1 / 61

Coex Ad Hoc January Taipei Agenda and Report

Coex Ad Hoc January Taipei Agenda and Report. Authors:. Date: 2008-01-10. Abstract. Coex Ad Hoc in November Atlanta agenda and report regarding comment resolution of LB115 (802.11n), including straw polls. Highlights of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards.

warren-fitzpatrick
Download Presentation

Coex Ad Hoc January Taipei 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 January Taipei Agenda and Report Authors: Date: 2008-01-10 Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  2. Abstract Coex Ad Hoc in November Atlanta agenda and report regarding comment resolution of LB115 (802.11n), including straw polls Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  3. 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 Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  4. 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 Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  5. 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 Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  6. 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 Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  7. 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 Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  8. Further Information • IEEE Code of Ethics • http://www.ieee.org/web/membership/ethics/code_ethics.html • IEEE-SA Affiliation FAQ • http://standards.ieee.org/faqs/affiliationFAQ.html • IEEE-SA Antitrust & Competition Policy • http://standards.ieee.org/resources/antitrust-guidelines.pdf • IEEE-SA LETTER OF ASSURANCE (LOA) FORM • http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/loa.pdf • IEEE-SA STANDARDS BOARD PATENT COMMITTEE (PATCOM) INFORMATION • http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/index.html • IEEE-SA PATENT FAQ • http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/faq.pdf • IEEE 802 LAN / MAN STANDARDS COMMITTEE (LMSC) POLICIES & PROCEDURES • http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/policies-and-procedures.pdf • IEEE 802.11 WLANS WORKING GROUP POLICIES & PROCEDURES • http://www.ieee802.org/11/DocFiles/06/11-06-0812-03-0000-802-11-policies-and-proceedures.htm Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  9. Overview • Latest version of spreadsheet: 07/2693r5 • Total number of unique unresolved comments: 174 • Goals: • review first draft of submissions for all CIDs this session • Resolve CIDs for submissions previously presented • Resolve all remaining CIDs by March 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  10. 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)

  11. Subgroups (1/2) • Coex 20-40 • 103 comments • Clause 7, 11.9.8, 11.15.1, 11.15.2, 11.15.3, 11.15.4, 11.15.10, 11.17, S.4.2 • Assignee: Matt F. • 07/2742 in progress • CID 5223 • Assignee: Darwin Engwer, 07/2478r1 • Coex reorg • 8 comments • Clause 11.9, 11.9.8, 11.15.1 • Assignee: Matt, as part of Coex 20-40 • PCO • 16 comments • Primarily 11.16 • Assignee: Tomo • Submission date: Jan 2008 • L-SIG TXOP • 11 comments • Clauses 9.13.5, 9.13.6 • Assignee: Yuichi • Submission date: Jan 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  12. Subgroups (2/2) • Coex cca • 18 comments • Primarily clauses 11.15.7, 11.15.8 • Assignee: Eldad • Submission date: Jan 2008 • Coex protection mechanisms • 17 comments • Clauses 7.3.2.53, 9.13.3, 9.13.4, 11.15.6 • Assignee: Bjorn • 07/2726 in progress • 08/0004 • CID 5796 assigned to Solomon • Coex GF • 3 comments • Clause 9.13.3 • Assignee: Doug Chan • 07/2849 in progress • Misc • CID 5183 • Commenter emailed saying to reject comment Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  13. Submissions Related to Comment Resolution • Bjorn • 11-07-2726-03-000n-lb115-coex-comment-resolutions-protection-mechanisms.doc (15 min) • 11-08-0004-00-000n-lb115-coex-comment-resolution-cid-5628.doc (15-20 min) • Group discussion on two transfers from Gen (open slot) • Tomo • 11-07-2990-01-000n-lb115-submission-for-category-pco-in-coex-ad-hoc.doc (45 min) • Solomon • 11-08-0064-01-000n-lb115-submission-cid-5796.doc • Yuichi • 11-07-2994-01-000n-lb115-submission-coex-l-sig-txop.doc (1 hour) • 11-08-0105-00-000n-lb115-submission-coex-l-sig-txop-misc.doc (Mon PM1) • Matt F. (Mon PM2, Mon Eve) • 11-07-2742-03-000n-lb115-cid5279-coex-20-40.doc (lots of time) (+) • Darwin (Mon PM1) • 11-07-2478-01-000n-coex-cid-589.doc (updated to D3.01) (next week) • Eldad • 11-08-0035-00-000n-coex-cca.doc (Wed AM1) • Misc (Mon PM1, Tues eve) • Brian (Wed AM1) • 11-07-3000-00-000n-simulation-of-20-40-mhz-cca-unfairness.ppt • Doug (GF) (Wed AM1) Red indicates completed submissions (+) indicates submission was discussed Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  14. Agenda for Friday Jan 11 • Bjorn • 11-07-2726-03-000n-lb115-coex-comment-resolutions-protection-mechanisms.doc (15 min) • 11-08-0004-00-000n-lb115-coex-comment-resolution-cid-5628.doc (15-20 min) • Tomo • 11-07-1990 (45 min) • Matt F. • 11-07-2742-03-000n-lb115-cid5279-coex-20-40.doc (lots of time) Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  15. Minutes for Friday Jan 11 • 07/2726r3 • CID 5796 assigned to Solomon and removed from submission • CID 5627 – no issues with proposed resolution • CID 5535 – no issues with proposed resolution • CID 5100 – no issues with proposed resolution • No objection to accepting submission as resolution to CIDs and bringing to motion • 08/0004r0 • Some discussion on having a note showing “-3”. There is already such a note in 9.13.4 • Eldad: since the name of the parameter includes “convolutional” will we get someone asking what the value is with LDPC? • No objection to accepting submission as resolution to CIDs and bringing to motion Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  16. 07/2990 • Resolves Editor CID 5875, needs to be transferred to Coex • No objections to resolution • CID 5876 • Bruce: question regarding “any channel width” phrase, any issue with limiting to 40MHz • Tomo: text in 7.3.1.24 is the same type of wording • Eldad: “any channel width” is limited to Supported Channel Width Set • Everyone happy with current text, no objection with resolution • CID 5841 – no objections • CID 5359 – no objections • CID 5829 – no objections • CID 5109 – no objections • CID 5736 – no objections • CID 5737 – no objections • CID 5739 • Adrian: Change the may to can in the second edit instruction • no objections to resolution with changes • CID 5740 – no objections Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  17. 07/2990 continued • CID 5741 • Adrian: can we make the second two sentences (in the first editor instruction) into a note, since they are informative. Limits comments. • No objections to change • No objections to resolution with changes • CID 5830 – no objections • CID 5831 • Solomon: address the fact that traffic mixes are unknown in the rejection • No objections to resolution with changes • CID 5360 • Bruce: some grammar changes • Eldad: may needs to be changed to may • No objections to resolution with changes • CID 5744 – no objections • CID 5358 – no objections • CID 5745 – no objections • No objection to accepting r1 of submission as resolution to CIDs and bringing to motion Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  18. 08/0064 • CID 5796 • No intent to change meaning, just clarifications • Bruce: grammar corrections • No objection to accepting r1 of submission as resolution to CID and bringing to motion Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  19. 07/2742 • Reviewed changes based on conference call discussion • CID 5045, 5485, 5424, 5447, 5850 • CID 5850 • Still have issue with changing channel width in IBSS when there is no DFS owner, changed color to green • Solomon: we have the same issue with changing channel in IBSS • Matt: general issue of dynamic parameters in IBSS when no one is in charge (see CID 5276 in MAC in 07/2999) • Adrian: might get a mix of DFS and non-DFS capable devices • Issue is held open by CID 5872 • CID 5117 • Adrian: making assertion the operation is fair, its never been tested. But we don’t necessary care if its fair. • Matt: changed “fair” to “sufficiently adequate user experience” • Allert: is this a “counter” • Luke is ok with “counter” • No further objection • CID 5485 • Added rejection resolution text since conference call • No objections Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  20. 07/2742 continued • CID 5851 • Matt: Term BSS includes IBSS • Matt: Changed IDO STA to FC HT STA 17 to broaden the language to allow a non-DFS owner to start IBSS, but changes will be un-done since DFS 802.11-2007 rules in 11.9.7.2 state a STA starting an IBSS in DFS band shall be the DFS owner. • Changed to reject • No objections • CID 5852, 5854 – no objection • CID 5180 • Lots of discussion on whether to change “5 GHz” to “not 2.4GHz”, points raised: • There was only 2.4 & 5 GHz at time of 11n starting, now we have 11y • We have only thought about 2.4 & 5 GHz we don’t know what the 40 MHz coex issues would be in other bands • Tomo: FC 17 restricts to 5 GHz, which is in many other places. Changes only to 11.9.8.3 would not be enough • To make all the changes to draft would be complicated, reject and leave for next task group • Allert: change to FC HT AP restricts to HT device in “other band” • Since the change was un-done, “FC HT” is not added anymore • No objection to rejection • Changes based on 5180 un-done Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  21. 