much, but the added value of panels could have been more • The workshop schedule is too tight. Each presentation was given only 12-15 min including one question. • There was not enough proposals that would help solving the problem. In general, there is no clear goals moving forward after this workshop. • I wish we had more time for Q&A at the end of each presentation. • 1. There were way too many presentations on one topic. 2. Q & A time after presentation was too short. 3. Discussion time during panel session was simply awfully short. 4. Workshop was not able to go into depth on any topic. • The time is not that proper for people like me who only intended for attending the workshop. • A missing presentation because of the short time frame. Andrew Myles, Cisco

27. Q7: What did you dislike about the IEEE 802.11 Coexistence Workshop? • Q7: page 2 of 7 pages • The scheduling of workshop on the same day in parallel with IEEE meetings sessions, which lead to the longest day (8AM-10PM) for all interested participants. Such scheduling limited the ability to actively participate in discussions and interactions with the contributors & presenters, though it is not easy to schedule it (similar to DetNet and IEEE802.1 TSN we had in Thailand last year) • Repetitive presentations. Ideally both sides should have coordinated their main points. Limited time did not allow for questions to get asked. By the time we got to the panel it seemed late for meaningful discussion. • Repeated claims by both sides, without a way forward. Long presentation time and limited Q/A time. Participants did have time to point out pros/cons of a talk/sim. • All broadcast, not much interaction or interplay (though this was how it was designed) • There is no conclusion • Too much presentations so less time for discussion/questions • Too little time spent on discussion. • Barely any time for Q&A, which is the main reason for a workshop since the presented views have already been disclosed earlier in 3GPP, for example. Andrew Myles, Cisco

28. Q7: What did you dislike about the IEEE 802.11 Coexistence Workshop? • Q7: page 3 of 7 pages • Panel Discussion • The small TV screens in the back of the room! • Since the workshop does not have rights to make any decisions the discussions did not end up with the agreement that satisfied (at least partially) both parties. I think it will be very hard to find consensus unless the discussion continue in some regulator bodies with the decision making rights. • Not a dislike but we can do better follow up plan. • Very busy agenda. No time for discussion or Q&A. No actionable outcome. • Inevitably, a somewhat adversarial atmosphere • Nothing that I can think of. • Some presentations were quite similar, no really new ideas were presented • Both sides of the coin have strong views on each other role, and some positions seem to have hardened • a) it did not provide enough time for discussion and debate b) the panels weren't particularly informative • Not enough time to share their opinion. Might need more time to discuss extensively • Discussion was not sufficient Andrew Myles, Cisco

29. Q7: What did you dislike about the IEEE 802.11 Coexistence Workshop? • Q7: page 4 of 7 pages • Lack of technical discussion. Presentation is a good way for deliver information, but should not be sufficient. More time should be reserved for more technical discussions, instead of repeating the same proposals in the presentations. • There was not enough time to allow for attendee participation, it would had been better to eliminate one or two of the presentations and had more discussion. Also the panels could have used more attendee participation. The room was full of coexistence experts, but most were in listen only mode. • Needed another day of discussions to make any real progress. Some assertions by stakeholders needed to be challenged • A person talked too much. • Insufficient time. Lack of conclusions on next steps. But it helps to attend with low expectations. • It was probably too short to have a good discussion on each of the presentations. The panel discussions would have probably run much longer with more involvement from the participants who were not presenting if not for the shortage of time. Also, perhaps many participants went with the preconception that it would not be helpful and some even contributed to that effect by wasting floor time. • Too little time for discussion and debate and even to discuss the next steps. Andrew Myles, Cisco

