1 / 25

802.11m Report September 2003

802.11m Report September 2003. Goals for September 2003. Interpretation requests Draft responses to requests and forward to WG Other inputs Review Develop updates to standard Volunteers needed. Submissions?. Are there any submissions? Terry Cole: 199r1 – WG Editor’s potential errata list

sybil-arnold
Download Presentation

802.11m Report September 2003

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. 802.11m ReportSeptember 2003 Bob O'Hara, Airespace, Inc.

  2. Goals for September 2003 • Interpretation requests • Draft responses to requests and forward to WG • Other inputs • Review • Develop updates to standard • Volunteers needed Bob O'Hara, Airespace, Inc.

  3. Submissions? • Are there any submissions? • Terry Cole: 199r1 – WG Editor’s potential errata list • Andrew Myles: 382r7 –Annoying things • Adrian Stephens: 667r0 – MA-Unitdata.request • Are there any new interpretation requests? • Contention Window and Retry Counters • Country Information Element Bob O'Hara, Airespace, Inc.

  4. Proposed Agenda • Review IEEE Patent Policy • Review interpretation request procedure • New business • Review interpretation requests received • Draft responses to interpretation requests • Forward to full WG • Review other inputs • Develop work plan to update standard for interpretation requests and other inputs • Begin work on updates to standards • Adjourn Bob O'Hara, Airespace, Inc.

  5. IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards 6. Patents IEEE standards may include the known use of patent(s), including patent applications, provided the IEEE receives assurance from the patent holder or applicant with respect to patents essential for compliance with both mandatory and optional portions of the standard. This assurance shall be provided without coercion and prior to approval of the standard (or reaffirmation when a patent becomes known after initial approval of the standard). This assurance shall be a letter that is in the form of either a) A general disclaimer to the effect that the patentee will not enforce any of its present or future patent(s) whose use would be required to implement the proposed IEEE standard against any person or entity using the patent(s) to comply with the standard or b) A statement that a license will be made available without compensation or under reasonable rates, with reasonable terms and conditions that are demonstrably free of any unfair discrimination This assurance shall apply, at a minimum, from the date of the standard's approval to the date of the standard's withdrawal and is irrevocable during that period. Bob O'Hara, Airespace, Inc.

  6. Inappropriate Topics for IEEE WG Meetings • Don’t discuss licensing terms or conditions • Don’t discuss product pricing, territorial restrictions or market share • Don’t discuss ongoing litigation or threatened litigation • Don’t be silent if inappropriate topics are discussed… do formally object. If you have questions, contact the IEEE Patent Committee Administrator at patcom@ieee.org Approved by IEEE-SA Standards Board – December 2002 Bob O'Hara, Airespace, Inc.

  7. Interpretation Procedure • http://standards.ieee.org/reading/ieee/interp/ • Send email to Linda Gargiulo (l.gargiulo@ieee.org) • IEEE forwards requests to the WG • WG responds Bob O'Hara, Airespace, Inc.

  8. Work Items • Interpretation requests • Contention Window and Retry Counters • Country Information Element • Request from Adrian Stephens: MA-UNITDATA.request • Andrew’s accumulated list 382r7 – Problems with the 802.11 MAC standard and 802.11a PHY standard (mostly) • Documents from Jon Rosdahl • 11-01-340r2-W-Errata list Justifies need for Corrigenda for 802.11 • 11-02-091r0-W-Errata-list-for-802-11d-needs-corrigendum • 11-02-092r0-W-Scanning-process-requires-parameter-block-for-802-11a • 11-02-093r0-W-Errata-List-for-802-11a-needs-corrigendum • Document supplied by Terry Cole (other inputs) • 11-03-199-W-Potential-WG-Editor-Errata • 802.11F Association primitives • Update informative text on regulatory information for 802.11a and 802.11b, provide table for 802.11d (collect in an appendix?) • IBSS coalescence • PCF • Optional/mandatory match between text and PICS • SDL (remove, improve, abstract), MSCs? • Email Terry received during 2003 edition process • Recommendation of phase-in for compliance Bob O'Hara, Airespace, Inc.

  9. Interpretation Requests • Contention Window and Retry Counters • Country Information Element Bob O'Hara, Airespace, Inc.

