March 2006IEEE 802.15-06-0180-00-WNG0
IEEE P802.15
Wireless Personal Area Networks
Project / IEEE P802.15 Interest Group BAN for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)Title / 802.15 IG-BANDenverThursday Meeting Minutes
Date Submitted / 9 March 2006
Source / [David Julian]
[Qualcomm]
[San Diego, CA] / Voice:[858-651-5458]
Fax:[858-845-5553]
E-mail:[
Re: / 802.15 IG-B Thursday Meeting Minutes
Abstract / Minutes of IG-B on Thursday PM1 in Denver
Purpose / Minutes of IG-B on Thursday PM1 in Denver
Notice / This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE P802.15. 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 acknowledges and accepts that this contribution becomes the property of IEEE and may be made publicly available by P802.15.
Acting Chair: Stefan Drude
Acting Secretary: David Julian
Attendance: 13
Ikegami, Tetsushi
Kudo, Yasushi
Meyer, Klaus
Takizawa, Kenichi
Aoki, Mikio
Tanahashi, Mike
Gorday, Paul
Astrin, Arthur
Ekbal, Amal
Julian, David
Drude, Stefan
Peogel, Frank
Mizugaki, Kenichi
1:33pm Call to Order
Stefan put up a slide with the agenda:
Overview
Bob Heile
Call for applications – editing
Agree on release of call for application
1:34pm Bob Heile
Erik: (Read 802.15 meeting minutes from Waikoloa on the WG vote ask the EC to form a study group).
Bob: Typically next step would be to go to the 802 EC to get formal approval. Issue of uniqueness and not addressed by other standards is a key issue. Don’t think we have enough information at this point.
Technology like this could supply a more scalable way then other standards. That is not good enough. We don’t have those answers to uniqueness. The call for application are there things that can not be handled in existing standards.
Proposed run as an interest group for a little while. No different than a study group, except don’t need approval. Done with mm-wave, then when clear cut it sailed through the executive committee; very short study group. Doesn’t take anything away from the schedule. Layout rationale.
Amer: Can we skip the study group phase?
Bob: We still have to go through the study group phase, but the study group phase can be very short. i.e study group in July and task group in November.
Erik: We have a motion from the membership asking to execute the motion (to form a study group).
Bob: It doesn’t say when.
Erik: It does say when.
Bob: I’m happy to go forward to the EC tomorrow, if you are prepared to have it denied.
Erik: It’s not me, it’s the membership as well. That was in my impression, that the motion did not say you could bring the study group formation up whenever you want, in one or two years.
Bob: Erik, what do you want me to do. I’d be happy to take it to the EC tomorrow, and I guarantee it will fail. What do you want me to do. There is no time line there (in the motion). I’m recommending a class of action to improve the likelihood of success.
Amer: Microsoft is very interested in this and I’m personally interested in this. I think we should do what you think is the best path Bob. We should hear what others have to say.
Erik: Don’t we need another motion.
Bob: No, that’s not necessary. I’ll do what you direct me to do. I’m advising you that what the group has brought forth is not adequate.
Amer: I feel like its good to have an interest group.
David: Supports the interest group approach.
Art: What impact does this have on the work in the next few months?
Bob: No impact. Would be doing the same things as a study group. The examples of applications I’ve heard so far are not compelling. I challenge the group to come up with more compelling applications.
Erik: What’s the consequence of a defeated study group.
Bob: That’s it, it over.
Erik: So we couldn’t bring up a BAN study group ever again?
Bob: No, we could bring it up in July. There would be no meeting time in Jacksonville.
Erik: Ok, that’s the answer. What should we do.
Bob: To carry out this action needs additional work. Carry out the call for applications, show that those applications are not addressed by other 802 standards.
Erik: The draft of the call could still be sent out?
Bob: Yea, all we are doing is informing the working group on the path we will be doing.
Erik: This would stay under the WNG.
Bob: No, this would form a new interest group, and its own reflector.
I’m hoping between now and Jacksonville to go through teleconferences to get clearer about the opportunities here. I would strongly encourage grabbing one of the Jacksonville tutorials to vet (the BAN concept) to a broader audience earlier in the week to fine tune the arguments before hitting the EC on Friday.
Stefan: What do I have to do for tomorrow specifically?
