May 2017 doc.: IEEE 802.11-17/0810r0
IEEE P802.11 Wireless LANs
802.11ak May 2017 MinutesDate: 2017-05-11
Author(s):
Name / Affiliation / Address / Phone / Email
Mark Hamilton / Ruckus Wireless/Brocade Communications / 350 W. Java Dr, Sunnyvale, CA 94089, USA / +1-303-818-8472 /
Table of Contents
802.11ak May Regular Session Minutes 4
Monday, 8 May 2017 16:00 – 18:00, Room 107 4
Thursday, 11 May 2017 13:30 – 15:30, Room 107 6
Thursday, 11 May 2017 16:00 – 18:00, Room 107 8
IEEE 802.11 TGak meetings
Daejeon Convention Center, Daejeon, South Korea
8-11 May 2017
Chair & Editor: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (Huawei)
+1-508-333-2270
Vice Chair: Mark Hamilton (Ruckus/Brocade)
Vice Editor: Norm Finn (Self)
Secretary: Vacant (Notes taken by Mark Hamilton)
Mailing list:
802.11ak May Regular Session Minutes
Monday, 8 May 201716:00 – 18:00, Room 107
Chair Donald Eastlake (Huawei) calls meeting to order.
Appointment of Secretary
· Mark Hamilton took notes.
Reviewed Patent policy slides, and updated participant slide. Called for potentially essential patents. No response.
Attendance recording reminder.
Reviewed proposed agenda. 11-17/543r3:
· Agenda approved without objection.
Noted that TGak is currently in Sponsor Ballot ending 13:00 Thursday Korea time.
Moved, to approve 11-17/513r0 as the minutes of the Vancouver TGak meeting in March.
– Approved by unanimous consent.
Moved, to approve the following minutes of TGak teleconferences held since the November TGak meeting:
– 3 April: 11-17/568r0
– 10 April: [Cancelled]
– 17 April: [Cancelled]
– Approved by unanimous consent.
Reviewed the current Sponsor Ballot comments, as a preliminary start to review or assign them, knowing they are subject to change until the ballot closes.
CID i-40:
· We support 802.1Q bridged networks, on the assumption that 802.1Qbz has been applied to the 802.1Q technology. Do we need to state this explicitly somehow? Maybe add some wording to clarify this. Or, perhaps we should be modifying the baseline’s reference to 802.1Q to mention that this assumes the application of 802.1Qbz, also. Assign to Donald Eastlake.
CID i-12:
· Skip all of the comments from this commenter, until he can fix the entries. It seems that he probably used strikethrough and underlining, which have been lost.
CID i-41, CID i-39:
· We believe 802.1AC-REV/D4.0 is the last draft, so there should be no changes between it and the published -2016 version. Thus, we don’t need to make any other changes. Just “Accept” both of these.
CID i-45:
· We don’t think there’s anything really wrong with it the way it is, but we should be consistent with the baseline. Accept.
CID i-44:
· Accept.
CID i-43:
· Revise. Make proposed change. Also delete the “(MS)” from the definition since we do not use that separately.
CID i-42:
· Accept.
CID i-26:
· Revise. Insert “IEEE Std” before “802.1Q”. The CRC preferred “thence”.
CID i-13:
· Revise. Assign this to Mark Hamilton. We reject that we need to define “bridged network” or “priority code point” because those are defined in IEEE Std 802 and IEEE Std 802.1Q, respectively. The term “transit link” doesn’t appear in any text that survives the roll-in of this amendment. We agree that “attached” is not the best term for our relationship to a bridge, and we should change those uses to better terminology.
CID i-120:
· We don’t use this term anymore. Accept.
CID i-46:
· Accept.
CID i-14:
· Reject. GCR is defined in the 802.11 baseline. EPD and LPD are defined in IEEE Std 802.
CID i-89:
· We allow GLK in IBSS, but group addressed GLK frames can only come from the bridge with a station vector, and IBSSes can not use SYNRA so the STA has to use serial unicast. So, this seems correct. Accept.
CID i-95:
· Accept.
Recessed until Thursday, PM1.
Thursday, 11 May 201713:30 – 15:30, Room 107
Chair Donald Eastlake (Huawei) calls meeting to order.
Appointment of Secretary
· Mark Hamilton took notes.
Called for potentially essential patents. No response.
Attendance recording reminder.
Reviewed proposed agenda. 11-17/543r4:
· Agenda approved without objection.
Resolution of comments from initial Sponsor Ballot. Resolutions are tracked in 11-17.0747. Tentative resolutions from Monday have been entered already. Currently on r3.
CID i-90:
· Revised – Replace “the block of frames” with “a block of SYNRA addressed Data frames”.
CID i-118:
· The comment is correct, the text is in error. The GCR mode is a “1” and the GLK-GCR is a “2”. TGak amendment should leave the “1” in the baseline, and the new GLK-GCR bullets should say “2”.
· Ganesh will craft a specific resolution and bring it back.
