doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0034r0IEEE P802.11 Wireless LANs
Date: 2005-01-17
Author(s): Name Company Address Phone email Tim Godfrey Conexant
+1-913-664-2544
[email protected]
Abstract Minutes of the 802.11 full working group and joint
wireless sessions.
Notice: This document has been prepared to assist IEEE 802.11. It
is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the
contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this
document is subject to change in form and content after further
study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right to add, amend or
withdraw material contained herein. Release: The contributor grants
a free, irrevocable license to the IEEE to incorporate material
contained in this contribution, and any modifications thereof, in
the creation of an IEEE Standards publication; to copyright in the
IEEE’s name any IEEE Standards publication even though it may
include portions of this contribution; and at the IEEE’s sole
discretion to permit others to reproduce in whole or in part the
resulting IEEE Standards publication. The contributor also
acknowledges and accepts that this contribution may be made public
by IEEE 802.11. Patent Policy and Procedures: The contributor is
familiar with the IEEE 802 Patent Policy and Procedures <http://
ieee802.org/guides/bylaws/sb-bylaws.pdf>, including the
statement "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." Early disclosure to the Working Group of patent
information that might be relevant to the standard is essential to
reduce the possibility for delays in the development process and
increase the likelihood that the draft publication will be approved
for publication. Please notify the Chair
<
[email protected]> as early as possible, in written
or electronic form, if patented technology (or technology under
patent application) might be incorporated into a draft standard
being developed within the IEEE 802.11 Working Group. If you have
questions, contact the IEEE Patent Committee Administrator at
<
[email protected]>.
Minutes page 1 Tim Godfrey, Conexant
Joint Wireless Plenary: January 17, 2005 1.1. Introduction
1.1.1. Meeting called to order by Stuart J. Kerry at 08:20AM.
1.1.2. The agenda of the 89th session of 802.11 is in doc: IEEE
11-04-
1172r2. 1.1.3. Secretary – Tim Godfrey 1.1.4. Officers and Chairs
of 802.11:
Name Position Work Phone eMail IEEE 802.11 WG Chair Philips
Semiconductors, Inc., 1109 McKay Drive, M/S 48A SJ, San Jose, CA
95131-1706, USA Fax:+1 (408) 474-5343 WG 1st Vice-Chair / Treasurer
Policies & Treasury WG 2nd Vice-Chair / TGv Chair Attendance,
Ballots, Documentation & Voting WG Secretary Minutes &
Reports WG Technical Editor Standard & Amendment(s)
Coordination Publicity Chair (P SC) Communications
Teik-Kheong "TK" Tan WNG SC Chair +1 (408) 474-5193
[email protected]
John Fakatselis TGe Chair +1 (321) 327-6710
[email protected] Duncan Kitchin TGe Vice-Chair &
ANA Lead +1 (503) 264-2727
[email protected] Richard H.
Paine TGk Chair +1 (206) 854-8199
[email protected] Bob
O'Hara TGm Chair +1 (408) 635-2025
[email protected] Bruce P.
Kraemer TGn Chair +1 (321) 327-6704
[email protected] Lee
Armstrong TGp Chair +1 (617) 244-9203
[email protected] Clint Chaplin
TGr Chair +1 (408) 528-2766
[email protected] Donald E.
Eastlake 3rd TGs Chair +1 (508) 786-7554
[email protected] Charles R. Wright TGT Chair +1 (978)
268-9202
[email protected] Stephen McCann TGu Chair
+44 (1794) 833341
[email protected] Jesse Walker ADS SG
Chair +1 (503) 712-1849
[email protected] Dorothy Stanley APF
AHC Chair +1 (630) 979-1572
[email protected]
Al Petrick +1 (321) 235-3423
[email protected]
IEEE 802.11 WORKING GROUP OFFICERS Stuart J. Kerry +1 (408)
474-7356
[email protected]
Harry R. Worstell +1 (973) 236-6915
[email protected]
Tim Godfrey +1 (913) 664-2544
[email protected]
Nanci Vogtli +1 (215) 340-2226
[email protected]
Terry Cole +1 (512) 602-2454
[email protected]
Minutes page 2 Tim Godfrey, Conexant
January, 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0034r0
1.1.5. Stuart J. Kerry reviews the roles and responsibilities of
the Working Group officers.
1.1.6. People attending for the first time at this meeting: 25
1.1.7. There are 361 people in the room.
1.2. Approval of the Agenda 1.2.1. The agenda is adopted by
unanimous consent
1.3. Approval of Minutes 1.3.1. Any matters from the minutes? None
1.3.2. The minutes of Berlin are approved with Unanimous
consent.
1.4. Key Working Group Events 1.4.1. Interim Sessions
1.4.1.1. May 2005: We cannot go to Sydney since the Hilton is not
ready. We attempted to relocate to Beijing, but the logistics have
not worked out in time. Tourhosts is looking for Australia, New
Zealand, and Singapore for possible venues. We will know this week
by Friday. Backup plan is the Hyatt in Rosemont, IL, near
O’Hare.
1.4.1.2. January 2006 – Hawaii – Hilton Waikoloa Village 1.4.2.
Financials – John Barr
1.4.2.1. Document 802.15 / ?? 1.4.2.2. There are $87K left in the
account. 1.4.2.3. We planned for 700 attendees for this meeting,
but we already have 713. We will
come out ahead.
1.5. IP Statements (Letters of Assurance) 1.5.1. Conexant has
submitted an LOA regarding 802.11n. 1.5.2. Stuart is waiting for a
confirmation from PatCom on their
acceptance. Stuart notes that Broadcom has also submitted an LOA on
802.11n.
1.5.3. Sun Microsystems is submitting an LOA on RBridges. 1.5.4.
Stuart announces that he is waiting for PatCom acceptance of
an
LOA from Mesh Networks. 1.6. Review of Policies and
Procedures
1.6.1. Al Petrick presents document 04/424r4 to the body. 1.6.2.
Review of working group officers and duties for all wireless
working
groups. 1.6.3. Review of voting rights, participation requirements,
and voting
token procedures. There is a new system for indicating voting
rights – instead of tokens, there is a printed indication on the
badge.
1.6.4. Review of operating policies and procedures, registration,
payment of fees. Our P&P is in 04/510r0, which is posted on the
web site. Roberts Rules are revision 10 (Gold Book)
1.6.5. Review of rules against photographs, tape recording, and
media briefing.
1.6.6. Review of attendance recording process, and contact
information updating procedures.
Minutes page 3 Tim Godfrey, Conexant
January, 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0034r0
1.6.7. Review of process and requirements for gaining and keeping
voting rights.
1.6.8. Membership representation and anti-trust laws are reviewed.
1.6.9. Al Petrick reads the following text to the body regarding
IEEE
patent policy:
doc.: IEEE 802.11-04/424r4
General Agenda Information
6. Patents
IEEE standards may include the known use of essential patents, and
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.
IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards
Approved by IEEE-SA Standards Board –, March 2003, July 2004
1.6.10.1. Stuart J. Kerry reads the following slide to the
body:
1.6.10.2.
doc.: IEEE 802.11-04/424r4
General Agenda Information
At the December 2004 meeting of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Patent
Committee (PatCom), Paul Nikolich (Chair, 802) on behalf of Stuart
Kerry (Chair, 802.11)led discussion on an agenda item titled
'Discussion of P802.11n Protest'. You noted that some members of
the P802.11n working group requested a clarification of policy from
PatCom regarding what would be acceptable to discuss during a
working group technical presentation, regarding patent
information/statements.
PatCom is charged with providing oversight for the use of patents
and patent information in IEEE Standards. PatCom is also charged
with reviewing patent information submitted to the IEEE Standards
Department to determine conformity with patent procedures and
guidelines. As empowered by the IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws,
PatCom has reviewed the information presented and rendered its
decision by interpreting the policies and procedures of the IEEE
and the IEEE-SA relevant to the issues.
In regards to the presentation of information to a standards
development group, PatCom has decided the following:
1. After a patent letter of assurance (LoA) has been accepted by
PatCom, it is allowable for a presenter to state that an LoA has
been filed by a Patent Holder, accepted by PatCom, and listed in
the online listing of LoAs at
http://standards.ieee.org/db/patents/index.html
Anyone seeking a copy of the accepted LoA should contact the PatCom
Administrator.
2. Discussion of the content of accepted, submitted, or proposed
LoAs is prohibited.
3. Discussion of licensing terms and conditions is
prohibited.
Patent Committee Ruling – January 6, 2005
1.6.10.3. Al Petrick reads the following slide to the body:
Minutes page 4 Tim Godfrey, Conexant
January, 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0034r0
1.6.10.4.
doc.: IEEE 802.11-04/424r4
General Agenda Information
• 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
[email protected]
Approved by IEEE-SA Standards Board – December 2002
1.6.11. Stuart J. Kerry announces that the preceding Patent Policy
is
hereby adopted by all 802 working groups. All other WG chairs (Bob
Heile 802.15, Michael Lynch 802.18, Steve Shellhammer 802.19, and
Jerry Upton 802.21, and AJ Rajkumar 802.22) all agree to abide by
the Patcom guidelines.
1.6.12. Returning to document 04/424r4, Al Petrick reviews the IEEE
copyright policy.
1.6.13. Review of IEEE meeting etiquette. 1.7. Logistics
1.7.1. The meeting schedule and daily agendas are available at the
URL on the back of everyone’s badge.
1.7.2. We will have box lunches today at the lower level of the
conference center.
1.7.3. 802.15.4b and 802.20, and 802.21 will meet at 2pm today.
1.7.4. Social reception is at the Monterey Bay aquarium.
1.8. WG Objectives 1.8.1. 802.22 – Carl Stephenson
1.8.1.1. Will discuss reply comments on TV band NPRM. Follow
through with organization of WG: timeline, outlines, requirements,
selection process. Looking for Secretary and Technical
Editor.
1.8.2. 802.21 – Ajay Rajkumar 1.8.2.1. Media Independent Handover.
Documents on separate server, will use paper
attendance lists. In the process of presenting proposals. There
will be 12 updated proposals. Will have joint session with
802.11u.
1.8.3. 802.20 – Jerry Upton 1.8.3.1. Objectives – consensus on
evaluation criteria, models, and selection process.
1.8.4. 802.19 – Steve Shellhammer
January, 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0034r0
1.8.4.1. Coexistence TAG. The new 802 P&P contains provisions
for wireless coexistence. The 5 Criteria specifies the creation of
a coexistence assurance document to be circulated with the first
draft. The 802.19 TAG will have one vote on all wireless standards.
This week, there will be submissions on the Coex Assurance guidance
documents. There will be a joint meeting with 802.11n in the
802.11n room.
1.8.4.2. How does this impact drafts in process? Paul Nicolich’s
intention is to have the requirement apply immediately.
