1 / 52

TGac PHY AdHoc Report

TGac PHY AdHoc Report. Authors:. Date: 2010-03-16. March 2010. Abstract. Agenda, Minutes and Motions for the TGac PHY Ad Hoc since November 2009. March 2010. Important IEEE Links. The following slides in this deck are believed to be the latest available however the Source locations are:

vickis
Download Presentation

TGac PHY AdHoc 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. TGac PHY AdHoc Report Authors: Date: 2010-03-16 Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  2. March 2010 Abstract • Agenda, Minutes and Motions for the TGac PHY Ad Hoc since November 2009 Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  3. March 2010 Important IEEE Links • The following slides in this deck are believed to be the latest available however the Source locations are: • http://standards.ieee.org/faqs/affiliationFAQ.html • http://standards.ieee.org/resources/antitrust-guidelines.pdf • http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.ppt • http://www.ieee.org/portal/cms_docs/about/CoE_poster.pdf • For summary, see 11-07-0660-01-0000-opening-presentation • Don’t forget attendance check during PHY AdHoc session. Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  4. March 2010 Member Affiliation • It is defined in the IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws, 5.2.1.5 as: “An individual is deemed “affiliated” with any individual or entity that has been, or will be, financially or materially supporting that individual’s participation in a particular IEEE standards activity. This includes, but is not limited to, his or her employer and any individual or entity that has or will have, either directly or indirectly, requested, paid for, or otherwise sponsored his or her participation. • http://standards.ieee.org/faqs/affiliationFAQ.html Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  5. March 2010 Declaration of Affiliation • Revision: May 2007 Standards Board Bylaw 5.2.1.1 • 5.2.1.1 Openness • Openness is defined as the quality of being not restricted to a particular type or category of participants. All meetings involving standards development an all IEEE Sponsor ballots shall be open toa all interested parties. Each individual participant in IEEE Standards activities shall disclose his or her affiliations when requested. A person who knows or reasonably should know, that a participant’s disclosure is materially incomplete or incorrect should report that fact to the Secretary of the IEEE-SA Standards Board and the appropriate Sponsors. • http://standards.ieee.org/faqs/affiliationFAQ.html Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  6. March 2010 Affiliation Policy • Requirement to declare affiliation at all standards development meetings and recorded in the minutes • Affiliation not necessarily same as employer • Declaration requirement may be familiar to some 802 WGs, though WG declaration process may evolve • 11. What if I refuse to disclose my affiliation? • As outlined in IEEE-SA governance documents, you will lose certain rights. In a working group where voting rights are gained through attendance, no attendance credit will be granted if affiliation isn’t declared. Similarly, voting rights are to be removed if affiliation isn’t declared. • Affiliation declaration will be added to Sponsor ballot • http://standards.ieee.org/faqs/affiliationFAQ.html Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  7. March 2010 Highlights of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards • Participants have a duty to tell the IEEE if they know (based on personal awareness) of potentially Essential Patent Claims they or their employer own • Participants are encouraged to tell the IEEE if they know of potentially Essential Patent Claims owned by others • This encouragement is particularly strong as the third party may not be a participant in the standards process • Working Group required to request assurance • Early assurance is encouraged • Terms of assurance shall be either: • Reasonable and nondiscriminatory, with or without monetary compensation; or, • A statement of non-assertion of patent rights • Assurances • Shall be provided on the IEEE-SA Standards Board approved LOA form • May optionally include not-to-exceed rates, terms, and conditions • Shall not be circumvented through sale or transfer of patents • Shall be brought to the attention of any future assignees or transferees • Shall apply to Affiliates unless explicitly excluded • Are irrevocable once submitted and accepted • Shall be supplemented if Submitter becomes aware of other potential Essential Patent Claims • A “Blanket Letter of Assurance” may be provided at the option of the patent holder • A patent holder has no duty