VHT60 Amendment vs. New Standard

1. VHT60 Amendment vs. New Standard Authors: Date: 2008-05-13 Darwin Engwer, Nortel Networks

2. Abstract A presentation of points to consider in the choice between making the VHT60 effort an amendment to 802.11-2007 or a new standard. Please view in slideshow mode to see animations. Darwin Engwer, Nortel Networks

3. Outline • Impact • Possibilities • Amendment • New Standard • Amendment vs. Standard • Views/ Issues • Those that have been raised • Those that need more exposure • Other important questions Darwin Engwer, Nortel Networks

4. Impact • The discussion of amendment vs. new standard for VHT60 is a minor one. • It comes down to a single checkbox on the PAR form. • However, the impact of that checkbox embodies a few implications (and much speculation). Darwin Engwer, Nortel Networks

5. Possibilities • Three possibilities that have been raised and discussed at various points: • 1. Check the amendment box, result = 802.11ac, or some such, developed by a new 802.11 TG. • 2. Check the new standard box, result = 802.11.3, or some such, developed by a new 802.11 TG. • 3. Check the new standard box, result = 802.23, or some such, developed by a new 802 WG. • Some views have expressed a fear of #3 being the interpretation of checking “new standard”, I haven’t heard anyone speak in favor of proceeding in that direction.  So I think we can safely take that option off the table.  We just need to ensure that our intentions to keep the effort within 802.11 are clear in the PAR.  That leaves us with choices #1 and #2. Darwin Engwer, Nortel Networks

6. Amendment • An amendment will create a document of the form which we are all quite familiar with, i.e. a series of editing instructions to revise the base standard (802.11-2007, plus any subsequent amendments) to include the VHT60 specifications. • The editing instructions will largely be of the form “change this text” and “add this text”. Darwin Engwer, Nortel Networks

7. New Standard • A new standard is a new, blank document which is free to include any and all material it chooses by making the corresponding normative references.  Such references could take the form of: • a) “include 802.11 clause 7.1”, “include 802.15.3c clause 12.4”, or, • b) #include 802.11 clause 7.1 (the programmer version, which is slightly different than the prior choice bcus this choice literally incorporates the cited text into the new standard without actually doing so), or, • c) copy and paste raw text directly into the new document, e.g. copy and paste 802.11 clause 7.1 to clause 6.4 of the new document. • The later would allow subtle adjustments to be made, without citing them as “changes”.  The new document is new text.  Period. Darwin Engwer, Nortel Networks

8. Amendment: 802.11-2007 802.11ac 802.15.3c … New Standard: 802.11-2007 802.11.3 802.15.3c … Amendment vs. New Standard Darwin Engwer, Nortel Networks

9. Views/ Issues That Have Been Raised • Several other issues have been raised: • marketing acumen • compatibility • interoperability • … and so on. • I’m not sure if those issues are affected by the choice between amendment and new standard. • After all, 802.11.3 and 802.11ac are clearly both 802.11, so I don’t see a huge marketing impact. • Compatibility and interoperability can be arranged regardless of how the document is constructed. Darwin Engwer, Nortel Networks

10. Issues That Need More Exposure • Other issues that have been hinted at, but need more exposure: • a) Distinct Identity - we must establish VHT60 as a wireless network and one that operates at LAN sorts of ranges (in part to ensure that it falls within the purvey of 802.11). • b) Cooperative Operation - VHT60 may (very likely will) need to use existing 802.11 technology to set up the VHT60 links. That is, a device that includes VHT60 technology must also include 802.11n (say) which will act as the set up mechanism for the VHT60 links (for that matter VHTL6 will need this too, but that’s another matter). So devices discover, associate, authenticate and further connect using baseline 802.11 technology, and along the way they detect VHT60 capabilities and use the existing 802.11 links to set up and manage the 60 GHz VHT links. • c) MAC Integration - As an 802.11 PHY, VHT60 seeks to leverage existing 802.11 technology, i.e. the upper MAC components like encryption, authentication, QOS, DLS, mobility, ...). However, VHT60 will not just add a new PHY, it will substantially alter the lower level portions of the MAC as well. It must. The VHT60 link management support discussed in item b) must be added between the upper and lower portions of the MAC. Darwin Engwer, Nortel Networks

11. Other Important Questions • How, if at all, do those issues affect the amendment vs. new standard decision? • A comment during the recent conference call noted that whatever decision we make we should also look ahead to the future, i.e. at the generation beyond VHT60 and VHTL6, to ensure that we have a clear path ahead after the n+1 step of developing VHT.  I think that’s a key consideration should be given much more thought. • n+1 vs. n+2 consideration • How will 802.11 move forward to even faster links, e.g. THz? Darwin Engwer, Nortel Networks

12. Other Important Questions • How we 802.11 manage two significant TGs at the same time? (VHTL6 and VHT60) • How are the interactions between the two efforts affected by the amendment vs. standard decision? • One amendment, one new standard • Two amendments • Two new standards • Which combination yields the best result at the end? Darwin Engwer, Nortel Networks

13. References • 11-08-0525-00-0vht-recommendation-for-60ghz-par-to-be-an-amendment.ppt Darwin Engwer, Nortel Networks

14. Revisions • r0 – 2008-05-13 For first presentation to VHT SG. Darwin Engwer, Nortel Networks

15. Backup Slides Darwin Engwer, Nortel Networks