May 2007 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/0583r0
IEEE P802.11
Wireless LANs
Date: 2007-05-02
Author(s):
Name / Company / Address / Phone / email
Stephen McCann / Nokia Siemens Networks (NSN) Roke Manor / Old Salisbury Lane, Romsey, SO51 0ZN, UK / +44 1794 833341 /
Recorded Attendees
Stephen McCann (Chair, TGu)
Colin Blanchard
Hong Cheng
George Bumiller
Dave Stephenson
Necati Canpolat
Lars Falk
Proceedings:
Chair opened the teleconference at 10:05 ET.
There were no objections to everyone being aware of the new IEEE –SA policies, as shown in:
http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.ppt . No-one had any information to disclose about IPR issues.
Chair stated that the objective of this teleconference is basically to arrange the agenda and list open issues for the Montreal (May 2007) meeting.
Proposed Agenda for May 2007
The chair summarized the proposed agenda for the May 2007 meeting, and added a few extra points. The completed agenda now looks like:
· Monday (19:30 - 21:30)
o Approve draft D0.04
o Approve draft D0.05 with ad-hoc meeting recommendations
· Tuesday (13:30 - 18:00)
o MIH primitives (Canpolat, Centonza, Cheng and Stephenson)
o Network type (Gast)
o QoS Map Additions (Zhang)
o Clean-up text (All)
o Hotspot Selection (Blanchard, Canpolat)
o Secure Mobile Architecture (Richard Paine)
· Wednesday (8:00 - 10:00) - joint meeting with 802.21
o MLME primitives for MIH
o State 1/state 3 bit
o Status of information model
· Thursday (10:30 - 12:30)
· D0.06 must be on the server between 10:30 – 12:00
o External review discussion
o Liaisons
§ Cellular operators (Bumiller)
§ NENA (McCann, Stephenson,Patel)
§ IETF EAP for Emergency Calls (Gast)
§ 3GPP SA2 teleconference on May (McCann)
· Thursday (16:00 - 18:00)
o Motion to approve D0.06
o Motion to go to letter ballot
Question: Can you verify why the D0.06 would have to be on the server by 10:30 for a 16:00 vote?
Chair: The 4 hour rule for document approval, applies to Working Group time and excludes lunch and breaks.
MLME MIH Primitives
Everyone seemed to be in agreement that the detailed MIH primitive definitions are no longer necessary within the draft, as these can be encapsulated within either GAS (for State 1) or dealt with by user plane messages (for State 3). This has also been checked with the chairman of IEEE 802.21 who are defining the MIH interface to IEEE 802.11.
The chair then requested that a volunteer create a submission to ask for removal of these sections of the draft. Upon no volunteer appearing, the chair said he could possibly create such a submission.
Hot Spot Selection
A submission will be generated for the Montreal meeting by Necati Canpolat and Colin Blanchard. They will take their discussions off line.
NENA Liaison
The chair stated that he has taken various comments from Dave Stephensona dn Vijay Patel regarding the NENA frame work document. The chair has created an initial draft liaison letter, which the other gentlemen have seen and hope that it will be available for the whole group to see prior to the Montreal meeting.
External Experts Review
The chair stated that it might be a good idea to start an external experts review of the TGu draft document.
Since our Task Group is defining an interface to various external systems outside of IEEE 802.11, at some point we need to verify that our internal work makes some sort of sense to other Standard Development Organisations (SDOs), from whom we have gathered requirements over the last few years.
One way to do this verification, is to ask IEEE 802.11 for an external review by experts in the field.
The procedure is roughly as follows:
· The task group develops a list of potential review candidates. Be aware that it cannot be a general review to a group, it has to specific people. Also, there is a limit to the number of people (typically 10) doing the review.
· Once the request was made and the list of candidates drawn up, an email is sent to the people on the list, by the chair, asking if they wanted to be involved. Only those who respond positiviely are then included in the final list. This final list is shown to the Task Group and then forms part of the motion to proceed with an external review.
· If the motion is approved, the working group chair and the task group chair draft a covering email, and sent out the draft to the list. The reviewers are normally given a little over two months, but of course feedback at any time would be accepted.
The chair then asked everyone for suggestions of potential experts. The intention is to draw up a short list of about 10 experts who are able and willing to help. We will then discuss the finer details of this procedure during the Montreal meeting.
Question: Does this have to be an individual? Why not a company or an entity?
Chair: That is how the rules are stated. They are designed to avoid the draft being distributed too far.
Comment: I think these rules are broken and should be re-considered.
Chair. Sure, but those are the current rules we have to work with.
Question: How are expert review comments dealt with?
Chair: Not sure. Perhaps I could act as a proxy and forward their comments into the letter ballot? Not sure, will have to check.
Question: Does this review have to start sta the same time as the letter ballot.
Chair: No, it just seems to be a good point to send out the same document to expert review as to l;etter ballot. If the letter ballot process is not approved during the May 2007 meeting, the document can still be sent out to expert review.
AoB
No AOB
Adjournment
Chair adjourned the meeting at 10:37 ET
Minutes page 1 Stephen McCann, NSN Roke Manor