1.8.5. Visitors at this meeting 1.8.5.1. Paul Nicolich, 802 chair,
1.8.5.2. Karen Kinney, Associate Managing Director of IEEE
Standards Association
1.8.6. 802.18 – Mike Lynch 1.8.6.1. 802 radio regulatory TAG.
Comments were filed to the FCC regarding use of TV
bands by unlicensed devices. At this meeting we will create reply
comments. Will work in cooperation with 802.22 on these reply
comments.
1.8.7. 802.15 – Bob Heile 1.8.7.1. There are 253 voters in 802.15.
There are 31 nearly voters. There are 148
aspirant voters. 1.8.7.2. 802.15.1a – Tom Seip. Bluetooth V1.2.
Have passed WG LB and Sponsor ballot.
There is one issue getting through RevCom. 1.8.7.3. SG 1b – Tom
Seip. Looking at continuing with Bluetooth maintaining
synchrony.
The IEEE is not wanting to be a follower rather than parallel
participant. Will discuss how to become more parallel.
1.8.7.4. TG 3a – Bob Heile – in downselect cycle. Will be hearing
response from failed confirmation vote. There will be a second
confirmation vote on Wednesday AM.
1.8.7.5. TG 3b – John Barr. Working on amendment on 802.15.3. Draft
is on private site in review. Hope to release for WG Letter Ballot
this week.
1.8.7.6. SG 3c – Reed Fisher. MMwave alt PHY. Will work on
requirements document, and channel model subgroup.
1.8.7.7. TG 4a – Pat Kinney. Alternate PHY for 802.15.4. Giving
ranging information, robustness, and mobility. We will have
proposals for baseline. There are 45 responses to CFP. There will
be 25 proposals to be reviewed.
1.8.7.8. TG 4b – Rob Poor – Revision to clarify 802.15.4 and add
PHY enhancements. Planning on LB at next meeting. Alternate PHY at
sub-GHz frequencies.
1.8.7.9. TG5 Mesh Jon Booth. Close to issuing CFP. Will finalize
downselect process. 1.8.7.10. 802.15 is considering a conformance
PAR for 802.15.3-2003. Will
release PAR for approval in March. 1.8.8. 802.11 – Stuart J.
Kerry
1.8.8.1. WG Voters update. 491 voters. 1.8.8.2. Review of 802.11
Agenda in 04-1172r2.
1.8.8.2.1. Stuart reviews the agenda for 802.11 during the week.
1.8.8.2.2. Stuart updates the group on the documentation server.
There will be a
demonstration of potential new software from Accent Technologies.
Have shown to the CAC and other chairs.
1.8.8.3. Discussion 1.8.8.3.1. 802.3 wishes to make a presentation
. Will change agenda on
Wednesday 1.8.8.4. Approval of the Agenda
1.8.8.4.1. Approved by Unanimous consent. 1.8.8.5. Matters from the
minutes of 802.11 in San Antonio?
1.8.8.5.1. None 1.8.8.5.2. San Antonio Minutes for November 2004
are Approved by Unanimous
consent 1.8.8.6. Policies and Procedures
Minutes page 6 Tim Godfrey, Conexant
January, 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0034r0
1.8.8.6.1. New items will be presented on Friday. 1.8.8.6.2. Al
Petrick will prepare timelines for all Task Groups.
1.8.8.7. Documentation Update: The server has been unable to reset
document numbers for 2005, but this has been fixed.
1.8.8.8. WNG report – one session Monday evening. Update on
European DVB, and one on 802.21.
1.8.8.9. TGe – completed sponsor ballot recirculation. 95%
approval. Will address some comments. If necessary will conduct
additional recirculations.
1.8.8.10. TGk – will finish LB 71 comment resolution. Will try for
another LB this week. Still resolving difficult comments. Will
continue teleconferences.
1.8.8.11. TGm – will address single interpretation request on the
802.11-1999 PHY PLCP header. Will also continue the process of
addressing the issues identified for the revision draft. Objective
to have a WG LB in March. Will meet with APF SG.
1.8.8.12. ANA: Stuart Announces that Bob O’Hara is taking over the
ANA function within TGm. Duncan Kitchin is stepping down. The group
thanks Duncan Kitchin for his work.
1.8.8.13. TGn – Will receive proposals technical presentations.
Will have downselect vote on Thursday. Meetings start today at 4pm.
Planning for a vice chair election this evening. Candidates will
give a presentation this evening. 1.8.8.13.1. Stuart J. Kerry notes
that nominees should identify themselves to Stuart
J. Kerry or Bruce Kraemer beforehand. 1.8.8.13.2. Will have a joint
session with 802.19 on Thursday AM.
1.8.8.14. TGp – Will resolve comments from email on random MAC
address. Will have a draft amendment, which will be reviewed this
week.
1.8.8.15. TGr – agenda is in document 1629. There are 8 proposals.
They will be presented, then there will be a “rejection ballot”.
Down-select vote is on Thursday.
1.8.8.16. TGs – will issue CFP from this meeting. Will have
technical presentations, and debate procedural issues.
1.8.8.17. TGT – wireless performance. Will elect secretary, approve
requirements document, and describe organization of draft.
1.8.8.18. TGu – WIEN. First meeting as TG. Agenda in document 1617.
Will select secretary. Will look at requirements generation, and
scenarios. Will have joint session with 802.21.
1.8.8.19. TGv – WNM. First session as TG. Looking for permanent
chair. Nominations are open. Will vote on Wednesday. Will look at
issues. Will work with ADS SG on security issues. TGv does not meet
Wednesday AM.
1.8.8.20. ADS SG – Advanced Security. Two meeting slots. Goals are
to complete PAR and 5C. Will discuss name of TG to prevent market
confusion. JTC1 SC6 Ad Hoc is meeting Wednesday AM. Will complete a
response regarding the Chinese WAPI submission. 1.8.8.20.1. Stuart
J. Kerry notes that 802.11 is willing to incorporate WAPI in
the
standard. We welcome any input to enhance our standard. 1.8.8.20.2.
Stuart J. Kerry announces that we are looking for a liaison from
802.11 to
ISO JTC1 SC6. Our WG needs representation. 1.8.8.21. APF Ad Hoc –
Access Point Functionality; improving description. Will
incorporate changes in TGm draft. Will discuss text to be provided
to TGm. Requests members to review three documents: 04/1225r4,
05/1606, 04/1573. Goal is to make the definition of an AP more
understandable.
1.8.9. Joint Publicity committee – Nancy Vogtli 1.8.9.1.1. Will
have one meeting this session. Will identify activities appropriate
for
press releases. Will focus on web site updates and streamlining the
process for keeping them current. Will create calendar of events of
interest to the industry.
1.9. Anti Trust 1.9.1. Bob Heile reads the following text to the
body:
Minutes page 7 Tim Godfrey, Conexant
January, 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0034r0
ANTI-TRUST STATEMENT Each Member acknowledges that the Members are
committed to fostering competition in the development of new
products and services. The Members further acknowledge that they
may compete with one another in various lines of business and that
it is therefore imperative that they and their representatives act
in a manner which does not violate any applicable antitrust laws
and regulations. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
the Members acknowledge that the Members will not discuss issues
relating to product pricing, methods or channels of product
distribution, any division of markets, or allocation of customers
or any other topic which should not be discussed among competitors.
Accordingly, each Member hereby assumes responsibility to provide
appropriate legal counsel to its representatives acting under the
IEEE regarding the importance of limiting their discussions to
subjects that
1.10. Logistics 1.10.1. Bob Heile requests if any members have
change in plans to attend
social, please inform the meeting planners. We need to provide an
accurate number.
1.10.2. 802.15 will convene in Pacific Grove 1.11. Recess at
10:00am
2. Wednesday Plenary Session 2.1. Opening
2.1.1. The meeting is called to order at 10:45am by Stuart J.
Kerry. 2.1.2. There are 327 voting members present. We have a
quorum 2.1.3. Announcements
2.1.3.1. A Letter of Assurance from Winbond has been received
regarding 802.11n. Only a photocopy has been received. The original
needs to be sent to Patcom. Stuart will submit.
2.1.3.2. The CAC will meet tomorrow evening 2.1.3.3. There about
493 potential voting members at this session.
2.1.4. Modifications to the agenda are reviewed. Additional items
for new reports are added. Added appointment for TGv chair, and new
documentation management system.
2.1.5. Further modifications from the floor: 2.1.5.1. The agenda
shows the CAC meeting on Thursday AM, Changed to 7:00PM
2.2. Approval of Agenda
January, 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0034r0
2.2.1. The modified agenda is approved with Unanimous consent. 2.3.
Liaison Reports
2.3.1. 802.11 to 802.18 – Denis Kuahara 2.3.1.1.1. Working on
comments on TV band sharing with unlicensed users. Had
joint meeting with 802.22. There are no comments to the FCC that
are impacting the 802. position. There will be no further comments.
There will be a consultation from the UK. Stuart J. Kerry requests
Denis to report to the 802.11 reflector. Denis will notify which
802.18 document number is available.
2.3.2. 802.11 to 802.19 2.3.2.1.1. Position vacant – looking for
volunteer. See Stuart, Al, or Harry if
interested. 2.3.3. 802.11 to 802.22 – Peter Ecclesine
2.3.3.1.1. Report in document 05/0052. No reply to FCC NPRM. Snap
server at 10.0.1.18 for documents during meetings. FCC expected to
issue R&O in May- June timeframe. 802.22 proposals in July 05.
Hoping for first draft in Jan 06. Will discuss functional
requirements and co-existence with TV devices.
2.3.4. 802.11 to 802 Architecture – Andrew Myles 2.3.4.1.1. The
architecture group meets before plenary sessions to better align
WG
projects and 802 architecture. There will be a meeting before the
Atlanta Plenary meeting. Andrew will send an update to the
reflector.
2.3.5. 802.11 to 802.3 – Michael Teener 2.3.5.1.1. Residential
Ethernet. What is the wired backbone for home and CES?
There isn’t QoS on Ethernet. There will be non-standard “hacks” to
address QoS. Propose to add Isochronous services to 802.3 Ethernet.
Need to address synchronization, latency, and low cost. Will
provide bounded jitter (0) with 250uS per switch latency, and
guaranteed session bandwidth. Take advantage of 1394 services over
Ethernet. Currently in Study Group status. Architecture issue with
802.1d. Need to coordinate with 802.11 QoS to provide end-to-end
capability.
2.3.5.1.2. Document number? Tom Seip will get a document number and
post it. 2.3.6. 802.11 to WiFi Alliance – Bill Carney
2.3.6.1.1. No report, no questions 2.3.7. 802.11 to IETF – Dorothy
Stanley
2.3.7.1.1. Document 05/0024. Review of EAP documents – new draft on
network discovery and selection. EAP Keying: We have been asked to
provide requirement re 802.11. Additional work is still needed.