07/2742 continued • CID 5853, 5855 • Changed to reject, refer to 5851 • No objections • CID 5856, 5858 • No objections • CID 5857 • Changed “HT AP or IDO STA” to “HT AP or IDO STA that is also an HT STA” in 11.9.8.3 • No objections • CID 5859 - no objections • CID 5030 • Resolution text modified to indicate changes based on 2.4GHz language and 5 GHz language • No objections • CID 5860 • Changed to reject, refer to 5851 • No objections Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  22. 07/2742 continued • CID 5861 • Added reference to CID 5851 in resolution • No objections • CID 5862 – no objections • CID 5031 • Added resolution text stating that the use of scan results is implicit on existing rules • Tomo: is there a reference to rules? • Matt: anything that causes a trigger event must follow the trigger • Continue with CID 5808 tomorrow Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  23. Agenda for Saturday Jan 12 • Review progress • Yuichi • 11-07-2994-01-000n-lb115-submission-coex-l-sig-txop.doc (1 hour) • Matt F. • 11-07-2742-03-000n-lb115-cid5279-coex-20-40.doc (remainder of time) Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  24. Status at end of Friday Jan 11 • Unresolved CIDs (not approved by ad hoc to be motioned in TGn): 144 • 20/40 group: 103 • CCA: 16 • GF: 3 • Protection: 2 • Reorg: 8 • L-SIG TXOP: 11 • Misc: 1 • PCO: 0 • CIDs in 07/2724 w/ no objections: 31 • CIDs still needing review: 113 Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  25. Minutes for Saturday Jan 12 • 07/2994 • CID 5629 – no objections • CID 5470 • Withdrawn by commenter (Yuichi) • CID 5630 • Modified resolution by change the paragraph below • L-SIG TXOP Protection may be used even when not all HT STA in the BSS support the feature, provided that the frames using L-SIG TXOP Protection are not directed to a recipient that does not support L-SIGTXOP Protection. • changing may to can and change to note • No objection to new resolution • CID 5471 – no objection • CID 5632, 5472 – no objection • CID 5633 • Discussion on whether note is enough explanation or proper explanation • Adrian crafted new language explaining the use of HT_MF on the third PPDU • no objection Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  26. 07/2994 continued • CID 5634 • Tomo: also delete the language “except during the 40 • MHz phase of PCO operation (see 11.16 (Phased Coexistence Operation)).” • No objection to new resolution • CID 5635 – no objection • CID 5636 – no objection • CID 5637 • Discussion on TXOP truncation used in conjunction with L-SIG TXOP • Modified resolution by adding a new note • no objection • No objection to accepting r2 of submission as resolution to CIDs and bringing to motion • Yuichi requested to not withdraw his comment and action his comment. Decision was made to remove CID 5470 and 5630 from document and making it r3. No objection to accepting r3 of submission as resolution to CIDs and bringing to motion Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  27. 07/2742 continued • CID 5808 • Add to resolution text that capability is not changed • And delete a particular use of “shall set STA Channel Width field to 0” • No objection • CID 5078 • Discussion on use of operators • modification to note to define “==“ • No objection • CID 5079 – no objection • CID 5863, 5864, 5865 – no objection • CID 5080 • Use the comments choice of 25 MHz • No objection • CID 5032 • Create new acronyms for secondary channel offset = 1 and another acronym when = 3 • No objection Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  28. 07/2742 continued • CID 5319 – no objection • CID 5716, 5809 – no objection • CID 5081 – no objection • CID 5866 • Modified resolution to say it must be a DFS only • No objection • CID 5867 – no objection • CID 5868 – no objection Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  29. 07/2742 continued • CID 5869 • Changed from reject to counter • modification to resolution text to indicate that IBSS is forbidden from making channel width changes • Comment left open for now pending MAC changes • CID 5870 • Changed IDO STA to DFS owner • No objection • CID 5871 – no objection • CID 5320 – no objection Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  30. 