30. Q7: What did you dislike about the IEEE 802.11 Coexistence Workshop? • Q7: page 5 of 7 pages • Some participants are not in a state of mind to work together to resolve problems. There is no procedure for resolving issues and very short discussion following presentation. • No next steps agreed • Both 3GPP and IEEE seemed to be not willing to meet in the middle. Particularly IEEE is reluctant to change ANYTHING in their design • Many presenters felt under time pressure so rushed their presentations, and there was very limited time for questions. There was little debate of the issues and no conclusions reached. • Realize that time constraints were tights. Additional discussion time might have benefited the discussion. • We did not have enough time to share our views each other. • Introduction to WLAN fundamentals was fantanstic. But I thought 3GPP lacked a similar ground up approach for benefit of people in WLAN domain. However, during the course of the workshop things got clearer. • There was not enough time for questions. • Although the workshop provided a good platform to understand different view points, there was no resolution on any of the identified issues. Andrew Myles, Cisco

31. Q7: What did you dislike about the IEEE 802.11 Coexistence Workshop? • Q7: page 6 of 7 pages • The participants from the two camps mostly maintained their views, leading to a fairly partisan discussion. • It was very rushed. • There was no decision making or direction for future • Too long • Not enough time for discussions - A couple of the presentations should not have been allowed in, since they didn't meet a minimal academic threshold. - It is arguable at what extent a vendor contribution (Octoscope) should be allowed in. • This is not a "dislike", but, like most meetings of this kind, it danced around the main issue. Technical solutions for coexistence are only of interest if there is actual interest in implementing technology specifically to facilitate coexistence. It seemed to me, at least, that there is no agreement to even do that. • Several contributions made similar points. no obvious path forward or inspiration for compromise or collaboration. • Not enough Q/A time for some interesting contributions • There was little time for discussions Andrew Myles, Cisco

32. Q7: What did you dislike about the IEEE 802.11 Coexistence Workshop? • Q7: page 7 of 7 pages • It was very long and some high quality presentations didn't get enough time and some low quality presentations had too much time. • Too little time for panel discussion, needed more ETSI BRAN discussion (e.g., Why was not frame-based rules expanded to include LAA?) the last third of presentations could have been deleted • Too little time available for discussion (Q&A). • Missing the end customer, mainly Operators. WBA believes we can help on this front. • It was far to IEEE biased • To hear more or less the same content again and again • It was too much IEEE explaining what 3GPP has to do and 3GPP defending themselves. • Not enough time in the panels for discussion. • Almost complete lack of discussion and debate on the topics presented. As a workshop this was the expectation, instead it was run more like a conference. All material was made available ahead of time. There was no need to present anything other than key findings and conclusions, leaving more time for discussion. Andrew Myles, Cisco

33. Q8: What would you change about the workshop if a similar event was held in the future? • Q8: page 1 of 7 pages • Having more time for discussions and networking. • I would like to have some mechanism where I can physically locate people in the workshop I have not met before but wanted to meet having seen them on the participants list. e.g. Tables with names specified and a map where everyone is sitting • I no not have a good idea how to facilitate the willingness/commitment to agree and implement coexistence mechanisms • If there would be a follow-up coexistence workshop, hope it could give the presenter more time and allow more discussion. In addition, it would be better to study the proposals from both 3GPP and IEEE802.11. Setup a goal to find a common and feasible solution, at least the direction of coexistence between different technologies. Andrew Myles, Cisco

34. Q8: What would you change about the workshop if a similar event was held in the future? • Q8: page 2 of 7 pages • The regulatory agents should be involved in such a workshop more. Or, even better, they should hold workshops with clear agenda towards solving the problem. It is clear that most of designs in different standards are driven mostly by the interests of the market over unlicensed bands. To some of the developers, coexistence between different technologies is their secondary concern. Therefore, regulatory bodies should be actively involved. • If there is going to be co-existence then need to start (quickly) working out how, and who makes what changes. • Assign more time for presentations • Focus on one particular problem and go in depth on that topic. • Hope it can be scheduled in Monday or Friday. • I Have no clear opinion • To avoid night session and to have enough time to talk each other. • Try for reserving the day exclusively for workshop event. • Consolidate the main differences and discuss one at a time Propose actual solutions • More public discussion, less solo talk. Assign tiger team to find out differences in various simulation setup, and highlight that to audience. • See 7 Andrew Myles, Cisco