Benchmarking Methodology WG: BMWG members request access to 802.11t
documents, including drafts. Radius Extensions. A new draft has
been created. A request to review IAB draft on link indications.
TGu will create comments to go back to the IAB on this.
2.3.8. 802.11 to JEDEC JC61 – Tim Wakeley 2.3.8.1.1. Document
05/1626r0. Working on rev 1 of JESD96. Considering an
optional TXclock line. Working on standard for interoperability and
compatibility. The FCC NPRM on partition modules – close to having
modules to test.
2.3.9. 802.11 to MMAC – Inoue-san 2.3.9.1.1. Document 05/0051. Have
working groups for various standards such as
802.11, UWB, and 1394. 802.11 WG maintains ARIB Standard T71. T71
version 2 update will include 802.11j, and new spectrum
allocations.
2.3.10. 802.11 from ISO JTC1 SC6 – Jesse Walker 2.3.10.1.1. Ad Hoc
met this morning to draft a response to the JTC1 China
submission. Document 05/0043. Will bring to a vote on Friday.
Planning to write a position paper. Requests that the body consider
(to accommodate China) a Singapore or New Zealand location.
Minutes page 9 Tim Godfrey, Conexant
January, 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0034r0
2.3.10.1.2. Stuart notes that Singapore is out because the meeting
fee is over $900 US.
2.3.10.1.3. Member feels that having an international meeting is
important. 2.3.10.1.4. The two front runners are Chicago, or Cairns
Australia. 2.3.10.1.5. At the JTC1 meeting – feels that it is
important to locate in Asia. Could
we ask the Singapore government to help? The available space is the
issue. 2.3.10.1.6. Feels the cost issue is overstated. The
registration is just one component
of the total cost. 2.3.10.1.7. Stuart states that we are an
international body, and personally supports
international venues. 2.3.10.1.8. Straw Poll – Chicago or Cairns? –
one vote per person 2.3.10.1.9. Stuart states that Cairns is the
front runner.
2.3.11. Open position for 802.11 to JTC1 SC6 2.3.11.1.1. Stuart
appoints Alex Chang
2.4. Old Business 2.4.1. Bonneville final report – Al Petrick
2.4.1.1. Report in document ???? 2.4.1.2. Objective was to consider
how to improve the process of creating standards in
802.11. There have been a number of meetings behind the scenes.
2.4.1.3. Areas to work on: Architecture, PAR process, templates,
educations of chairs on
P&P, streamlining standards process itself. 2.4.1.4. Developed
secretaries guidelines document 2.4.1.5. Developed comment
resolution guidelines 2.4.1.6. Developed better up-front procedures
for starting new TGs. 2.4.1.7. Become more consistent with our
P&P document. 2.4.1.8. Will make recommendations for changes to
P&P for March plenary. 2.4.1.9. Stuart J. Kerry states that
this group will hibernate until the next time work has
accumulated. 2.4.2. Secretaries Guidelines – Harry Worstell
2.4.2.1. Will issue next session (March). Derived from a
parliamentarian guidelines, adapted for 802.11. Input is needed by
next week before the final version is issued.
2.4.2.2. There is no official document available yet. Harry will
send an email to the WG. 2.4.3. Technical Editor Report – Terry
Cole
2.4.3.1. Document 05/0044 2.4.3.2. There are no new publications
coming out. 2.4.3.3. Term of 802.11 standards. Not a problem until
after 802.11-ma is approved. 2.4.3.4. 802.11f (aka 802.11.1) – open
for comments as a trial use standard. Will
investigate if any comments have been received before March
meeting. If there are no comments, 802.11.1 will be submitted for
approval.
2.4.3.5. Discussion 2.4.3.5.1. 802.11f no comments may mean that
nobody cares. Can we determine if
there is any interest? There is no way out from trial use. It will
be published unless it is formally withdrawn.
2.4.3.5.2. What is the procedure to withdraw? We don’t know – will
follow up with IEEE staff.
2.4.3.5.3. Since 802.11f is a trial recommended practice, does that
matter? 2.4.3.5.4. Terry Cole to follow up with IEEE SA and
determine options for dealing
with 802.11f/802.11.1. 2.4.3.5.5. Roll-up editions. 802.11-2003
edition is available for purchase.
802.11ma revision contains 11g, h, i, and j. 2.4.4. Task Group U
Chair
2.4.4.1. We do not have a recommendation from TGu.
Minutes page 10 Tim Godfrey, Conexant
January, 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0034r0
2.4.4.2. Defer until Friday 2.4.5. Update on documentation
software
2.4.5.1. In September, we were directed to improve our
documentation system. We are looking for available solutions.
2.4.5.2. Demonstration of possible system from Accent Technologies.
Harry Worstell has been driving this process of evaluation.
2.4.5.3. Peter Crystal and Bob Henly from Accent Technologies
demonstrate their document management software.
2.4.5.4. System provides full search, of document content as well
as whole documents. 2.4.5.5. Discussion:
2.4.5.5.1. Supports various browsers. Does not require ActiveX.
2.4.5.5.2. Can we still access the whole document library by FTP?
Can you bypass
the whole system and access all documents? Not currently.
2.4.5.5.3. What happens if 1000 people access this at one time? Can
our current
servers support it? Not sure what IEEE has today, but it will work
on standard web servers. Accent says it will work. Stuart says
working on our servers will be required as part of the quote.
2.4.5.5.4. FTP access is required for downloading and synchronizing
all documents. Straw poll – who uses FTP for synchronization? Over
100. FTP access is a requirement.
2.4.5.5.5. FTP is also good for sorting – what other sorting
facilities will be offered in this software. The list view has a
few columns that can be sorted on.
2.4.5.5.6. The document names are truncated in a way that hides the
textual portions of the filenames? The interface is easy to
adjust.
2.4.5.5.7. Recommend that the user be given the choice to start
with number or text field.
2.4.5.5.8. What about mirroring of documents between the meeting
site and the Internet server? Tentatively – not sure if we can
synchronize documents. Maybe once a day. Really need real-time
updates.
2.4.5.5.9. In previous incarnations of this product, there have
been problems with firewalls? Has that been fixed? This is a new
product. It is part of another product line. There are no known
problems with firewalls. Does it work with SP2? Yes.
2.4.5.5.10. Appears to be better and more workable than what we now
have. 2.4.5.5.11. There are known problems with Java Applets with
firewalls. 2.4.5.5.12. What about other formats? Framemaker? The
system will support any
file format – but extended features may be missing. 2.4.5.5.13.
There is also a calendar embedded to display events. 2.4.5.5.14.
Stuart J. Kerry notes that we are working with 3 vendors. This is
one
options. Other WGs and TAGs are also looking at this. We are also
looking at attendance and agenda maintenance.
2.4.5.5.15. Is the event scheduling function time-zone aware? The
dates are stored in GMT, so local time translation is
possible.
2.4.5.5.16. Stuart J. Kerry reviews the process for expenses from
the Treasury, involving the WG, and 802 ExCom.
2.4.5.5.17. Can we get the WiKi function? Take off-line.
2.4.5.5.18. We are working on a future system for letter ballots
on-line, and
eventually voting.
2.5. New Business 2.5.1. The ADS Study Group has completed the PAR
and 5C (04/1214,
and 05/1649). Requesting review before motion on Friday. 2.5.2. TGe
announces that we changed the fixed agenda item today for
draft approval. It is no longer fixed, and will happen this
afternoon. 2.6. Recess at 12:30
Minutes page 11 Tim Godfrey, Conexant
January, 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0034r0
3. Closing Plenary Session. Friday, January 21, 2005 3.1.
Opening
3.1.1. The meeting is called to order at 8:00 by Stuart J. Kerry.
3.1.2. Agenda in 04/1172r5 3.1.3. There are 165 people in the
room
3.2. Modify and Approve Agenda 3.2.1. Review of changes between
agenda r4 and r5 3.2.2. Any further modifications? None 3.2.3. The
agenda is approved with Unanimous consent
3.3. Announcements 3.3.1. CAC deadlines: Minutes Monday next week,
Reports today, Web
Site updates due next Wednesday 3.3.2. The next meeting agenda will
be posted 30 days before the next
meeting 3.3.3. Letters of Assurance
3.3.3.1.1. Are there any new Letters of Assurance? None 3.3.4. We
have 813 people registered this week for the meeting (all
working groups). 460 were 802.11. That is a record. 3.3.5.
Wednesday morning we had a voting pool of 491 members, we had
327 present. We had a quorum. 3.4. Objectives, Activities, and
Plans
3.4.1. WG Reports 3.4.1.1. Documentation Update – Accent
Technologies assures us they can support FTP.
We are working to fix the document numbering problem where the 04
numbers continued to increment into 2005. We expect the new
software to allow us to fix this.
3.4.1.2. Discussion 3.4.1.2.1. Objections to changing document
numbers.
3.4.1.3. WG Policies and Procedures – Al Petrick 3.4.1.3.1.
Document 05/0094r0. Summary of policies and procedure changes
since
March 2004. 3.4.1.3.2. In March, there will be an updated P&P
document. 3.4.1.3.3. Current P&P are in document 510r0.
3.4.1.3.4. Al reviews the specific changes that have been made in
this update. 3.4.1.3.5. Process for updating proposed changes: Al
will present this again in
March. At the July Plenary session we will vote them into effect.
3.4.1.3.6. Next Meetings 3.4.1.3.7. The Atlanta Hyatt is now sold
out – there are nearby alternatives. 3.4.1.3.8. The May meeting in
Cairns Australia is going ahead. 3.4.1.3.9. The backup location for
May is now Huntington Beach, California. 3.4.1.3.10.
Discussion
3.4.1.3.10.1. What is the criteria for hotels? Can we describe this
in a document so the membership can provide suggestions also?
Stuart will look into this.
3.4.1.3.10.2. When will the May location be fixed? Very soon This
week or next.
3.4.1.4. Task Group Timeline Planning – Document 05/0091r0
Minutes page 12 Tim Godfrey, Conexant
January, 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0034r0
3.4.1.4.1. This document shows the current active task groups and
their milestones of ballots and completion.