  10. Interpretation Request The CW is 'controlled' by the Station counters, increasing in size every time either of the Station counters increases. It is reset to CWmin only • after a successful MSDU transmission, or • when either of the Station counters reaches their respective limit. Bob O'Hara, Airespace, Inc.

  11. Interpretation Request (cont.) • Consider a scenario where a station *continually* fails to transmit successfully: • The CW will increase, until condition b) above is met, at which point it will revert to CWmin. • However, the Station retry counters are not reset at this point, and will continue to increase; • condition b) will not be met again, and • CW will increase (or remain at CWmax) for all subsequent (failed) attempts, regardless of the state of the respective MSDU counters. • Is this the intended behavior? It seems odd that the CW will be reset after the first failure (when b) is met, and the MSDU is discarded), but not for subsequent MSDUs. Bob O'Hara, Airespace, Inc.

  12. Interpretation Response • The standard is unambiguous and describes the intended behavior. • It is intended that a station that is unable to successfully communicate with its intended receiver(s) will select its backoff value for all frames transmitted from a window with an upper bound of CWmax • after an initial reset to CWmin Bob O'Hara, Airespace, Inc.

  13. Motion to adopt 03-752 • Moved: That document 03-752r0 be adopted as the response to the interpretation request regarding contention window and retry counter operation. • Moved: Darwin Engwer • Seconded: Al Petrick • Vote: Unanimous Bob O'Hara, Airespace, Inc.

  14. Motion to forward to WG • Motion: to request the working group to accept and forward the interpretation response contained in document 03-752r0 to Linda Gargiulo at the IEEE office as the official response of the 802.11 working group. • Moved: Al Petrick • Seconded: Darwin Engwer • Vote: Unanimous Bob O'Hara, Airespace, Inc.

  15. Interpretation Request • The phrase “…maximum power…allowed to be transmitted” in the Country information element is ambiguous. The most likely interpretations include: • TPO (Transmitter Power Output) • EIRP (Effective Isotropically Radiated Power) Bob O'Hara, Airespace, Inc.

  16. Interpretation Response • The standard does not specify a measurement method for the value of Maximum Transmit Power Level • The value is to be interpreted according to the country indicated in the Country String Bob O'Hara, Airespace, Inc.

  17. Interpretation Request (cont.) • Apart from a limit on radiated power, the regulations usually contain a PSD (Power Spectral Density) limit. In some domains, the PSD limit is more strict than the TPO/EIRP limit and thus further limits the transmitted power. • How is the value in the information element to be interpreted? Bob O'Hara, Airespace, Inc.

  18. Interpretation Response (cont.) • The standard does not provide this information. • It is up to the implementer to determine the correct transmit power level for their implementation from the information provided in the information element. Bob O'Hara, Airespace, Inc.

  19. Interpretation Request (cont.) • The Country Information Element does not indicate whether a particular subband has indoor/outdoor restrictions. How should this information be derived? Bob O'Hara, Airespace, Inc.

  20. Interpretation Response (cont.) • The standard does not allow the mixing of indoor and outdoor band descriptions in the same information element. Bob O'Hara, Airespace, Inc.

  21. Motion to adopt 03-754 • Moved: That document 03-754r0 be adopted as the response to the interpretation request regarding contention window and retry counter operation. • Moved: Darwin Engwer • Seconded: Al Petrick • Vote: Unanimous Bob O'Hara, Airespace, Inc.

  22. Motion to forward to WG • Motion: to request the working group to accept and forward the interpretation response contained in document 03-754r0 to Linda Gargiulo at the IEEE office as the official response of the 802.11 working group. • Moved: Al Petrick • Seconded: Darwin Engwer • Vote: Unanimous Bob O'Hara, Airespace, Inc.

  23. Review other inputs • Completed review of all input documents Bob O'Hara, Airespace, Inc.

  24. Output Documents • 710r0: This report • 752r0: Interpretation Response 1-09/03 • 754r0: Interpretation Response 2-09/03 • 619r1: Status of Work Items Bob O'Hara, Airespace, Inc.

  25. Adjourn • Time for adjournment reached • Meeting adjourned at 9:30pm Bob O'Hara, Airespace, Inc.

More Related