November 2010 doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0013r12
IEEE P802.11
Wireless LANs
Date: 2010-11-18
Author(s):
Name / Affiliation / Address / Phone / email
Eldad Perahia / Intel Corporation / 2111 NE 25th Ave
Hillsboro, OR 97124 / 503-712-8081 /
Vinko Erceg / Broadcom /
James Yee / MediaTek /
1 Conference Call Times
Date / Start Time / End TimeJanuary 7, 2010 / 10 AM Eastern Time / 12 PM Eastern Time
February 25, 2010 / 10 AM Eastern Time / 12 PM Eastern Time
April 29, 2010 / 10 AM Eastern Time / 12 PM Eastern Time
July 1, 2010 / 10 AM Eastern Time / 12 PM Eastern Time
July 22, 2010 / 10 AM Eastern Time / 12 PM Eastern Time
Aug 5, 2010 / 10 AM Eastern Time / 12 PM Eastern Time
Aug 12, 2010 / 8 PM Eastern Time / 10 PM Eastern Time
Aug 19, 2010 / 10 AM Eastern Time / 12:05 PM Eastern Time
Aug 26, 2010 / 8 PM Eastern Time / 10 PM Eastern Time
Sept 2, 2010 / 10 AM Eastern Time / 12 PM Eastern Time
Oct 14, 2010 / 10 AM Eastern Time / 12 PM Eastern Time
Oct 28, 2010 / 10 AM Eastern Time / 12 PM Eastern Time
Nov 18, 2010 / 10 AM Eastern Time / 12 PM Eastern Time
2 Minutes from January 7, 2010 Conference Call
2.1 Agenda
· Check to see if anyone is not familiar with the IEEE patent policy http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.pdf
· Attendance by email
• Presentations
– Channel Model discussion
– 11-10/0011r0, Radio over Fiber for an optimal 60 GHz Home Area Network
– 11-09/1317r1, Internet Traffic Modeling, Sai Nandagopalan
2.2 Patent Policy
No one was not familiar with the IEEE patent policy.
No essential patent disclosure
2.3 Channel modeling
· Preparing human blockage statistics (TU Braunschwieg) for fading in Los Angeles
o PDF of depth and PDF of number of taps affected
· Conference channel model being updated
o Pathloss
o Is now complete, no TBDs
· Living room being updated
o Statistical results from NICT on inter-cluster parameters added
o Pathloss will be done by LA meeting
· Enterprise cubicle
o Inter and intra cluster almost done, will be presented in LA meeting
· Complete document should be ready by LA
· Continue discussion with NICT on polarization and inter cluster parameters
· Question: What are Cubicle environment assumptions?
o Ray tracing plus reflection measurements used
· Question: what are the positions?
o AP on ceiling, devices in cube
· Question: how is blocking being included, since normalization is being performed in Matlab?
o Need to be discussed
· Question: independent channel instantiation for packet?
o yes
2.4 09/1317r1
· Question: HTTP parameters taken from references from slide 9? references are old
· Taken from references and simulators like NS2 and Opnet, also what LTE and Wimax using
· Question: What issues of TCP that will differentiate proposals?
o Transfer time
o Stabalization time
2.5 10/0011r0
· Question: Slide 20 says optimizes global efficiency, but system operates as one AP over the whole home. Wouldn’t AP/room be more efficient?
· Question: What additional delays does the system incur with RF/optical conversions?
o Delay is dependent on length of the fiber, and not an issue based on 802.15.3c/ECMA
3 Minutes from February 25, 2010 Conference Call
3.1 Agenda
· Check to see if anyone is not familiar with the IEEE patent policy http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.pdf
· Attendance by email
• Presentations
– 11-10/0242r0, SCR Synchronization, John Stine
3.2 Patent Policy
No one was not familiar with the IEEE patent policy.
No essential patent disclosure
3.3 10/0242r0
· Question: What happens two systems with two references move closer together?
4 Minutes from April 29, 2010 Conference Call
Vinko chairing meeting.
4.1 Agenda
· Check to see if anyone is not familiar with the IEEE patent policy http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.pdf
· Attendance by email
• Presentations
– 11-10/0489r0, PHY Performance evaluation with 60GHz WLAN channel models, Alexander Maltsev
– 11-10/0490r0, Intra cluster response model and parameter for the enterprise cubicle environments at 60GHz, Hirokazu Sawada
4.2 Patent Policy
No one was not familiar with the IEEE patent policy.