3.4.1.5. WG Editor – was done on Wednesday 3.4.1.6. ANA Lead – No
Update
3.4.2. Standing Committee Reports 3.4.2.1. Publicity – Nancy Vogtli
3.4.2.2. Document 05/0027 3.4.2.3. Had a session on Tuesday jointly
with 802.15. Discussed press releases, and the
TGu and TGv announcements. 3.4.2.4. Discussed logistics for keeping
the website updated. Chairs will provide updates
by the Wednesday following meetings 3.4.2.5. There are no new press
releases. 3.4.2.6. 802.15 will generate a calendar of events for
the industry. 3.4.2.7. WNG – TK Tan 3.4.2.8. Document 05/1636r1
3.4.2.9. Updates on European DVB and 802.21 3.4.2.10. Presentations
on management frame subtypes and network
characteristics for AP selection 3.4.2.11. Call for presentations
for next generation requirements is open. 3.4.2.12. Stuart notes
that since we don’t have a joint wireless plenary in Plenary
meetings, WNG will have an additional slot. 3.4.2.13. Stuart has
made an arrangement with 802.21 and 802.22 to access their
private documents. 3.4.3. Task Group Reports
3.4.3.1. TGe – John Fakatselis 3.4.3.1.1. Report in document
05/1598 3.4.3.1.2. We have 95% acceptance on the latest
recirculation 3.4.3.1.3. We expect to reverse one or two no votes
in the next recirculation. 3.4.3.1.4. We will have motion for an
additional recirculation 3.4.3.1.5. There will be an ad-hoc the
week of 2/25 in Florham Park, NJ to resolve
any comments from the next recirculation 3.4.3.2. TGk – Richard
Paine
3.4.3.2.1. Document 05/0086 3.4.3.2.2. Have resolved all comments
on previous draft. 3.4.3.2.3. There will be motion to conduct a
letter ballot on the new draft. 3.4.3.2.4. Have resolved about 400
comments. 3.4.3.2.5. Will continue weekly teleconferences
3.4.3.2.6. Next meeting will be LB comment resolution 3.4.3.2.7.
Discussion
3.4.3.2.7.1. Don’t all the comments have to be resolved before a
new LB? There were some miscellaneous comments that are not
resolved, but we need a new ballot. It is not a recirc. The first
ballot didn’t get 75%.
3.4.3.3. TGm – Bob O’Hara 3.4.3.3.1. Document 05/1647, report and
minutes 3.4.3.3.2. Goals were to address interpretation request,
and have joint meeting
with APF Ad Hoc. And continue develop updates to the 802.11
revision. 3.4.3.3.3. There was a motion to adopt the response to
the interpretation request.
There will be a motion to adopt this response. 3.4.3.3.4. Adopted
resolutions to 24 work items from tracking spreadsheet. Added
one new item. Now 93% complete. 3.4.3.3.5. New tracking spreadsheet
05/0022r0. 3.4.3.3.6. A new 802.11-ma draft will be produced
(version 0.6)
Minutes page 13 Tim Godfrey, Conexant
January, 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0034r0
3.4.3.3.7. At next session, 11ma will integrate content from APF Ad
Hoc, work on draft, and issue for Letter Ballot.
3.4.3.3.8. Discussion 3.4.3.3.8.1. There was an issue in TGn
regarding reserved bits. There was
no formal action to forward it to TGm. How is that done? Bob states
that the interpretation request it the proper procedure, done by
email or on the 802.11 web site. If there is a particular item for
the revision draft, it can be brought directly to the chair.
3.4.3.4. TGn – Bruce Kraemer 3.4.3.4.1. Document 05/0082 3.4.3.4.2.
Completed activities that were planned for the week. There are now
two
remaining proposals after the mergers and down-selection vote.
3.4.3.4.3. There were technical and comparison presentations.
3.4.3.4.4. Ballot results from downselect:
3.4.3.4.5.
Consider # Consider %
Proposal MITMOT
Proposal TGnSync
Proposal WWiSE
23 9.62
132 55.23
84 35.15
3.4.3.4.6. Thanks to the MitMot and Qualcomm teams that and their
contributions 3.4.3.4.7. In March the goal is to have one more
down-select vote after
presentations and Q&A. We will attempt a confirmation vote if
time allows. 3.4.3.5. TGp – Lee Armstrong
3.4.3.5.1. Document 05/0090 3.4.3.5.2. Responded to random MAC
address – resolved as a non-issued, since
the addresses are locally administered. 3.4.3.5.3. MAC enhancements
were considered, and adopted a cancel transmit
primitive. 3.4.3.5.4. A draft was reviewed and discussed. There
will be additional changes,
and action items are assigned to provide updates to the editor.
There will be a new draft version prior to the March meeting.
3.4.3.5.5. Discussion 3.4.3.5.5.1. What is the document number for
the draft? It is in the members
area. 3.4.3.6. TGr – Clint Chaplin
3.4.3.6.1. Document 05/1620 3.4.3.6.2. There were 8 proposals at
the start of this week. There was a rejection
vote yesterday. 3.4.3.6.3. Ballot results:
• Written Ballot: The TG will eliminate this proposal from further
consideration. Ballot Ballot Ballot Ballot
• Presentation Yes No Abstain Yes % • TAP (Transition Acceleration
Protocol) 21 87 12 19.44% • AP Scanning 79 24 15 76.70% • Multiple
Concurrent Associations 77 26 15 74.76% • Seamless BSS Transition
Protocol 62 36 19 63.27% • Proposal for Fast Inter-BBS Transitions
75 26 16 74.26% • Fast BSS-Transition Tunnel 77 26 16 74.76% • PEKM
59 47 12 55.66% • Just-In-Time 2 Phase Association 13 102 4
11.30%
3.4.3.6.4. The proposals TAP and Just In Time made it through the
process.
Minutes page 14 Tim Godfrey, Conexant
January, 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0034r0
3.4.3.6.5. There are two proposals moving forward to March.
3.4.3.6.6. Minutes in document 05/1620
3.4.3.7. TGs – Donald Eastlake 3.4.3.7.1. Document 05/62r1
3.4.3.7.2. The call for proposals has been issued 04/1430r12
3.4.3.7.3. Proposals to be presented in July 2005
3.4.3.8. TGt – Charles Wright 3.4.3.8.1. Document 05/1639r3
3.4.3.8.2. Still looking for permanent secretary 3.4.3.8.3. Did not
accept requirements or proposals for document structure. The
group is not ready to tie these down quite yet. 3.4.3.8.4. Had
presentation on terminology and definitions. 3.4.3.8.5. There will
be teleconferences.
3.4.3.9. TGu – Stephen McCann 3.4.3.9.1. Document 05/0085r0
3.4.3.9.2. Elected Secretary, had presentations, joint meeting with
802.21 3.4.3.9.3. Decided to have two teleconferences before the
March meeting 3.4.3.9.4. Determined which 802.21 requirements will
impact 802.11u. 3.4.3.9.5. In March will continue drafting
requirements, scenarios, and response to
IAB. 3.4.3.9.6. Discussion
3.4.3.9.6.1. The body should acknowledge the secretary. Who was it?
Tom Shank from Panasonic
3.4.3.10. TGv – Harry Worstell 3.4.3.10.1. Report in document
05/0088 3.4.3.10.2. Objectives were to determine what TGv wanted to
do, and start on
requirements document. 3.4.3.10.3. Had 3 presentations. 3.4.3.10.4.
Concluded that addressing security issues are premature. We will
list
issues as the TGv draft comes together. Then the PAR will be
changed to only deal with those specific issues.
3.4.3.10.5. There was one candidate for chair – Pat Calhoun. The TG
recommends to the WG to affirm Pat Calhoun.
3.4.3.10.6. For March meeting, will conduct more presentations on
scenarios and direction of group. Start requirements
document.
3.4.3.10.7. Harry thanks everyone for the support as acting chair
in getting this TG started.
3.4.3.10.8. Affirmation of chair. Stuart J. Kerry appoints Pat
Calhoun as the TGv Chair. The membership approves by
acclamation.
3.4.4. Report from 802.18 – Denis Kuahara 3.4.4.1.1. Document
11-05-63r1 3.4.4.1.2. Ofcom presentations on spectrum cap at 7% and
changes for UWB.
Ofcom consultations will be finalized in March. 3.4.4.1.3.
Discussion 3.4.4.1.4. What is the limitation that Ofcom is
suggesting? They want to cap the
unlicensed spectrum to about 7%. 3.4.4.1.5. What is the 7% a
percentage of? The document will contain the
information. It is on the 802.18 server. 3.4.4.1.6. Denis will
forward the details to the 802.11 reflector
3.5. Old Business (Special Orders) 3.5.1. WG Generic Motions
3.5.1.1. Move to empower TG teleconferences 3.5.1.1.1. Moved Harry
Worstell 3.5.1.1.2. Second Guido Hiertz
Minutes page 15 Tim Godfrey, Conexant
January, 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0034r0
3.5.1.2. Vote: Approved by Unanimous consent 3.5.2. TGe
Motions
3.5.2.1. Believing that sponsor ballot comment responses in
11-05-1580R5 and the document mentioned below satisfy IEEE-SA rules
for sponsor ballot recirculation, Authorize a SB recirculation of
802.11e draft 13.0 to conclude no later than 02/15/2005. 3.5.2.1.1.
Moved John Fakatselis on behalf of TGe 3.5.2.1.2. Discussion
3.5.2.1.2.1. None 3.5.2.1.3. Vote: Approved by Unanimous
consent
3.5.2.2. TGe announces an ad-hoc meeting to be held 2/25 in Florham
Park, NJ. 3.5.3. TGk Motions
3.5.3.1. Move to authorize a 40-day Letter Ballot of 802.11 TGk
draft 2.0 to conclude no later than 3/15/05. 3.5.3.1.1. Moved by
Richard Paine on behalf of the Task Group. 3.5.3.1.2. Task group
vote was 16/0/1 3.5.3.1.3. Vote: Motion approved with Unanimous
consent
3.5.3.2. This will be LB73 3.5.4. TGm Motions
3.5.4.1. Moved: to adopt document 11-05/1648r0 as the response to
the interpretation request and forward it to the 802.11 working
group for approval (The standard is unambiguous in this case. A PHY
implementing clause 19 shall set bit B2 in the Service field, as
required by 19.3.2.1 in all transmissions. A PHY implementing
clause 15 that is dependent upon a particular value in a reserved
field for its correct operation is not compliant with the standard.
All implementations must ignore values of reserved fields upon
reception. The editor of the standard will be instructed to remove
the sentence “The value of X'00' signifies IEEE 802.11(r) device
compliance.” from clause 15.2.3.4). 3.5.4.1.1. Moved Bob O’Hara on
behalf of TGm
3.5.4.1.1.1. The task group approved this Unanimously 3.5.4.1.2.
Vote: Motion approved with Unanimous consent
3.5.5. ADS Study Group Report – Jesse Walker 3.5.5.1. Report in
document 05/0083 3.5.5.2. Completed PAR and 5C this week. 3.5.5.3.