to perform a patent search • Full policy available at http://standards.ieee.org/guides/bylaws/sect6-7.html#6 1 Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  8. March 2010 IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards 6.2 Policy IEEE standards may be drafted in terms that include the use of Essential Patent Claims. If the IEEE receives notice that a [Proposed] IEEE Standard may require the use of a potential Essential Patent Claim, the IEEE shall request licensing assurance, on the IEEE Standards Board approved Letter of Assurance form, from the patent holder or patent applicant. The IEEE shall request this assurance without coercion. The Submitter of the Letter of Assurance may, after Reasonable and Good Faith Inquiry, indicate it is not aware of any Patent Claims that the Submitter may own, control, or have the ability to license that might be or become Essential Patent Claims. If the patent holder or patent applicant provides an assurance, it should do so as soon as reasonably feasible in the standards development process. This assurance shall be provided prior to the Standards Board’s approval of the standard. This assurance shall be provided prior to a reaffirmation if the IEEE receives notice of a potential Essential Patent Claim after the standard’s approval or a prior reaffirmation. An asserted potential Essential Patent Claim for which an assurance cannot be obtained (e.g., a Letter of Assurance is not provided or the Letter of Assurance indicates that assurance is not being provided) shall be referred to the Patent Committee. A Letter of Assurance shall be either: a) A general disclaimer to the effect that the Submitter without conditions will not enforce any present or future Essential Patent Claims against any person or entity making, using, selling, offering to sell, importing, distributing, or implementing a compliant implementation of the standard; or b) A statement that a license for a compliant implementation of the standard will be made available to an unrestricted number of applicants on a worldwide basis without compensation or under reasonable rates, with reasonable terms and conditions that are demonstrably free of any unfair discrimination. At its sole option, the Submitter may provide with its assurance any of the following: (i) a not-to-exceed license fee or rate commitment, (ii) a sample license agreement, or (iii) one or more material licensing terms. 2 Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  9. March 2010 IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards Copies of an Accepted LOA may be provided to the working group, but shall not be discussed, at any standards working group meeting. The Submitter and all Affiliates (other than those Affiliates excluded in a Letter of Assurance) shall not assign or otherwise transfer any rights in any Essential Patent Claims that are the subject of such Letter of Assurance that they hold, control, or have the ability to license with the intent of circumventing or negating any of the representations and commitments made in such Letter of Assurance. The Submitter of a Letter of Assurance shall agree (a) to provide notice of a Letter of Assurance either through a Statement of Encumbrance or by binding any assignee or transferee to the terms of such Letter of Assurance; and (b) to require its assignee or transferee to (i) agree to similarly provide such notice and (ii) to bind its assignees or transferees to agree to provide such notice as described in (a) and (b). This assurance shall apply to the Submitter and its Affiliates except those Affiliates the Submitter specifically excludes on the relevant Letter of Assurance. If, after providing a Letter of Assurance to the IEEE, the Submitter becomes aware of additional Patent Claim(s) not already covered by an existing Letter of Assurance that are owned, controlled, or licensable by the Submitter that may be or become Essential Patent Claim(s) for the same IEEE Standard but are not the subject of an existing Letter of Assurance, then such Submitter shall submit a Letter of Assurance stating its position regarding enforcement or licensing of such Patent Claims. For the purposes of this commitment, the Submitter is deemed to be aware if any of the following individuals who are from, employed by, or otherwise represent the Submitter have personal knowledge of additional potential Essential Patent Claims, owned or controlled by the Submitter, related to a [Proposed] IEEE Standard and not already the subject of a previously submitted Letter of Assurance: (a) past or present participants in the development of the [Proposed] IEEE Standard, or (b) the individual executing the previously submitted Letter of Assurance. 