35. Q8: What would you change about the workshop if a similar event was held in the future? • Q8: page 3 of 7 pages • Less presentations and more time for discussion/questions • Reduce redundancy and allow more time for technical discussions. • Remove papers from academia. Use a different convening panel to render the agenda less antagonistic to 3GPP. • In max. 3 presentations of each Technology additional one or two studies to some specific questions. • Allow more time for discussions by reducing the number of presentations or extending the workshop for two days. • Fewer agenda topics for more discussion time. Lead to a meaningful outcome. • Another event should not be necessary • To avoid repetition of topics will be difficult but would be beneficial. I would prefer to have longer Q&A sessions and less presentations. • Include a consensus reaching time slot, with a way forward and timeline • a) leave about 50% of the time for discussion and debate b) allocate more time to measured performance in the field, less to simulations c) allocate 10% of the time at the end workshop to identify specific next steps • More session. • Longer time for sufficient technical discussions Andrew Myles, Cisco

36. Q8: What would you change about the workshop if a similar event was held in the future? • Q8: page 4 of 7 pages • The way of organization can be improved by assigning more time on discussion. • If future workshop is held, I would like to see break out sessions where smaller groups of experts could discuss more details on issues: e.g. LBT solutions/options • Next one should focus on realistic constraints and options. • If the both communities really want to coexist in the 6 GHz, we should consider/define the meaning of the "coexistence" at the beginning. • Filter out repetitive and product-promotion content. More focused discussion on what to do next. More time. • A longer duration for the same number of presentations would allow more interactive discussions. • 1) A longer duration also with a plan on goals and expected outcome, even if non-binding. • It is important to agree on and establish a procedure to reach a common goal among multiple stakeholders. • ? • Also involve companies like small cell forum that might have more success in getting a better coexistence mechanism enforced Andrew Myles, Cisco

37. Q8: What would you change about the workshop if a similar event was held in the future? • Q8: page 5 of 7 pages • More time for open debate and building consensus (maybe reviewing feedback from survey 2) • I would increase the time allotted for panel discussion or question/answer. • Nothing much. It looks great. • Make it a two day event and allow more time for questions and discussion. • It seems that 3GPP and IEEE sometimes (or often) do not hear each other. To come to the same language more discussion is needed. The was very short time for Q&A. The program could be improved as follows. • 1) better structure. There were many duplicated ideas in several presentations. I think they could be grouped together with a suggestion to make a common presentation. • 2) lack of time for discussion was a significant drawback. 3) some presentations had questionable results. Maybe it is worth to make presentation reviewed to allow the authors to improve their experiment parameters before the workshop Andrew Myles, Cisco

38. Q8: What would you change about the workshop if a similar event was held in the future? • Q8: page 6 of 7 pages • More time for open panel discussions. • Finding a better balance between presentations and opportunities for discussion • Would like to decide on critical aspects and at least open discussions about the things which can be changed in future • More discussion time per topic which may require limited topic per day or per workshop but can focus on details • Rigurousselection of the papers based on their technical merits. • In a perfect world, a statement of intent, agreed to by a majority, might be useful. That is, only once there was agreement that technical solutions to facilitate coexistence were of interest would we then spend time discussing options to do that. • Better coordination of content for less redundancy. • Reduce the number of contributions, or extend the workshop for a whole day to accommodate the contributions • Fewer panels but with more time. • To have more detailed discussion on more specific topics. Andrew Myles, Cisco

39. Q8: What would you change about the workshop if a similar event was held in the future? • Q8: page 7 of 7 pages • Allow more time for Q&A: fewer documents for presentation, or more total time for the workshop. • More voice to the customer • More time for real discussions … no Panel sessions • I would like to see the content collected and "merged" before the workshop, to add more time for discussions • Have a small group preparing the meeting, where the current issues are already obtained and explained. Maybe even have done mutual tests. This can be done via a third party • Shorter presentations. More discussions. • Encourage presenters to only present their key major findings and their conclusions. Andrew Myles, Cisco