PAR: IEEE 11-04-1214r5 5 Criteria: IEEE 11-05-1649r0 3.5.5.4. The
group passed a motion to change the name of the SG to
“Protected
Management Frames” to match the name in the PAR. 3.5.5.5. For
Atlanta, plan to renew SG, work on requirements, proposals, and
down-
select procedure. Start hearing proposals. 3.5.5.6. Discussion
3.5.5.7. Will the name be the PMF study group in Atlanta? The WG
chair recommends
the SG keep its own name. But the work of the Task Group will be on
Protected Management Frames. The SG chair agrees.
3.5.6. ADS Motions 3.5.6.1. Move to approve the PAR document IEEE
802.11-04/1245r5, and 5 Criteria
document IEEE 802.11-05/1649r0, for the ADS Study Group, and
forward to ExCom for Approval 3.5.6.1.1. Moved Jesse Walker on
behalf of ADS SG
3.5.6.1.1.1. SG vote was 23-0-4. 3.5.6.1.1.2. The documents have
been on the server for 4 hours.
3.5.6.1.2. Second Clint Chaplin 3.5.6.1.3. Vote: Motion passes 106
: 0 : 2
3.5.7. APF Ad Hoc Report – Dorothy Stanley
Minutes page 16 Tim Godfrey, Conexant
January, 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0034r0
3.5.7.1. Report in document 05/0078 3.5.7.2. Decided to submit APF
text as a submission to TGm. 3.5.7.3. Discussed what parts to put
in TGm and what documents will be references. 3.5.7.4. Will present
about 10 pages to TGm in March. 3.5.7.5. Will have 3
teleconferences. 3.5.7.6. The group will end after the March
meeting.
3.5.8. JTC1/SC6 Ad Hoc report and motion – Jesse Walker 3.5.8.1.
Report in document 05/0084r0 3.5.8.2. Letter in document 05/0043r0.
3.5.8.3. Motion: Move to approve the letter in document IEEE
802.11-05/0043r0, to
forward to JTC1/SC6 and China’s JTC1/SC6 Delegation 3.5.8.3.1.
Moved Jesse Walker 3.5.8.3.2. Second Harry Worstell 3.5.8.3.3.
Vote: motion passes 79 : 0 : 2
3.6. New Business 3.6.1. TGn
3.6.1.1. Bruce Kraemer announces that TGn has elected Sheung Li as
Vice chair. The body recognizes him and thanks him for his effort.
The WG chair recognizes and accepts Sheung.
3.6.1.2. TGn announces that nominations for Technical Editor are
open. 3.6.2. TGr
3.6.2.1. Clint Chaplin announces that there were many good ideas
presented to TGr. The body acknowledges all the good work that was
done.
3.7. Other Business 3.7.1. Discussion from the floor
3.7.1.1. Procedural Question. The attendance server does not allow
anyone to sign in for the second half of this meeting. Will the
total number of sessions be adjusted? Stuart states that in future
sessions signing in for the first will add the second.
3.7.1.2. The procedure for getting on the reflector is not publicly
visible. Since members must ask to join, there is confusion on how
to join. Stuart announces that the web site has a link for
“reflector request” in the templates area. Will try to make it more
obvious. How about an announcement to the general reflector? Harry
will make an announcement to the general reflector. URL for the
information:
3.7.1.3. Where are drafts that are available during the session?
They are not on the local FTP server. Harry says that he didn’t
have a chance. In the future, he will open up that area.
3.7.1.4. Straw Poll – Who would like to come back to this property
in Monterey? The majority would like to come back.
3.7.1.5. Harry Worstell announces he has now added the category of
“potential voters” for those who have met the attendance
requirements. If you have sent the email you are potential. If you
haven’t sent the request email, you are “nearly voter”. Don’t
forget to send the request email to become a voter and to be added
to the reflectors.
3.8. Next Meeting 3.8.1. March 13-18, 2005 in Atlanta 3.8.2.
Document for March agenda 04/1576
3.9. Adjourn 3.9.1. The meeting is adjourned at 9:48am
Minutes page 17 Tim Godfrey, Conexant
January, 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0034r0
References:
Minutes page 18 Tim Godfrey, Conexant
Abdelilah Youssef Aboba Bernard Aboul-Magd Osama Abraham Santosh
Adachi Tomoko Agre Jonathan Ahmadi Sassan Ahn Joo Hyun Aldana
Carlos Alexander Thomas Andresen Steinar Andrews Scott Andrus David
Anholt Micha Aoki Mikio Ariyavisitakul Sirikiat Lek Arkko Jari
Armstrong Lee Arnett Larry Asai Yusuke Asami Shigeyuki Aso Keigo
Astrin Arthur Audeh Malik Backes Floyd Bae Jinseok Bagby David Bahr
Michael Baker Dennis Bangolae Sangeetha Barber Simon Bari Farooq
Barnwell Richard Basson Gal Batra Anuj Baysal Burak Belfiore Carlos
Bendersky Daniel Benveniste Mathilde Berry Don Bhandaru Nehru
Bjerke Bjorn Black Simon Blaney Timothy
Bresee Tom Brown Les Buttar Alistair Calhoun Pat Cam-Winget Nancy
Canpolat Necati Carson Pat Carson Peter Cash Broady Chakraborty
Sourav Chaplin Clint Chen Chien-Hung Chen Jeng-Hong Chen Michael
Chen Wei-Peng Chen Yi-Ming Cheng Alexander Cheng Hong Chin Kevin
Chindapol Aik Choi Young Gon Chong Chia-Chin Chu Liwen Chu Wei-Lee
Ciotti Frank Coffey John Cook Charles Cooklev Todor Crowley Steven
Daly Brian Davari Shahram de Courville Marc de Vegt Rolf Demel
Sabine Deng Juinn-Horng deVries Jeremy Dickey Susan Dielacher Franz
Doi Yoshiharu Dorsey John Douglas Brett DuMas Phillip Durand Roger
Dure Sebastien
Duryee Guy Eastlake Donald Ecclesine Peter Eckard Richard Edney
Jonathan Egan John Elbakoury Hesham Emeott Stephen Emmelmann Marc
Engwer Darwin Epstein Joe Epstein Leonid Erceg Vinko Eroz Mustafa
Faccin Stefano Falk Lars Faulkner Mike Fechtel Stefan Fedyk Donald
Feinberg Paul Feldman Alex Fettweis Gerhard Fischer Matthew Fisher
Wayne Foegelle Michael Ford Brian Frei Randy Fremont Benoit
Gallizio Edoardo Gardner James Ghazi Vafa Gifford Ian Godfrey Tim
Goettemoeller Mike Golden Stuart Gong Michelle Gonia Patrick Goren
Yuval Grandhi Sudheer Gravenstein Martin Gray Gordon Green Larry
Groeting Wolfgang Gu Daqing
Gunduzhan Emre Guo Jianlin Gyugyi Paul Ha Kilsik Haensgen Gregg
Hahn Dongwoon Hall Robert Hansen Christopher Hares Susan Haslestad
Thomas Hassan Amer Hasty William Hattig Myron Hauser James Hayakawa
Yutaka Hayase Shigenori Hedberg David Heinze Eric Henderson Gregory
Hepworth Eleanor Heubaum Karl Hiertz Guido Hillman Garth Hinsz
Christopher Hirano Jun Hoghooghi Michael Holt Keith Honary Hooman
Hosur Srinath Housley Russell Howley Frank Hsu Terng-Yin Hu Wendong
Hunter David Hwang Hyo Sun Inoue Yasuhiko Ishida Kazuhito Ishii
Yoshiyuki Ito Takumi Iyer Lakshmi Jacobsen Eric Jain Raj Jang
KyungHun Jelle Thomas
Jeon Ho-In Jeon Taehyun Jetcheva Jorjeta Ji Lusheng Johnson Todd
Jokela Jari Jones Ben Jones VK Joon Si Jung Jose Bobby Kado Youiti
Kain Carl Kakani Naveen Kandala Srinivas Kangude Shantanu Karnik
Pankaj Kasher Assaf Kato Masato Kent Jeremy Ketchum John Kezys
Vytas Khieu Andrew Kim Byoung-Jo Kim Dongho Kim Jaeyoel Kim
JinKyeong Kim Joonsuk Kim Kyeongsoo Kim Minsoo Kim Tae-eun Kim
Youngsoo Kimhi Ziv Kishimoto Shigeo Kneckt Jarkko Kobayashi Mark
Koh Benjamin Kolze Thomas Krishnan Gopal Kruys Jan Kuehnel Thomas
Kumar Rajneesh Kuo Chun-Chun Kurihara Tom Kvarnstrom Bo
Kwak Joseph Kwon Edwin Landt Jeremy Lauer Joseph Lawson Scott Leach
David Lee Dongjun Lee Insun Lee Jihoon Lee Jungwon Lee Sung-Won
Lefkowitz Martin Lemberger Uriel Levy Joseph Li Feng Li Guoqing Li
Pen Li Sheung Li Wei Li Wenzhen Lin Huashih Liu Changming Liu
Der-Zheng Liu I-Ru Liu Jun Liu Yong Livshitz Michael Lo Dennis Loc
Peter Lojko Peter Lou Hui-Ling Lyons Daniel Ma Zhaofeng Malek Majid
Malinen Jouni Mani Mahalingam Marshall William Maruyama Naotaka
Matache Adina Matsuo Ryoko Matta Sudheer Mattela Venkat Maufer
Thomas Mayer Bob
McCann Stephen McFarland William McNamara Darren Mcnew Justin
Medvedev Irina Mehta Pratik Merrill Mark Metzler Benjamin Meylan
Arnaud Middleton Andrae Miller Robert Min Seungwook Mittelsteadt
Cimarron Miyanaga Yoshikazu Mlinarsky Fanny Molisch Andreas
Montemurro Michael Moreton Mike Morioka Hitoshi Morioka Yuichi
Morley Steven Muck Markus Mujtaba Syed Myles Andrew Nabar Rohit
Nakamura Tetsuya Nakao Seigo Nanda Sanjiv Narasimhan Partha Ngo
Chiu Nitsche Gunnar Niu Huaning Noens Richard Nozaki Masanori Oakes
Ivan Ogawa Masakatsu O'Hara Bob Ojard Eric Olson Timothy O'Nan Jon
Orihashi Masayuki Ovadia Shlomo Oyama Satoshi Paine Richard
Paljug Michael Palm Stephen Panish Paul Parameswaran Subra Pare
Thomas Park Jong-ae Parsa Kourosh Peleg Yaron Perahia Eldad Perez
Costa Xavier Petranovich Jim Pirzada Fahd Pitarresi Joe Ponnuswamy
Subbu Poojary Neeraj Portaro James Ptasinski Henry Pundari Mohan Qi
Emily Qian Lu Raab Jim Rabaeijs Alain Rahman Shah Raissinia Ali
Ramzan Zulfikar Rangwala Noman Rawlins Rudy Rayment Stephen Repice
Joseph Reuss Edward Robar Terry Roine Per Torstein Rosca Justinian
Rosdahl Jon Roy Richard Rude Michael Rudolf Marian Saed Aryan Saito
Kenji Sakakura Takashi Sakoda Kazuyuki Sampath Hemanth Sandhu
Sumeet Sarca Octavian
Sargologos Nicholas Sasaoka Naoto Sastry Ambatipudi Satapati Suresh
Sato Kazuma Saxena Monica Sayrafian Kamran Scarpa Vincenzo Schlaak
Damon Schultz Donald Shao Huai-Rong Sharma Neeraj Sharma Suman Shen
BZ (Ba-Zhong) Sherlock Ian Sherman Matthew Shimada Shusaku Shono
Takashi Shyy D. J. Siep Thomas Simons John Simpson Floyd Singh
Balraj Skidmore Roger Smith Matt Sood Kapil Soomro Amjad Soranno
Robert Stacey Robert Stafford Robert Stanley Dorothy Stefani Larry
Stephens Adrian Stephenson David Stevens Fabrice Stibor Lothar
Stolpman Victor Strutt Guenael Sun Winston Surineni Shravan Suzuki
Hideyuki Takagi Eiji Takagi Masahiro Takahashi Seiichiro
Takeda Daisuke TAMAKI Tsuyoshi Tan Siew Yoon Tanahashi Mike Tanaka
Hideki Tanaka Yasuhiro Tang Kevin Tao Jeffrey Taori Rakesh Tavares
Clifford Taylor Henry Thornycroft Peter Thrasher Jerry Tokubo Eric
Tolpin Alexander Tomici John Towell Tim Trachewsky Jason Trainin
Solomon Tsien Chih Ueda Kenji Van Erven Niels van Waes Nico Varas
Fabian Vaysburg Dimitry Venkatesan Ganesh Victor Dalton Vlantis
George Vleugels Katelijn Vogtli Nanci Wakeley Timothy Walker Jesse
Ward Dennis Ware Christopher Watanabe Fujio Wells Bryan Wentink
Menzo Weytjens Filip Whetten Dennis Whitesell Stephen Wilson James
Wilson Richard Winters Jack Wong Marcus
Wong Timothy woodyatt james Wright Charles Wu Yan Xhafa Ariton Yagi
Akiyoshi Yamada Katsuhiko Yamamoto Takeshi Yamaura Tomoya Yang Eric
Yang Jen-Shun Yang Jiun Yang Liuyang Yang Sook Hyun Yao Zhonghui
Yeh Wen-Chang Yong Su-Khiong Young Christopher Yurtkuran Erol Zaks
Artur Zegelin Chris Zhang Bing Zhang Jinyun Zhang Ning Zhou Wenhui
Zhu Jeffrey Zillmann Peter Zuniga Juan Carlos Zweig Johnny
January 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0019
IEEE P802.11 Wireless LANs
Monterey, CA January, 2005
Date: 2005-01-17
Author(s): Name Company Address Phone email R. R. Miller AT&T
180 Park Ave, Florham Park NJ 973-236-6920
[email protected]
Abstract This document records minutes of the 802.11e Task Group
meeting of January, 2005 at Monterey, California.