3 Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  10. March 2010 IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards The assurance is irrevocable once submitted and accepted and shall apply, at a minimum, from the date of the standard's approval to the date of the standard's withdrawal. The IEEE is not responsible for identifying Essential Patent Claims for which a license may be required, for conducting inquiries into the legal validity or scope of those Patent Claims, or for determining whether any licensing terms or conditions are reasonable or non-discriminatory. Nothing in this policy shall be interpreted as giving rise to a duty to conduct a patent search. No license is implied by the submission of a Letter of Assurance. In order for IEEE’s patent policy to function efficiently, individuals participating in the standards development process: (a) shall inform the IEEE (or cause the IEEE to be informed) of the holder of any potential Essential Patent Claims of which they are personally aware and that are not already the subject of an existing Letter of Assurance, owned or controlled by the participant or the entity the participant is from, employed by, or otherwise represents; and (b) should inform the IEEE (or cause the IEEE to be informed) of any other holders of such potential Essential Patent Claims that are not already the subject of an existing Letter of Assurance. 4 Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  11. March 2010 Other Guidelines for IEEE WG Meetings • All IEEE-SA standards meetings shall be conducted in compliance with all applicable laws, including antitrust and competition laws. • Don’t discuss the interpretation, validity, or essentiality of patents/patent claims. • Don’t discuss specific license rates, terms, or conditions. • Relative costs, including licensing costs of essential patent claims, of different technical approaches may be discussed in standards development meetings. • Technical considerations remain primary focus • Don’t discuss fixing product prices, allocation of customers, or dividing sales markets. • Don’t discuss the status or substance of ongoing or threatened litigation. • Don’t be silent if inappropriate topics are discussed… do formally object. • --------------------------------------------------------------- • If you have questions, contact the IEEE-SA Standards Board Patent Committee Administrator at patcom@ieee.org or visit http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/index.html • See IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, clause 5.3.10 and “Promoting Competition and Innovation: What You Need to Know about the IEEE Standards Association's Antitrust and Competition Policy” for more details. • This slide set is available at http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.ppt 5 Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  12. March 2010 Important Questions about Patents • Are there any patent claim(s)/patent application claim(s) and/or the holder of patent claim(s)/patent application claim(s) that the participant believes may be essential for the use of that standard? • Minute any responses that were given, specifically the patent claim(s)/patent application claim(s) and/or the holder of the patent claim(s)/patent application claim(s) that were identified (if any) and by whom. Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  13. Ad Hoc Operating Rules (1/2) • 11ac selection procedure (11-09-0059r5) 5. b. A straw poll result of >=75% is required within an Ad Hoc to approve the resolution of all or part of an issue and forward that resolved item to the Taskgroup where it becomes a motion that requires >=75% approval to modify the specification framework or the draft specification. c. In the case a consensus can not be reached within an Ad Hoc group (a stalemate that prohibits further progress), the subject is moved to the Taskgroup if an Ad Hoc straw poll vote to move the subject to the Taskgroup achieves >50% approval. March 2010 Slide 13 Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  14. Ad Hoc Operating Rules (2/2) d. A motion passing with >50% in the Taskgroup shall be sufficient to move an issue previously assigned to an Ad Hoc group to any Ad Hoc group. A straw poll vote of >50% is required in an Ad Hoc group to refuse an issue from the Taskgroup. e. An issue may be sent from one Ad Hoc to another if both the sending Ad Hoc and the receiving Ad Hoc approve straw polls for taking the respective actions with >50% approval. A notice should be sent to the reflector indicating the approval of a straw poll to move an issue. f. To be accepted into the TGac Draft specification, proposals from Ad Hoc group require a motion that passes