No essential patent disclosure
4.3 10/0489r0
· PER vs. SNR curves, beamforming adaptation used (for maximum power), OFDM simulation, normalization per channel snapshot. Comparison of AWGN curves to omni-directional and directional-directional antenna cases for different channel models.
· Q/A
o James: is modulation and coding from some proposal ?
· Alexander: standard coding
o James: is it soft decision decoder? Can you give more detail
· Alexander: standard coding, I can send you the information
· Kato-san: answer is in one of the slides
o Martin: did you assume equalization?
· Alexander: yes
o Brian: differences are because normalization influences the results
· Alexander: yes, antenna gain is not accounted for, differences would be larger in reality
o Brian: flat channel?
· Alexander: no, there is intercluster interference creating frequency selectivity
o Vinko: what kind of equalization did you use?
· Alexander: per tone equalization
o Kato-san: question about beam adaptation: how do you normalize?
· Alexander: evaluation methodology uses normalization per each channel impulse response
o Nokia: same channel impulse response per packet? How may packets?
· Alexander: yes, 10000 packets
o Kato-san: in slide 10, I see that performance is close to LOS performance for omni and directional case
· Alexander: this is because of normalization and intracluster parameters
o James: your differences are because of the fading on each tone
· Vinko: yes, because of the frequency selectivity
4.4 10/0242r0
· Measurements were presented and impulse responses, reflection from walls and metal frame and metal pipe, strong reflections from metal surfaces
· Q/A
o Vinko: very interesting, how many locations don’t have metal reflections?
· Kato-san: answer is in slide 10
o James: did you adjust angle of antenna to point into direction of reflection, are they facing the ceiling?
o James: there is no reflection from plaster board?
· Sawada-san: yes, no reflection
o Vinko: both pipe and metal frame are metal but reflection is much different
· Kato-san: this is because of the metal shape
o Vinko: pipe disperses the signal
o Alexander: thank you very much for measurement and parameters , let’s discuss off line which parameters to use, maybe some averaging is needed
· Kato-san: agreed
o Vinko: I would also like to thank you for the measurements and results, we can now complete the channel models
o Cisco: directional antenna was used?
· Sawada-san: antenna is described on slide 17
End of call, ended at 8:10am PDT
5 Minutes from July 1, 2010 Conference Call
Vinko chairing meeting.
5.1 Agenda
· Check to see if anyone is not familiar with the IEEE patent policy http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.pdf
· Attendance by email
• Comment resolution spreadsheet discussion, 11-10-0717r1
5.2 Patent Policy
No one was not familiar with the IEEE patent policy.
No essential patent disclosure
5.3 10/0717r1
· Presenter: Carlos Cordeiro
· Carlos went over the spreadsheet organization: column meaning, filtering, type of comments, etc. Work needs to be done regarding grouping. Beamforming may need subgroups. Coexistence has only 3 comments so that grouping is not necessary for this category.
· Thomas: Is there a limit on number of comments for each sub group?
· Carlos: it is very hard to put a number on it. 20-30 comments per group seems reasonable. Anyone can bring submissions. Groups of people can work on comment resolution.
· Kapseok: classification of the groups seems fine. Comment 54 in General group is a mistake, I would like to delete the comment.
· Carlos: you can withdraw the comment.
· Vinko: please send a “withdraw CID #” notice to the TGad reflector for record keeping.
· Kapseok: I propose comment group PHY subgroups: SC, OFDM, common preamble, and control PHY.
· Carlos: next week we can work on grouping and ask for submissions.
· Avinash: does every comment need to be represented by a presentation?
· Carlos: not all, some of them may be done in the meeting, if they are simple enough.
· Assaf: editor may resolve editorial comments.
· There were no additional questions, conference call ended at 7:45am PST.
6 Minutes from July 22, 2010 Conference Call
6.1 Agenda
· Check to see if anyone is not familiar with the IEEE patent policy http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.pdf
· Attendance by email
• Comment resolution of Assaf’s assigned CIDs
6.2 Patent Policy
No one was not familiar with the IEEE patent policy.