Submission page 1 R. R. Miller, AT&T
Notice: This document has been prepared to assist IEEE 802.11. It
is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the
contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this
document is subject to change in form and content after further
study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right to add, amend or
withdraw material contained herein. Release: The contributor grants
a free, irrevocable license to the IEEE to incorporate material
contained in this contribution, and any modifications thereof, in
the creation of an IEEE Standards publication; to copyright in the
IEEE’s name any IEEE Standards publication even though it may
include portions of this contribution; and at the IEEE’s sole
discretion to permit others to reproduce in whole or in part the
resulting IEEE Standards publication. The contributor also
acknowledges and accepts that this contribution may be made public
by IEEE 802.11. Patent Policy and Procedures: The contributor is
familiar with the IEEE 802 Patent Policy and Procedures <http://
ieee802.org/guides/bylaws/sb-bylaws.pdf>, including the
statement "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." Early disclosure to the Working Group of patent
information that might be relevant to the standard is essential to
reduce the possibility for delays in the development process and
increase the likelihood that the draft publication will be approved
for publication. Please notify the Chair
<
[email protected]> as early as possible, in written
or electronic form, if patented technology (or technology under
patent application) might be incorporated into a draft standard
being developed within the IEEE 802.11 Working Group. If you have
questions, contact the IEEE Patent Committee Administrator at
<
[email protected]>.
1. Monday Morning Session, January 17, 2005
1.2. Opening
1.2.1. Call to order 1.2.1.1. JohnF (John Fakatselis): I call the
meeting to order. 1.2.1.2. Meeting convened at 10:37 am.
1.3. Process
1.3.1. Review of Agenda 1.3.1.1. JohnF: This meeting we have
scheduled sessions Monday 10:30 am to 9:30
pm. We shall begin with approving the agenda, reviewing minutes,
conducting technical discussions and comment resolutions, leading
to the next draft. Then, Tuesday we shall continue with two slots,
and Wednesday is our final day. Basically we shall meet all day
until 6:00 pm. That’s the proposed agenda.
1.3.1.2. Srini: Can we make the last two items non-fixed? 1.3.1.3.
JohnF: Let’s make them non-fixed. I need to have someone change
this on
the official web site rows 45-49. On Wednesday, I shall announce
that this is non-fixed. Are there any comments on the agenda?
1.3.2. Approval of the agenda 1.3.2.1. JohnF: Is there any
objection to adopting the agenda as shown? None.
Hearing none, the agenda is approved. We shall now follow the
agenda.
1.3.3. Review Objectives for the Session 1.3.3.1. JohnF: Let me
review the objectives of the session. We shall work on the
recirculation ballot comments to see if it makes sense to go to a
new recirculation. Srini, would you give us the status of last
recirculation?
1.3.3.2. Srini: We still have 5 “no” voters, with 35 comments 15 of
which are technical. Eight are new technical comments. The comments
are shown in 1580r0.
1.3.3.3. JohnF: Did anyone talk to you about any previous comments?
1.3.3.4. Srini: No. 1.3.3.5. JohnF: Stuart said that someone would
talk to you about some previous
comments. We have 95% approval, only 5 no voters. Can you name
them? 1.3.3.6. Srini: Stuart, O’Hara, Del Prado, Soomro, Palm.
1.3.3.7. JohnF: Are there any questions regarding last
recirculation? None.
1.3.4. Rules and Status Review for New Members 1.3.4.1. JohnF: For
the next item I’d like to review policies and rules. Do we have
any
new people attending for the first time? Several. The process we
use is Robert’s Rules of Order for discipline. Only voting members
can vote, however my policy is that non-voters can participate in
debates. You can be recognized if you could like to comment. If you
have a motion, approach a voting member to bring a motion on your
behalf. If you would like to know procedure, interrupt me and I
shall help. Srini, can you review the last actions of the
group?
Submission page 2 R. R. Miller, AT&T
January 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0019
1.3.4.2. Srini: The last meeting summary is that we went to
recirculation. We closed on Dec 23, with same number of no voters.
More than 20 comments were logged, many editorial.
1.3.4.3. JohnF: Are there questions?
1.3.5. Approval of Minutes from Last Session 1.3.5.1. JohnF: The
next item is approval of the minutes. Are there any questions
on
the minutes submitted from the last meeting in San Antonio? Is
there any objection to accepting the minutes? No. Hearing none, the
minutes are approved.
1.3.6. Call for Papers 1.3.6.1. JohnF: The next item is a call for
papers. Then we shall discuss how to
handle comment resolutions. Are there any papers which address
resolutions? Hearing none, are there any other papers relevant to
TGe activities. Hearing none, I would like to begin the resolution
process.
1.3.7. Discussion of Comment Resolution Process 1.3.7.1. JohnF:
Let’s talk about handling comments. What I would like to see is
to
have a few people work on the comments, craft resolutions in an
ad-hoc meeting, and then present them in a reconvened in a formal
meeting to approve the ad-hoc output. The number of comments is so
small, we may be able to proceed with one motion. I would like to
operate ad-hoc so that everyone can participate at the same level,
and because voting requirements can be a little more lax allowing
it to be faster by being informal. However, we shall have a formal
approval process. Is there any objection to the plan? Are there any
suggestions for an alternate process? None. Hearing none, we shall
proceed. We shall assign Srini as ad-hoc group leader. He may
decide to divide the comments, or not. Is that OK, Srini?
1.3.7.2. Srini: Yes 1.3.7.3. JohnF: I am going to recess the formal
meeting for the ad-hoc group, so that
Srini can begin. I am going to resolve the comment received at the
CAC meeting yesterday. One or more individuals thought that we did
not give enough attention to comments received in the past.
1.4. Closing
1.4.1. Recess 1.4.1.1. JohnF: That said, is there any objection to
recess for the ad-hoc group by
anyone? None. Hearing no objection, we shall recess until 1:30 pm
when we will reconvene formally. OK? No objections noted. Therefore
we are recessed.
1.4.1.2. Recess at 10:55 am.
2. Monday Afternoon Session, January 17, 2005
2.2. Opening
2.2.1. Call to order 2.2.1.1. JohnF (John Fakatselis): I call the
meeting to order. 2.2.1.2. Meeting convened at 1:30 pm.
Submission page 3 R. R. Miller, AT&T
January 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0019
2.3. Process
2.3.1. Comment Resolution 2.3.1.1. JohnF: Srini, what is the
current status? 2.3.1.2. Srini: The ad-hoc has resolved 27
comments, with 8 remaining. 2.3.1.3. JohnF: Let us recess for the
remaining comments. I will try to locate
Bob O’Hara to help with resolution of his comments.
2.4. Closing
2.4.1. Recess 2.4.1.1. JohnF: Is there any objection to recess for
the ad-hoc group? None.
Hearing none, we are recessed until 2:00 pm. 2.4.1.2. Recess at
1:32 pm
2.5. Opening
2.5.1. Call to order 2.5.1.1. JohnF (John Fakatselis): I call the
meeting to order. 2.5.1.2. Meeting convened at 2:11 pm.
2.6. Process
2.6.1. Comment Resolution 2.6.1.1. JohnF: We shall put the ad-hoc’s
comment resolutions on the server
so that they can be acted upon as a block vote. The remaining ones
will be shown in 1580r1. Mathilde, when would you like to discuss
your comment?
2.6.1.2. Mathilde: Later. 2.6.1.3. JohnF: OK we’ll wait. 2.6.1.4.
Srini: Let us discuss the Surplus Bandwidth Allowance,
Soomro/2.
The suggested text proposed by JohnK/Srini is “Comment declined.