with >=75% Taskgroup approval March 2010 Slide 14 Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  15. March 2010 PHY AdHoc Topics • PHY AdHoc group discussion topics in document 11-09-1175-01-00ac-ad-hoc-groups-scope.ppt: • Pilots • Data tones • Preamble • Enhanced MCS • Sounding • Higher Bandwidth modulation • Parsing and Interleaving • Coding, STBC • Spatial Mapping & Cyclic Delays • Mask, Regulatory, ACI, Sensitivity, etc. - additional possible topics Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  16. March 2010 Running PHY AdHoc Agenda Pages Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  17. March 2010 Interpretive Guide – Text Coloring • Text coloring: • Black = pending agenda item • Red = item partially addressed • Green = item completed • Gray = item not addressed in the session indicated at the top of the slide Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  18. TGac PHY Adhoc March 15-18, 2010 Review Ad Hoc operating rules Review previous activities Review Ad Hoc scope Call for contributions Submissions Next meeting March 2010 Slide 18 Slide 18 Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  19. Submissions • Preamble Design • Preamble Minor Enhancement, Brian Hart (Cisco), 11-10-0316r1 • 802.11ac Preamble for VHT Auto-detection, Il-Gu Lee (ETRI), 11-10-0359r0 • Preamble Design Aspects for 11ac, Yujin Noh (LG),11-10-0363r0 • 802.11ac Preamble, Joonsuk Kim (Broadcom), 11-10-0070r4 • Group ID Concept • MU-MIMO STA scheduling strategy and Related PHY signaling,Daewon Lee (LG), 11-10-0362r1 • Group ID Concept for DL MU-MIMO, Joonsuk Kim (Broadcom), 11-10-0073r2 • VHT SIG Field Design • Bit Consideration for SIG Field, Joonsuk Kim (Broadcom), 11-10-0382r0 • Tone Allocation • 80MHz Tone Allocation, Sudhir Srinivasa (Marvell),11-10-0370r0 March 2010 Slide 19 Slide 19 Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  20. Tentative TGac Agenda for the Week Tuesday Mar. 16th, AM1 Preamble Minor Enhancement, 11-10-0316r1 802.11ac Preamble for VHT Auto-detection, 11-10-0359r0 Preamble Design Aspects for 11ac, 11-10-0363r0 802.11ac Preamble, 11-10-0070r4 Wed Mar. 17th, AM1 80MHz Tone Allocation, 11-10-0370r0 MU-MIMO STA scheduling strategy and Related PHY signaling, 11-10-0362r1 Group ID Concept for DL MU-MIMO, 11-10-0073r2 Bit Consideration for SIG Field, 11-10-0382r0 March 2010 Slide 20 Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  21. Straw Poll on Numerology • Do you support adding a basic guideline on the numerology for 11ac device described as in Section I of 11-10/0070r4, excluding slide 9 (max Number of users for MU remains TBD), to the spec framework document, 11-09-0992? • Yes: 79 • No: 0 • Abs: 3 • It passes to move to task group motion Slide 21 Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  22. Straw Poll on Preamble Structure • Do you support adding the 11ac preamble structure with two SIGNAL fields (VHT-SIGA located before VHT-STF and VHT-SIGB located after VHT-LTFs) as in Section III (Slide 22) of 11-10/0070r4 to the spec framework document, 11-09-0992? • Yes: 70 • No: 0 • Abs: 16 • It passes to move to task group motion Slide 22 Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  23. Follow-up Straw Poll on Preamble Structure • Do you support to have 2 OFDM symbols for VHT-SIGA and a single OFDM symbol for VHT-SIGB, and to edit the spec framework document, 11-09-0992, accordingly? • Yes: 54 • No: 22 • Abs: 13 • It fails to move to task group motion Slide 23 Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  24. Straw Poll on Spoofing • Do you support to have BPSK on the 1st VHT-SIGA symbol and 90-deg rotated BPSK (QBPSK) on the 2nd VHT-SIGA symbol for VHT auto-detection as in Section III (Slide 20) of 11-10/0070r4, and to edit the spec framework document, 11-09-0992, accordingly? • Yes: 54 • No: 23 • Abs: 8 • It fails to move to task group motion Slide 24 Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  25. Straw Poll on Spoofing II • “Do you support to have BPSK on the 1st VHT-SIGA symbol and TBD on the 2nd VHT-SIGA symbol for VHT auto-detection, and to edit the spec framework document, 11-09-0992, accordingly?” • Yes: 71 • No: 1 • Abs: 11 • It passes to move to task group motion Slide 25 Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  26. March 2010 Running TGac PHY AdHoc Motions Prepared for TGac Vote Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  27. March 2010 TGac PHY AdHoc Motion PHY_Motion_DAY-MONTH-YEAR_#1 • Background • Relevant documents: • 11-09-xxxxry • Description: • AdHoc straw poll result: YES/NO/ABS: xx/xx/xx • NOT REALLY A MOTION - Move to adopt mechanism in 11-09/xxxxry as a part of PHY functionality for TGac • 02-11-2009 PM1 TGac action xxxx