CID i-100:
· GLK-GCR block ack agreements are negotiated on each Association/Reassociation. So, there is no way to not “renegotiate” the agreement on Reassociation to the same AP. It could happen to be negotiated with the same parameters, but making that a special case that survives across the Reassociation is too complicated. Just leave it the way it is.
· Separately, noted that the “are reset” list says “All block agreements” are reset, but clearly GCR agreements are not. This is a bug for REVmd. Mark will submit something there.
CID i-85:
· The point here is that for the associating (requesting) STA, the fields other than Buffer Size are not meaningful (the AP chooses these), so say they are reserved. Buffer Size has to be provided by the associating STA, even though it doesn’t know the Retransmission Policy yet, so the text needs to clarify that it does not depend on the Retransmission Policy being 3.
· Ganesh understands the point, and will work on detailed resolution offline.
CID i-11:
· Accept
CID i-12:
· It seems we need to keep the articles, at least. The first change is just style, the group preferred the existing style. Agree to delete the “to be”. Revised. Delete “to be”
CID i-156:
· The gist of this change seems to be personal preference for SUBRA (or subset) over SYNRA (or synthetic). No reason to make such a global change for personal preference reasons.
· Disagree with other details of the proposed change. For example, if we no longer say this is a group address, all the multitude of group address behaviours no longer apply, which would take a lot of study and probably causes problems.
· Reject. Rationale to capture the above.
CID i-155:
· This suggests two changes. One is from “facility” to “functionality” – fine. The other changes “using” to “implements” which is a real change. After research, the rest of the text uses GLK STA in the sense of a STA that implements GLK, it seems. Agree to change the definition to say “implements”.
· Noted that we have no normative text saying what the phrase “GLK STA” means. We should add that in 11.49.1.
· Revised. Change the definition. Add a sentence to 11.49.1.
· Also, in the 11.49.1 sentence, say that GLK depends on implementing QoS, also, by requiring that MIB attribute.
CID i-129:
· Agree in concept. Need to fix the word order a bit.
· Revised. Change to “A constructed group address used by a GLK AP as a receiver address to forward frames …”
CID i-128:
· Revised. Disagree that “serial multicast” is better, in fact, it is very confusing (sounds like a sequence of multicasts). While “serial unicast” is well known term, it seems we can word around it, and just not use it. Delete the definition, and the first two uses in the text. Reword around the third use in the text, by changing to “use a sequence of unicast MPDUs”.
· Revised. Per above.
CID i-37:
· The baseline is completely inconsistent, it seems. We have agreed to either use “IEEE Std …” or just “…”, but never “IEEE …”.
· Rejected. Rationale per above.
CID i-38:
· Agree to reword.
· Revised. “A GLK non-AP STA shall support reception of frames with a SYNRA as the RA.”
Out of time.
Recess at 15:30 until the today PM2.
Thursday, 11 May 201716:00 – 18:00, Room 107
Chair Donald Eastlake (Huawei) calls meeting to order.
Appointment of Secretary
· Mark Hamilton took notes.
Called for potentially essential patents. No response.
Attendance recording reminder.
Reviewed proposed agenda. 11-17/543r4:
· Agenda approved without objection.
Discuss a motion to liaise TGak draft to ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6. Not sure what the normal practice is, or why we would want to send this at this stage, when it isn’t as stable as it will be soon. Let’s do the motion to see what people want to do.
Motion: Moved, to liaise the following draft to ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 under the PSDO agreement:
· P802.1ak D4.0
Moved: Mark Hamilton Second: Jon Rosdahl
Yes: 3 No: 1 Abstain: 1
Continue with comment resolutions:
CID i-4:
· Don’t need EPD twice, otherwise generally agree.
· Revised. Change the list to “transit link 802.1Q, EPD, SYNRA, bridged, bridging, LPD, GLK, GCR, GLK-GCR, priority code point.
CID i-96:
· Comment seems correct. The phrase “a SYNRA” seems wrong, now that we look at it.
· This is the same sentence as i-38.
· Revised. “A GLK infrastructure non-AP STA shall support reception of frames with a SYNRA as the RA.”
· Change i-38 to the same resolution.
CID i-108:
· While we’re here, it should be “set to true” and “set to false”.
· Add a sentence to be explicit that STAs in 5.9 GHz band are EPD STAs, and their MIB attribute is either true or not present.
· Revised. Per above.
CID i-88:
· These sentences are actually pretty hard to parse. Rewrite, breaking up into separate sentences, and try to make sure we cover all the cases.
· Revised. Per above.
CID i-97:
· Accept.
CID i-98:
· Agree in principle.
· Assign to Donald Eastlake for a specific resolution.
CID i-105:
· Agree in principle.
· Revised. Change “GLK STA” to “GLK AP”
Donald will upload this as 747r5. We’ll pick this back up on a teleconference.
Consider teleconferences.
Motion: Moved, to hold teleconferences:
· 1 hour teleconferences through the July 2017 802.11 meeting on Monday May 22nd and June 12th, and 26th at 9am ET.
– Approved by unanimous consent
Adjourned for the week.
Minutes page 3 Mark Hamilton, Ruckus/Brocade