07/2742 continued • CID 5717, 5810 • Adrian • We have two methods of changing width: secondary channel offset and E-CSA • Secondary channel offset does not impact connectivity, E-CSA could • Discussion of the issue – if secondary channel offset is changed to switch the BSS to 20 MHz, the regulatory class still remains at 40 MHz. Is this ok? • In principle, does a change of channel width imply a change of regulatory class? • Possible solution: • Allow an AP to operate a 20 MHz BSS in a 40 MHz regulatory class • Regulatory class represents what is possible, secondary channel offset represents what is current situation • Any frame that contains a new reg class field (E-CSA frame & element) with a value that corresponds to 40 MHz channel shall also include a secondary channel offset field • Comment still open Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  31. 07/2742 continued • CID 5082, 5083 • No need for record of STA Channel Width of STAs • Change to counter and delete the last paragraph of 11.9.8.4 • No objections to new resolution • CID 5011 – no objection • CID 5182 – no objection • CID 5084 – no objection • CID 5085 • Slight modification to resolution • no objection to modified resolution • CID 5718 – no objection • CID 5719 – no objection • CID 5474 – no objection • CID 5086, 5720 – no objection Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  32. 07/2742 continued • CID 5087, 5890 • Discussion regarding Notify Channel Width Action Frames • Need to continue discussion of these CIDs Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  33. Status at end of Sat Jan 12 • Unresolved CIDs (not approved by ad hoc to be motioned in TGn): 136 • 20/40 group: 103 • CCA: 16 • GF: 3 • Protection: 3 • Reorg: 8 • L-SIG TXOP: 2 • Misc: 1 • PCO: 0 • CIDs in 07/2724 w/ no objections: 51 • CIDs still needing review: 85 Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  34. Agenda for Mon Jan 14 PM1 • Status and review from pre-meeting • Darwin • 11-07-2478-01-000n-coex-cid-589.doc • Yuichi • 11-08-0105-00-000n-lb115-submission-coex-l-sig-txop-misc.doc Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  35. Minutes for Mon Jan 14 PM1 • 07/2478r1 • Matt: why IDO STA using Tspecs? • Delete “ or IDO STA” • No objection to accepting r2 of submission as resolution to CID and bringing to motion • 08/0105r0 • Bruce: wording for “non supported HT STAs” is awkward, clearer wording? • Adrian: reference specific value of the capability field in HT Info element • IBSS? • George: one bullet is positive, one is negative, needs to be fixed • Discussion regarding rewording of the bullets • No objection to accepting r1 of submission as resolution to CID and bringing to motion Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  36. Agenda for Mon Jan 14 PM2 • Matt • 11-07-2742-05-000n-lb115-cid5279-coex-20-40.doc Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  37. Minutes for Mon Jan 14 PM2 • 07/2742 • CID 5087, 5890 – no objection • CID 5893 • Luke stated that Andrew said comment can be rejected • Resolution changed to reject • CID 5721 • Similar to CID 5717, 5810 • Still open, but no objections to proposed solution from 5717 & 5810 • CID 5892 – no objection • CID 5722, 5088, 5089 – no objection • CID 5723 – no objection • CID 5724 – no objection Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  38. 07/2742 continued • CID 5872 • Changing resolution to refer to 5869 • Allert: in DFS with radar detection on secondary, would changing to 20MHz primary be allowed? • Matt: no • Still open pending 5869 • CID 5097 • Discussion on setting of MIB activity threshold MIB variable • no objection • CID 5091 – no objection • CID 5090 • Remove “must scan twice” since it we don’t specify the separation between scans anyways • Leave open until edited • Need to transfer related CIDs 5092, 5093 from general to Coex • CID 5096 – no objection • CID 5098 – no objection Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  39. Agenda for Mon Jan 14 Evening • Matt • 11-07-2742-05-000n-lb115-cid5279-coex-20-40.doc Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  40. Minutes for Mon Jan 14 Evening • 07/2742 • CID 5725 • Discussion pro and con on deleting activity threshold • Strawpoll: do you support deleting the activity threshold parameter and associated behavior? • Y: 3 • N: 7 • Abs: 10 • Matt: suggestion for choosing MIB parameters for individual stations • No objection to rejecting • Naveen: interested in allowing exemptions to scanning for individual stations Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  41. 07/2742 continued • CID 5475 – no objection to rejecting • CID 5894 – no objection • CID 5279 – no objection • CID 5106 – no objection • CID 5277 • Guido: question about Probe Response with group address? • Matt: receiver doesn’t have to worry about it since it is an illegal tx • Guido will think about it more and come back if has further issue • No other objection • CID 5731 • Discussion on it makes sense for 20 MHz AP to permit 40MHz BSS • Eldad: could be used with DLS • Adrian: edits make the STA Channel Width in HT Info element becomes redundant with this change • Matt: has historical value • No objection Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  42. 