TEMPLATE Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  28. March 2010 Running TGac PHY AdHoc Minutes Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  29. March 2010 Minutes Taking • Chairs/volunteers will take notes • Lever of detail recorded: • Documents presented • Action items and conclusions, if applicable • Straw polls • Other items, if applicable • No Q&A will be recorded Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  30. March 2010 TGac PHY AdHoc MinutesMONTH DAY, YEAR • Document xx presentation • Discussion related to yy • Outcome of the discussion: xx • Straw poll: • “ xx “ • Outcome of the straw poll: YES/NO/ABS: xx/xx/xx TEMPLATE Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  31. March 2010 TGac PHY AdHoc Agenda Pages From Previous Sessions Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  32. March 2010 Agenda for 19 November 2009 • Chair Introductions • Scope of PHY AdHoc • PHY AdHoc Operating Rules • TGac Documents of Interest Review • 11-09-1167-00-00ac-tgac-ad-hoc-group-operation-and-chair-selection-procedure.pptx • 11-09-1181-00-00ac-ad-hoc-lifecycle.ppt • 11-09-1175-r0-00ac-AdHoc Groups Scope.ppt • Minutes Taking • Questions and Answers • Submissions Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  33. Activities Since Nov. 2009 • PHY Adhoc calls scheduled on Dec. 3, 2009 and Jan. 14, 2010 were cancelled due to lack of submission. March 2010 Slide 33 Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  34. TGac PHY Adhoc Jan. 18- 21, 2010 Review Ad Hoc operating rules Review previous activities Review Ad Hoc scope Call for contributions Submissions Next meeting March 2010 Slide 34 Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  35. Submissions • Preamble Presentations • “802.11ac Preamble” - 11-10-0070-00-00ac-802-11ac-preamble.ppt • “GroupID Concept for Downlink MU-MIMO Transmission” - 11-10-0073-00-00ac-group-id-concept-for-dl-mu-mimo.ppt • YungSzu Tu ? • Channel Models • “Measured Channel Variation and Coherence Time in NTT Lab” - 11-10-0087-00-00ac-measured-channel-variation-and-coherence-time-in-ntt-lab.ppt March 2010 Slide 35 Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  36. Tuesday Jan 19th, AM1 “802.11ac Preamble” - 11-10-0070-00-00ac-802-11ac-preamble.ppt “GroupID Concept for Downlink MU-MIMO Transmission” - 11-10-0073-00-00ac-group-id-concept-for-dl-mu-mimo.ppt “Measured Channel Variation and Coherence Time in NTT Lab” - 11-10-0087-00-00ac-measured-channel-variation-and-coherence-time-in-ntt-lab.ppt Wed Jan 20th, AM1 “Proposed TGac Preamble” - 11-10-0130-00-00ac-proposed-tgac-preamble.ppt Straw Polls March 2010 Tentative TGac Agenda for the Week Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  37. March 2010 Straw Poll on Numerology • Do you support adding the stream and station limits defined in “11-10-0070r0 802.11ac preamble” to the spec framework using the edits to R3.2.1.D, R3.4.A, R3.4.B, R3.4.C and R4.D in “11-10-0113r0 proposed spec framework edits for preamble structure and a-mpdu” and forward to the TGac Task Group? • Yes: 22 • No: 16 • Abs: 8 Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  38. March 2010 Straw Poll on Preamble Structure • Do you support adding the preamble structure defined in “11-10-0070r0 802.11ac preamble” to the spec framework using the edits in section 3.2.1 of “11-10-0113r0 proposed spec framework edits for preamble structure and a-mpdu”? • Yes: 19 • No: 13 • Abs: 6 Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  39. March 2010 Straw Poll on Group ID Concept • Do you support adding a Group ID field to the VHT MU PPDU SIG field to support client side stream demultiplexing as described in “11-10-0073r0 Group ID Concept for DL MU-MIMO”? • Yes: 24 • No: 8 • Abs: 12 Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  40. March 2010 Straw Poll on Numerology with TBD • Do you support adding the stream and station limits defined in “11-10-0070r0 802.11ac preamble” to the spec framework using the edits to R3.2.1.D, R3.4.A, R3.4.B, R3.4.C and R4.D in “11-10-0113r0 proposed spec framework edits for preamble structure and a-mpdu” with all numbers as TBD and forward to the TGac Task Group? • Yes: 36 • No: 19 • Abs: 1 Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  41. Agenda for 10 February 2010 (Conf. Call) Affiliation policy (See slide 6) IEEE Patent policy review (See slide 7-10) Question of IP claims (See slide 12) Attendance recording Conf. call attendance required – send email to chairs Review rules for adhocs 11-09-0059r5 Level of detail of minutes Minutes document and Agenda ppt. both cover an 802.11 week plus teleconferences preceding that 802.11 meeting week 11-09-1181-00-00ac-ad-hoc-lifecycle.ppt Determine chair sharing