Bob: Nice to have a slide on what we decided. A call for application. Timeline on that. Jacksonville meetings. Our goal is to get far enough along to do a tutorial in July. The challenge this group is going to have is to challenge… For example Erik brought up the application of swallowing the video camera, but I said that could be done with 802.11. What the EC will look at is the uniqueness and the market opportunity. That we are going at a market that is not well addressed by other standards out there.
1:50pm Call for application.
Stefan: On to the second point of the agenda for a call for application. Should the title be interest group?
Bob: Make it interest group for now.
Stefan: I understand.
Paul: Are we officially an interest group as of right now?
Bob: Yes.
Erik: Actually that’s been our status this week.
Bob: Yes.
Stefan: (Going over document 15-06-151-02-wng0-body-area-networks-call-for-applications.doc). (Stephan skimmed through the document cover page and first paragraph and changed “study group” to “interest group”.) Is the first paragraph acceptable to you? Ok, I had in mind to put the release date, tomorrow, Friday. When do we want the presentations to come in? Do we want them ahead of the Jacksonville meeting, or on the first day?
Amer: That would include the types of applications that Bob was talking about. So it would be nice to have them early.
Bob: Yes, they should be available ahead of Jacksonville.
Stefan: Should we put May 1st there?
Bob: Yea, that would be good.
Stefan: (Read background section of 06/151r2). Any modifications?
David: Do we want to make some modifications to reflect the change from study group to interest group?
Stefan: I expected a comment along these lines. (Edited to change study group to interest group).
David: Should the objective change from PAR and 5C formation to form a study group?
Bob: In this case the objective of the interest group is to refine the argument that leads to a study group to form the PAR.
2:01pm
Stefan: Any other comments? Then let’s move on to the next section. This section generally describes the idea of a body area network. (Read the General comments section).
Art: Should there be a sentence on harming the body?
Stefan: Do we want a particular sentence?
Art: The network should not harm the body.
Paul: We should soften that up to language that the application should not harm the body.
Stefan: The body area network shall comply with regulations for radiation around the human body.
Paul: Yes.
2:07pm
Stefan: Any other comments? Ok the next section. (Read through the Information to be Included the Application Description). Probably we need to change this to reflect that we are an interest group rather than a study group. (Made change to the text).
Stefan: I don’t know if we can ask the market dollar value.
Basically, you out line the scenario or use case, and say to satisfy that case you need so much data, distance, and so forth.
Are there any extra items?
Sai: Security mechanisms to be used for communication between different devices.
Stefan: Ok.
Sai: First item, add “but not limited to” so it doesn’t pose a restriction.
Stefan: Ok (made change to text), other items? Ok
2:11pm
Stefan: Ok, the last paragraph address’s Bob comments. The intention here is to say that if it is a sensor network we may have a solution already. But if it has other data we may be interested in learning about this area. Do we agree on this section here?
Sai: Sender oriented, receiver oriented, a combination of both. Combination of different types of data transfers.
Stefan. Ok. (Added text). Do we agree on this section then?
2:14PM
Stefan: Ok, the next paragraph talks about opportunities to present the results. May 2006 interim, or July 2006 plenary. (read Presentations section).
David: Could change the last sentence to “Priority will be given to applications that affect the arguments forming a study group.
Stefan: Like this?
David: Looks good.
Stefan: And then the appendix, and that’s the end of the document. (Saved changes)
2:16pm
Stefan: So this is what it looks like. That’s the header. In a little less than 2 months we want the responses to come in. I think we are done with this part. Any advice, Bob, on what’s the next step? Do we need to vote on this document?
Bob: Yes, you need to vote all actions taken by the body, and anybody can vote.
2:18pm Motion
Sai Nandagopalan: Made motion “I move to publish the call for application.”
Art Astrin: Second the motion
Stefan: Any discussion of the motion. Ok let’s vote. In favor 16, against 0, abstains 1. Motion passes.
2:19pm
Stefan: That’s the last motion item from my perspective. Any presentations.
Bob: Just a comment, Rick’s been computer challenged this week, but next week will have a link on home page to this group. Get reflector set up, and send an e-mail to the general 15 mailing list.
Art: Do we need another WG motion for the interest group.
Stefan: After consultation with the chair we have decided to proceed as an interest group to get the motivation to move on to a study group.
Stefan: I’d like to adjourn the meeting then. Thank you very much.
Adjourn 2:21PM.
SubmissionPage 1David Julian, Qualcomm