The surplus bandwidth allowance was added to the list of mandatory
parameters precisely to ensure that there is a guarantee of medium
access as conveyed by TSPEC to account for the fact that the
channel is wireless, and so under at least some normal conditions,
stream throughput and latency requirements are met even though the
channel is error-prone. Furthermore, the SBA specifies medium
access requirements, not stream requirements per se. The fact that
the SBA is unique in wireless protocols merely speaks to the fact
that 802.11e has considered aspects of wireless protocols that
other standards have not”.
2.6.1.5. JohnF: Is there any discussion on the motion to accept?
2.6.1.6. Discussion. Concerns [BobM] regarding the mapping between
stream
content and the SBA, in light of growth of media types and
inference requirements to generate SBA.
2.6.1.7. JohnF: Call the question 2.6.1.8. JohnF: We shall vote,
voters only please. All in favor of accepting the
resolution. The vote is 9-3-1, the vote passes and the comment is
accepted.
Submission page 4 R. R. Miller, AT&T
January 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0019
2.7. Closing
2.7.1. Recess 2.7.1.1. JohnF: Since the other comments require
individuals not in the room, I
propose a short recess. Is there any objection to recess until
2:30? Seeing none we are recessed.
2.7.1.2. Recess at 2:20 pm.
2.8. Opening
2.8.1. Call to order 2.8.1.1. JohnF (John Fakatselis): As it is
2:30, I call the meeting to order. 2.8.1.2. Meeting convened at
2:30 pm.
2.9. Process
2.9.1. Comment Resolution 2.9.1.1. JohnF: It was brought to my
attention that the previous vote may have
led some to be confused. Is there anyone who wishes to repeat the
vote due to confusion regarding the previous vote? The confusion
resulted from chair saying “9 for, 3 against”, interpreted by some
as 9- 4-3 vote. Does anyone want to have another vote? No. Shall we
accept the previous vote as 9-3-1, not 9-4-3? No objections. Very
well, the vote stands. What is the next comment?
2.9.1.2. Srini: O’Hara/1 2.9.1.3. Discussion regarding validity of
comments. Comments appear to
address the commenter’s previously proposed solution. 2.9.1.4.
JohnF: We have no procedural encumbrance which directs us to
reject or accept. Let’s forget about technicalities, and look at
the essence of the comment. The commenter will keep protesting
until we address the comment.
2.9.1.5. JohnK: It should be necessary to take into account
probability for “no” votes if we consider all comments, and we
should be attempting to complete our work with dispatch.
2.9.1.6. TomS: We should be addressing the technical value of
O’Hara’s comment.
2.9.1.7. JohnF: So let’s forget about the procedural process and
address the technical merit of the comments.
2.9.1.8. Srini: There are proposed resolutions to all of these
comments which were supplied last time.
2.9.1.9. JohnF: Let’s have a straw poll to see how many would like
to address the comments as technical rather than procedural. Straw
poll vote 3- 8-1.
2.9.1.10. Discussion 2.9.1.11. Point of order [unknown] – I heard a
comment disparaging members.
I believe I heard a reference to “terrorism” regarding these
comments. 2.9.1.12. JohnK: Apologies, no intent to insult anyone.
2.9.1.13. Srini: the technical responses previously developed by
the group are
shown in 1394r2. 2.9.1.14. JohnK: I shall file a protest. We are
giving treatment to a particular
commenter based on what we think he is going to do, rather
than
Submission page 5 R. R. Miller, AT&T
January 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0019
pursuing a speedy conclusion to the standard, which is required of
us as part of the standards process. It opens a Pandora’s
box.
2.9.1.15. JohnF: Let us proceed with other comments. Soomro/4
2.9.1.16. Srini: No one can understand the comment. 2.9.1.17. BobM:
We sent an e-mail, but no response received as yet. 2.9.1.18.
JohnF: Is there any objection to accommodate Mathilde’s request
to
postpone her comment discussion? 2.9.1.19. TomKuehnel: Yes. We are
using valuable resources. Members have
duties other than TGe. 2.9.1.20. JohnF: I will see if I can find
Mathilde and if she can proceed. May I
call a short recess? No objection.
2.10. Closing
2.10.1. Recess 2.10.1.1. JohnF: Is there any objection to 5 minute
recess? No. We are
recessed. 2.10.1.2. Recess at 3:04 pm
2.11. Opening
2.11.1. Call to order 2.11.1.1. JohnF (John Fakatselis): I call the
meeting to order. 2.11.1.2. Meeting convened at 3:09 pm.
2.12. Process
2.12.1. Comment Resolution 2.12.1.1. JohnF: Let us resume the
discussion of comment resolution of the
remaining comments. 2.12.1.2. TomS: It is important to remain
consistent, so that commenters are
treated equally in terms of reconsideration of comments. 2.12.1.3.
JohnF: I believe this has been the case. Let’s address TomK’s
request to have Mathilde proceed. 2.12.1.4. Mathilde: I have been
talking to several people about the issue of
multiple NAVs, and have simplified the approach. I want to give
people the opportunity to view a solution that could make HCCA as
good as EDCA in dense, voice-intensive applications. The solution
is simple and optional.
2.12.1.5. JohnF: The group is ready to consider the comment. You
could move to postpone or table. For postponing to a specified
time, it is open for debate. If you choose to table, it is
non-debatable, but it is not guaranteed as to time of action.
2.12.1.6. Point of Information, Srini: It appears that this comment
is on non- changed text. It is either a re-cycled comment or a
comment on non- changed text.
2.12.1.7. JohnF: I am trying to guide the commenter on a course of
action. 2.12.1.8. Mathilde: My purpose is to expose people to the
idea. Is it possible
to choose a time when people can get together to learn about the
concept?
2.12.1.9. JohnF: Tomorrow we have 1:30 pm.
Submission page 6 R. R. Miller, AT&T
January 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0019
2.12.1.10. Mathilde: I move to postpone the comment resolution for
Benveniste/1 until 1:30 pm on Tuesday Jan 18.
2.12.1.11. Point of information, TomK: Do you want to discuss
technical or legal issues?
2.12.1.12. Mathilde: Technical. 2.12.1.13. TomK: The discussion has
been whether the comment is out of
order, rather than the technical merit of the suggestion.
2.12.1.14. JohnF: Irrelevant to the discussion. Do I hear a second.
2.12.1.15. BobM Seconds 2.12.1.16. JohnF: Is there discussion?
2.12.1.17. JohnK: I have looked at 1074. It severely impacts the
existing text. I
speak against postponing. 2.12.1.18. Mathilde: We are in this
situation because the matter has been rushed
through. I want to alert people so that it is not rushed through.
2.12.1.19. Discussion 2.12.1.20. Srini: We have 4 more hours today.
We should use the time
productively. I would like to speak against this. I call the
question 2.12.1.21. JohnK seconds 2.12.1.22. JohnF: Is there any
objection to calling the question? None. The vote
to postpone requires a majority. The vote is 3-8-1. The motion to
postpone fails. Do I have a resolution for the comment?
2.12.1.23. TomKuehnel: I propose to reject the comment. 2.12.1.24.
Discussion 2.12.1.25. TomK: There is a valid issue regarding
overlapping BSSs. I do not
believe that this solves the general problem. I believe it also may
generate more “no” votes. I also believe that this gives credence
to the O’Hara reconsideration issue.
2.12.1.26. JohnK: The resolution can say that it involves
non-changed text, for example, “Comment rejected: The comment
addresses non- changed text. Furthermore, if this comment were to
be accepted, this would leave the condition of single-NAV operation
undefined.”
2.12.1.27. TomS: There is another basis for protest. A suggestion
has been made and acted upon. You have now considered this one,
leaving O’Hara’s open for reconsideration.
2.13. Closing
2.13.1. Recess 2.13.1.1. Orders of the day. 2.13.1.2. Recess at
3:30 pm
2.14. Opening
2.14.1. Call to order 2.14.1.1. JohnF (John Fakatselis): I call the
meeting to order. 2.14.1.2. Meeting called to order at 4:05
pm
Submission page 7 R. R. Miller, AT&T
January 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0019
2.15. Process
2.15.1. Comment Resolution 2.15.1.1. JohnF: We shall continue where
we left off. Is there someone else
who wants to take up resolutions? 2.15.1.2. JohnK: Would like to go
back to proposed resolution to Mathilde’s
comment. 2.15.1.3. Any suggestions or modifications? No. 2.15.1.4.
I submit the previously captured response. 2.15.1.5. Second Srini
2.15.1.6. Is there any objection to accepting this resolution?
None. The
comment resolution is accepted unanimously. 2.15.1.7. Mathilde:
Please request the secretary to note that I voted for the
motion. 2.15.1.8. JohnF: So we still have Bob O’Hara’s comments and
Amjad’s. 2.15.1.9. I have asked Paul Nikolich to join us, and he
says he can do so
about 5:00pm.
2.16. Closing
2.16.1. Recess 2.16.1.1. I would like to recess until Paul arrives,
then. Is there any
objection? None. Hearing none, we are recessed.
2.17. Opening
2.17.1. Call to order 2.17.1.1. JohnF (John Fakatselis): I call the
meeting to order. 2.17.1.2. Meeting reconvened at 4:40 pm.
2.17.1.3. JohnF: I would like to review for those assembled
(including Harry
Worstell, Bob Miller, Srini, John Kowalski and others). We have
been discussing comments and stand at 95% approval. One of the “no”
voters, O’Hara, said his comments weren’t properly considered. At
the last meeting the group exercised the right to reject comments
not associated with changes. The group looked at the comments, the
judgment was that no normative text changes would occur. There was
also an issue of consistency, as the same process was used with
other commenters. So the O’Hara comments were considered void.
O’Hara sent word that he was not happy with the response. I had a
discussion with the group. I believe that Bob O’Hara will protest,
but could not convince the group to look at Bob’s comments and give
a response different from the ones last time. The group felt that
it was necessary to be consistent so as not to allow anyone to open
an area that has been closed, thereby extending the process for
those who want to add last-minute changes. This would lengthen the
process. The group, therefore, feels that it does not advocate
reconsideration of Bob’s comments. [To Paul] I need your
advice.
2.17.1.4. Paul: Have you recirculated Bob’s comments? 2.17.1.5.
Srini: We recirculated once and now would recirculate again.
However this time there would be no technical responses. 2.17.1.6.
Paul: Are there other technical changes that produced edits to
the
draft?
January 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0019
2.17.1.7. Srini: Yes 2.17.1.8. Paul: You need to make sure that any
valid “no” vote is subjected to
consideration by the group. As long as no one changes their vote as
a result of Bob’s vote, then the process ends. It is not necessary
to reach 100% agreement.
2.17.1.9. JohnF: Bob’s point is that you didn’t really look at his
comments. The group feels that no response was appropriate because
they did not deal with changes which had been previously cleared by
the membership.