rules/procedures 11-09-1167-00-00ac-tgac-ad-hoc-group-operation-and-chair-selection-procedure.pptx 11-09-0059-04-00ac-802-11ac-proposed-selection-procedure.doc PHY topics (11-09-1175-01-00ac-ad-hoc-groups-scope.ppt) Pilots, Data tones, Preamble, Enhanced MCS, Sounding Higher Bandwidth modulation Parsing and Interleaving Coding, STBC Spatial Mapping & Cyclic Delays Mask, Regulatory, ACI, Sensitivity, etc. - additional possible topics Submissions 802.11ac Preamble, Hongyuan Zhang (Marvell) 11-10-0070r1 March 2010 Slide 41 Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  42. March 2010 TGac PHY AdHoc Motions Prepared for TGac VoteFrom Previous Sessions Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  43. March 2010 TGac PHY AdHoc Minutes From Previous Sessions Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  44. March 2010 TGac PHY AdHoc MinutesNov. 19, 2009 • Document IEEE 802.11-09/1261r0 presented • Discussion related to Adhoc Procedure and Rules • Outcome of the discussion: N/A • Document IEEE 802.11-09/1258 r0 presented • Preamble proposal for IEEE 802.11ac • Outcome of the discussion: N/A Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  45. March 2010 TGac PHY AdHoc MinutesJan.19, 2010 (1/2) • Document IEEE 802.11-10/0070r0 presented • 802.11ac preamble by Hongyuan Zhang (Marvell) • Discussion related to • numerology, GF mode, PAPR and why smoothing only in SU-MIMO • Outcome of the discussion: N/A • Document IEEE 802.11-10/0073r1 presented • GroupID Concept for Downlink MU-MIMO Transmission by Joonsuk Kim (Broadcom) • Discussion related to • number of STAs in a group, number of groups, re-use of groupID and possible length of non-resolvable LTF • Outcome of the discussion: N/A Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  46. March 2010 TGac PHY AdHoc MinutesJan.19, 2010 (2/2) • Document IEEE 802.11-10/0087r0 presented • Measured Channel Variation and Coherence Time in NTT Lab.by Yasushi Takatori (NTT) • Discussion related to • Number of people in the room, why introduce a squaring measure for channel variation and sub-carrier spacing of OFDM signals • Outcome of the discussion: agreed to include in TGac Channel Model Addendum Document Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  47. March 2010 TGac PHY AdHoc MinutesJan. 20, 2010 (1/4) • Document IEEE 802.11-10/0130r0 presented • Proposed TGac Preambleby Yung-Szu Tu (Ralink Technology) • Discussion related to • Need of GF mode, impact of rotating 45 degree on detection performance, support for MU-MIMO and in which symbol detection is done • Outcome of the discussion: agreed to have more simulation about detection performance. Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  48. March 2010 TGac PHY AdHoc MinutesJan.20, 2010 (2/4) • Document IEEE 802.11-10/0113r0 presented • Proposed Specification Framework edits for preamble structure and A-MPDUby Raja Banerjea (Marvell) • Discussion related to • whether it is due time to apply these edits or not • Outcome of the discussion: 4 straw polls as follow in next slides Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  49. March 2010 TGac PHY AdHoc MinutesJan. 20, 2010 (3/4) • Straw poll #1: • “Do you support adding the stream and station limits defined in “11-10-0070r0 802.11ac preamble” to the spec framework using the edits to R3.2.1.D, R3.4.A, R3.4.B, R3.4.C and R4.D in “11-10-0113r0 proposed spec framework edits for preamble structure and a-mpdu” and forward to the TGac Task Group?” • Outcome of the straw poll: YES/NO/ABS: 22/16/8 (fails to forward to TG) • Straw poll #1-1: • “Do you support adding the stream and station limits defined in “11-10-0070r0 802.11ac preamble” to the spec framework using the edits to R3.2.1.D, R3.4.A, R3.4.B, R3.4.C and R4.D in “11-10-0113r0 proposed spec framework edits for preamble structure and a-mpdu” with all numbers as TBD and forward to the TGac Task Group?” • Outcome of the straw poll : YES/NO/ABS: 36/19/1 (fails to forward to TG) Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  50. March 2010 TGac PHY AdHoc MinutesJan. 20, 2010 (4/4) • Straw poll #2: • “Do you support adding the preamble structure defined in “11-10-0070r0 802.11ac preamble” to the spec framework using the edits in section 3.2.1 of “11-10-0113r0 proposed spec framework edits for preamble structure and a-mpdu?” • Outcome of the straw poll: YES/NO/ABS: 19/13/6 (fails to forward to TG) • Straw poll #3: • “Do you support adding a Group ID field to the VHT MU PPDU SIG field to support client side stream demultiplexing as described in “11-10-0073r0 Group ID Concept for DL MU-MIMO?” • Outcome of the straw poll: YES/NO/ABS: 24/8/12 (passes to forward to TG) Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

More Related