No essential patent disclosure
6.3 10/0944r0
· Presenter: Assaf
· CIDs:
o 3: no objection to resolution
o 405
§ Modify to “figure 30”
§ discussion on aggregation and block ack
§ no objection to resolution
o 406
§ Modified grammar
§ no objection to resolution
o 407: no objection to resolution
o 408: no objection to resolution
o 412: no objection to resolution
o 413: move to 10/0894
o 414: no objection to resolution
o 416: no objection to resolution
o 417: no objection to resolution
o 56: no objection to resolution
o 418: no objection to resolution
o 346: no objection to resolution
· Will upload 10/944r1 to server
6.4 10/0894r0
· Presenter: Assaf
· CIDs:
o 447: no objection to resolution
o 448
§ change to counter, and refer to CID 73
§ no objection to resolution
o 449: no objection to resolution
o 353: remove from this document, assigned to Daniel
o 316
§ discussion on where operations occur in TXOP and how to start TXOP
§ add “is deleted” to resolution
§ no objection to resolution
o 58 59: no objection to resolution
o 317
§ Fixed grammar
§ no objection to resolution
o 318 & 319
§ Fixed grammar
§ no objection to resolution
o 461: no objection to resolution
o 438: no objection to resolution
o 386 & 413
§ Padam: BRP is iterative, any limit to # of iterations
§ Assaf: no limit
§ Padam: should there be a limit
§ Assaf: may difficult to define, and not related to this comment
§ MIDC can be done two difference ways, split into two
§ no objection to resolution
7 Minutes from Aug 5, 2010 Conference Call
7.1 Agenda
· Check to see if anyone is not familiar with the IEEE patent policy http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.pdf
· Attendance by email
• Comment resolution of Solomon’s assigned CIDs, documents 10/947r0, 10/948r1
7.2 Patent Policy
No one was not familiar with the IEEE patent policy.
No essential patent disclosure
7.3 10/0947r0
· Presenter: Solomon
· CIDs:
o 112, 113
§ Spelling correction
§ No objection to resolution
o 141: No objection to resolution
o 232: No objection to resolution
o 247: No objection to resolution
o 378: already resolved, remove from document
o 382: remove from document, refer 10/948
· 10/947r1 has all updates, will be motion in Hawaii
7.4 10/0948r1
· Presenter: Solomon
· CIDs:
o 382
§ Copy resolution text from 10/947 and add to resolution here
§ No objection to resolution
o 91: No objection to resolution
o 384
§ Change to “cluster”
§ No objection to resolution
o 385: No objection to resolution
o 387: No objection to resolution
o 388: No objection to resolution
o 435:
§ Toyoda-san: split IE into two?
§ Solomon: if max size exceeded, send additional IE
§ Carlos: yes, can split
§ No objection to resolution
o 439: No objection to resolution
o 454: No objection to resolution
o 465, 466:
§ Avinash: resolution to 466 complicates resolution to 465; worried about use of TID subfield and compressed bitmap subfield and no reserved bit left
§ Solomon/Carlos: figure out new method in future for future need
§ Added CID 465 to this document with resolution referring to CID 466, avoiding conflicting resolutions
§ No objection to resolution
o 471: No objection to resolution
o 472: No objection to resolution
o 473:
§ Fix spelling
§ No objection to resolution
o 475: No objection to resolution
o 476: No objection to resolution
o 479: No objection to resolution
o 480: No objection to resolution
· 10/948r2 has all updates, will motioned in Hawaii
CIDs 330, 331 already resolved by 10/914r0 in San Diego, awaiting motion in Hawaii.
8 Minutes from Aug 12, 2010 Conference Call
8.1 Agenda
· Check to see if anyone is not familiar with the IEEE patent policy http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.pdf
· Attendance by email
• Comment resolution:
– Carlos, Sai, Thomas Derham
– 10/977r1, 10/978r1, 10/981r0
–
8.2 Patent Policy
No one was not familiar with the IEEE patent policy.
No essential patent disclosure
8.3 10/0978r1
· Presenter: Carlos
· CID 348
o Question on Support column: users choice
o Will revisit again in Hawaii to give people more time to review
8.4 10/0977r1
· Presenter: Carlos
· CIDs:
o 323: No objection to resolution
o 422: No objection to resolution
o 445: No objection to resolution
o 326: No objection to resolution
o 328: No objection to resolution
o 332:
§ Question/discussion about moving STT 1 to 0 vs switching state; use of “move” not clear
§ Change resolution to counter, inserting “other than set to zero”
§ No objection to resolution
o 333:
§ question about initial shall in procedure
§ No objection to resolution
o 375: No objection to resolution
o 433:
§ Do you need to establish connection in both bands before transfer?
· Implementation issue whether to bring up radio in other band first or after, protocol allows both