07/2742 continued • CID 5107 • Modify resolution text based on 5731 • No objection • CID 5108 – no objection • CID 5811 – no objection • CID 5732 • Slight modification to edits • No objection to modified text • CID 5278 • The CID removes the countdown timer, now report at end of scan interval • Michael: what is the STA action when it receives a request? Need to add that you create the frame report upon request • Text modified accordingly • No objections to modified edits • CID 5110 – no objection Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  43. 07/2742 continued • CID 5747 • Adrian: slightly worried that this station isn’t qualified enough • Text modified to limit to setting address if actually transmitting frame • No objections to modified edits • CID 5111 • Change resolution to counter and delete paragraph • CID still open • CID 5748 – no objection • CID 5807 – no objection • CID 5749 – no objection Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  44. Status at end of Mon Jan 14 • Unresolved CIDs (not approved by ad hoc to be motioned in TGn): 133 • 20/40 group: 102 • CCA: 16 • GF: 3 • Protection: 3 • Reorg: 8 • L-SIG TXOP: 0 • Misc: 1 • PCO: 0 • CIDs in 07/2724 w/ no objections: 82 • Total CIDs in Coex still needing review: 51 Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  45. Minutes for Tues Jan 15 Evening • 07/2742r5 • CID 5869 • Previously reviewed, but open CID, now with resolution in r5 • Adrian: wondering if channel selection rules still apply to IBSS • First follow rules in 11.9.8.4, then keep the value • Adrian: is there an issue with changing channels in DFS? • CID remains open • CID 5090, 5091 • Previously reviewed, but open CID, now with resolution in r5 • No objection • CID 5111 • Previously reviewed, but open CID, now with resolution in r5 • No objection • CID 5112 – no objection • CID 5750 – no objection • CID 5827 • George objected to resolution • CID 5792 – no objection Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  46. 07/2742r5 continued • CID 5132 • Modified resolution to refer to 5473 • No objection • CID 5473 – no objection • CID 5710 – no objection • CID 5133 – no objection • CID 5181 – no objection • CID 5714 – no objection • CID 5137 – no objection • CID 5102 – no objection Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  47. Individual CIDs • CID 5183 • Reject • Making CF15 mandatory for CF16 would make all of 11y mandatory for 11n. This is not what we want to do. TGn has the following line in 11.9.8.1: “For an HT STA, the following MIB attributes shall be set to true: dot11RegulatoryClassesImplemented, dot11RegulatoryClassesRequired, and dot11ExtendedChannelSwitchEnabled.” • no objection to resolution and bringing to motion • CID 5790 • Accept (deletion of S.2) • no objection to resolution and bringing to motion • Doug may come back with a rewrite of S.2, in which case this CID will be revisited • CID 5122 • counter • Comment refers to S.2 which was deleted based on CID 5790 • no objection to resolution and bringing to motion Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  48. Status at end of Tues Jan 15 • Unresolved CIDs (not approved by ad hoc to be motioned in TGn): 130 • 20/40 group: 102 • CCA: 16 • GF: 3 • Protection: 1 • Reorg: 8 • L-SIG TXOP: 0 • Misc: 0 • PCO: 0 • CIDs in 07/2724 w/ no objections: 95 • Total CIDs in Coex still needing review: 35 Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  49. Agenda for Wed Jan 16 AM1 • Presentations • CCA sensing • Brian • 11-07-3000-01-000n-simulation-of-20-40-mhz-cca-unfairness.ppt • Guido: 08/0145r0 • Eldad: 08/0035 • GF • Doug: 98/0111r0 (changed his mind and did not want to present, will schedule presentation for conference call) • Activity threshold • Naveen: 08/0148r0 & 08/0150r0 Eldad Perahia (Intel)

  50. Minutes for Wed Jan 16 AM1 • 07/3000r1 • Vinko: on slide 18, we already have this rule in the standard • Brian: people should listen to the “should” • Tushar: re simulations, fully loaded simulation traffic scenario? Need to consider more modest traffic or real traffic model • Brian: PHY simulation only, no MAC • Tushar: probability of overlapping 40 & 20-on-secondary BSS is low • Eldad: PCO already provides a mechanism for management • Brian: PCO has issues in OBSS • Bruce: was sim run varying CCA level to see improvement? • Brian: no • Guido: MAC aspects no accounted for (e.g. rate adaptation) Eldad Perahia (Intel)

More Related