2.17.1.10. Paul: Did you add in the language that Bob will have an
opportunity to have those changes addressed as part of corrigendum
or maintenance requests? There is an opportunity for the areas he
is interested in to be changed.
2.17.1.11. JohnF: I pointed this out to the group, but the group
declined to add these comments. We could put it in this time,
although we didn’t include it for the last recirculation
draft.
2.17.1.12. JohnK: If we allow this once, it can be used again. It
would open a flood of similar behavior.
2.17.1.13. JohnF: Let’s look at the comments. 2.17.1.14. Srini:
O’Hara/1. The intention was that the format should be Big
Endian (explicitly defined), also length of the field was 255 and
he wanted 254. We accepted the comments in the ad-hoc group, in
some cases offering alternate resolutions.
2.17.1.15. Paul: On the length issue, you accepted it in principle?
2.17.1.16. Srini: Yes, but the task group voted not to accept it as
it did not refer
to changed text. Another was a comment on a MIB object. The MIB
object was previously approved and part of the standard, but he
suggested that some changes were necessary because the MIB was
incomplete. Again, although something might be beneficially added,
no one commented on it in several recirculations, implying that it
was closed. We actually copied the MIB from 802.11h, so in that in
a sense we are no worse than that amendment. Despite that, I made a
contribution that would have made the addition. However, the group
felt that adding it would not be appropriate at the time.
2.17.1.17. Paul: So has the group considered going beyond this and
saying we could address these in a maintenance PAR, since it is too
late in this process? The group could say that it intends to start
a maintenance PAR to address this issue. Would a new project have
to be started?
2.17.1.18. Srini: No, our understanding is that it would not be
necessary to open a PAR.
2.17.1.19. Paul: Remember a task group is not the same as the PAR.
You should ask Bob if that would be acceptable, since it follows
the technical and procedural needs.
2.17.1.20. JohnF: I did mention the maintenance group linkage, but
we can do it again. We can say that we recognize that some of the
comments are valid and that it would be appropriate to queue
changes into a maintenance PAR as quickly as possible.
2.17.1.21. Paul: It’s important to convince Bob that the group will
undertake immediate action to address the issue. You need to take
it to Bob. It appears you have followed the rules. He wants to make
sure that the quality of the document is high, but the process must
necessarily converge.
2.17.1.22. JohnF: Especially when it is 95%. During the
recirculations we did not have any other responses to Bob’s
suggestions, apparently honoring the concept that the commented
issue had already been
Submission page 9 R. R. Miller, AT&T
January 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0019
closed. We wanted you to hear the task group side, and request your
counsel. Thank you for your assistance. We feel your suggestions
have been valuable.
2.18. Closing
2.18.1. Recess 2.18.1.1. JohnF: Since we have finished this
business, is there any objection to
recess for the day? None. Hearing none we are recessed. See you
tomorrow at 10:30 am.
2.18.1.2. Recessed at 5:20 pm.
3. Tuesday Morning Session, January 18, 2005
3.2. Opening
3.2.1. Call to order 3.2.1.1. JohnF (John Fakatselis): I call the
meeting to order. 3.2.1.2. Meeting convened at 10:35 am.
3.3. Process
3.3.1. Comment Resolution
3.3.1.1. JohnF: I’d like to give a quick sync-up. We just completed
a recirculations with about 5 “no” voters. We are “steady state”,
not changing. We got a lot less comments, however. We’ve addressed
all of them in an ad-hoc fashion, and we have a document, 1580r2,
that captures them. I’d like you to review quietly this document to
attempt to approve them as the formal response of the task group. I
ask if anyone wants to pull out any of the resolutions. For those
comments you can offer an alternative or we can further discuss. We
had some discussion yesterday regarding Mr. O’Hara’s comments.
Those comments, when originally submitted, referred to text that
had not changed. We formed responses, but the comments were
eventually rejected on the grounds that they were out of order.
However, the group acknowledged that the comments treated issues
that were valid technically. Yesterday, the group remained fixed in
its decision to reject the comments on procedural grounds. I
invited Paul Nikolich to discuss the question and provide counsel.
He said that he understood why the comments were treated as they
were, but it would be appropriate to consider the comments due to
technical merit. So that is where we are. Today, Bob has agreed to
join us. I would like him to give his view, and we would like to
explore middle ground. Bob, would you like to comment?
3.3.1.2. O’Hara: The issues raised on recirculation 3 have an
impact on the quality of the document including interoperability
issues with other amendments that treat the action frame. It is not
clear that any implementation prior would be able to properly skip
the TCLASS element and parse properly. The more important issue is
that I take issue with the statement that the task group has been
consistent when treating comments which refer to non-changed text.
There are many examples in recirculations 1 and 2 where the
consistency was
Submission page 10 R. R. Miller, AT&T
January 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0019
not apparent. My point on the last recirculations is that the rules
must be followed consistently, and I talked to Mr. Nikolich
regarding this. He was concerned. I can point out perhaps 30
examples where consistency was not evident on the first
recirculations. Although “e” is clearly approaching completion, I
do not want it to rush to complete the document sacrificing
quality. If most of our companies were to issue a product and
immediately announce areas where the product was broken, it sends a
bad message to the market. I believe things should be fixed before
they are issued. I urge the task group to take a look at the
rejected comments to make sure that they’ve been consistent. RevCom
and ExCom will apply a microscope to the process issues. I know
that in the Sunday chair’s advisory council, Stuart was not
satisfied with “e” responses and felt that the comments should be
more thoroughly addressed. We need to ensure that when the standard
goes to RevCom it is not the first one to be returned to the task
group.
3.3.1.3. JohnF: Srini, do you have any comments? 3.3.1.4. Srini: On
the first recirculations, we may not have applied the process
entirely consistently, but in the later recirculations we have. I
think we have been sensitive to the issues, but perhaps we could
have done more. I have gone back and looked at the comments, and
perhaps we should take Bob’s advice and make appropriate
modifications. It seems we should assure balloters that we are
trying to follow the procedure and provide a quality product.
3.3.1.5. JohnF: We may choose to make exceptions that would enable
reconsideration. Do you have an accurate count of comments rejected
on the basis that text has not changed?
3.3.1.6. Srini: 13, by my count. 3.3.1.7. O’Hara: On the last,
there were 3 balloters with 8 or 9 comments. 3.3.1.8. JohnF: With
that, I think I should not rule them out of order. We
should take all of the comments in that class and reconsider them.
That is one possibility. I shall not rule without the input of the
group, however.
3.3.1.9. JohnK: There have been no data come to light to say that
anything shown in the comments would affect interoperability. The
fact is that we do have an obligation to see the standard published
ASAP. I am skeptical that if we keep reconsidering we will hazard
completion in a timely way. It is our prerogative whether or not to
address them. I feel that threats of RevCom action are not
appropriate.
3.3.1.10. Mathilde: I believe that if we are going to do a
standard, we should do it right. Would Having a new sponsor ballot
now confuse or improve the situation?
3.3.1.11. JohnF: I think that would not be appropriate. Let’s
either reexamine the comments or decide not to. I’d like to hear
some more discussion about risks of these decisions.
3.3.1.12. Adrian: I respect Bob’s directions and believe we have to
come to market with interoperable products. But I am also sensitive
to completing the work in a timely way. If we have reached steady
state, we could be here forever, never coming to closure. I
advocate addressing the comments via a maintenance activity.
Regarding whether a group needs to be consistent, the group can be
partial: those ideas that would produce “no” votes can justify
treatment, however, changes that are expansive or far reaching can
equally be dropped in favor of expedited closure.
3.3.1.13. AndrewM: We have to consider comments made on any part of
the proposal. The danger is that in a sponsor ballot, I could
comment on
Submission page 11 R. R. Miller, AT&T
January 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0019
any part of the proposal. This is clearly unsatisfactory. The
practical matter is that WMM is reaching the market already, and it
does not benefit us to linger over the details. I think we should
proceed.
3.3.1.14. O’Hara: I agree with Andrew, the process must converge.
However the process is important. In the first two recirculations
there was not a single rejection regarding a comment on text that
didn’t change. I think Srini had a good suggestion that in the
cover letter cover the process wasn’t applied uniformly, but that
in the future we will not accept comments which refer to unchanged
text. It is improper that the appearance be that the group uses the
procedural issue to reject comments that it does not want to deal
with. This appearance irritated me. However, it is more important
that the process be correct. If questions are raised later, I do
not wish this to be the first standard to be rejected by
RevCom.
3.3.1.15. JohnK: We don’t do science here, we do engineering on a
limited budget. We have to finish this thing. I think we should not
have considered many of the early comments. We have been distracted
by many comments which have been resurrected time and again. This
wastes time. As far as resolving the questions on technical merit,
I must look at the project risk of one path versus another. If I
were convinced that these comments would materially change the
direction of the standard, I would vote for acceptance.
3.3.1.16. Mathilde: There has been consensus that the technical
merit of the comments was there. WRT the urgency issue, Srini’s
suggestion would be a nice idea. People don’t look at the 11e draft
to make product. Wi-Fi has gone ahead.
3.3.1.17. TomK: With TGe there will be new ideas constantly. We
should come to some closure. I was involved with development of
large quantities of equipment using QoS features. We have to try to
make this work and get it out. Going on forever does not benefit
this.
3.3.1.18. JohnF: Let me focus the discussion. Another compromise is
to look at all 13 comments and address them on technical merit. In
parallel we make it clear to the sponsor group that we won’t act on
further comments which do not produce changes. That said, anyone
else with comments?
3.3.1.19. JohnK: If we are to take up the comments, I’d like to
know how we can keep the process moving. For example, to treat
them, we’d have to counter since the comments themselves refer to
other changes.
3.3.1.20. JohnF: Would it be OK if we treated your comments, would
you consider changing your vote by the end of the week?
3.3.1.21. O’Hara: Yes. I have no issues with anything in the latest
draft. There is minimum possibility that votes will change due to
matters not related to my past comments.
3.3.1.22. Srini: We will be changing the draft slightly anyway. I
think we have been trying to implement the rules to show that there
has been no discrimination.
3.3.1.23. JohnK: I request a straw poll. 3.3.1.24. JohnF: Let’s see
it. 3.3.1.25. Not ready yet. 3.3.1.26. JohnF: Are there any other
comments? No. It seems like discussion
has slowed down. Would someone please craft a motion that would
move us forward procedurally?
3.3.1.27. Mathilde: How about a motion to accept those resolutions?
3.3.1.28. JohnF: We cannot do that now.
Submission page 12 R. R. Miller, AT&T
January 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0019
3.3.1.29. JohnK: I see two separate motions. We need a motion going
forward to affirm that only comments treating changed text will be
considered. We’d need another to accept Bob