March 2005doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0272
IEEE P802.11
Wireless LANs
MAC Enhancements – QoS
Atlanta, GA
March, 2005
Date: 2005-03-16
Author(s):
Name / Company / Address / Phone / email
R. R. Miller / AT&T / 180 Park Ave, Florham Park NJ / 973-236-6920 /
Submissionpage 1R. R. Miller, AT&T
March 2005doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0272
1.Monday Afternoon Session, March 14, 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 1613 hours.
1.2.1.3.[Secretary’s note: Time Notations will be made in 24 hour format, subject to new 802.11 guidelines.]
1.2.1.4.JohnF: I refer attendees to the R3 agenda shown on the screenbefore you.
1.3.Process
1.3.1.Review of Agenda
1.3.1.1.JohnF: This meeting we have time reserved until this evening, then we shall meet again tomorrow. We will approve the minutes, make a call for papers, and then engage in technical comments and discussion. We have two slots allocated tomorrow, and Wednesday is our final day. We shall wrap up any comment resolutions in preparation for Wednesday. Any questions on the agenda? Hearing none, we shall proceed with approval of 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 just closed a sponsor ballot recirculation. We shall address the resulting comments, and then decide how to move forward. Any questions on the objectives? Hearing none, we shall proceed.
1.3.4.Rules and Status Review for New Members
1.3.4.1.JohnF: Are there any first-time attendees? Yes. The process we use is Robert’s Rules of Order. Only voting members can vote, however my policy is that non-voters can participate. You can be recognized if you would like to comment. If you have a motion, approach a voting member to bring a motion on your behalf. Are there any questions on rules, how we manage the meetings, or other process-related activities? No. Hearing none, we shall proceed with a status review.
1.3.4.2.JohnF: We had five “no” voters on the fifth recirculation. We ended up with no new “no” votes, however we received 11 new comments. We made provisions for an ad-hoc meeting in NJ. We were hoping for no further comments. We got comments, though, so we decided not to hold the meeting. We will address them instead at this meeting, and then proceed from there. Any questions? None. Hearing none, we shall proceed.
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 Monterey? Is there any objection to accepting the minutes? No. Hearing none, the minutes are approved. There are no matters arising from the minutes.
1.3.6.Call for Papers
1.3.6.1.JohnF: The next item is a call for papers. Are there any papers relevant to the comments. None. Hearing none, let us discuss the comment resolution process.
1.3.7.Discussion of Comment Resolution Process
1.3.7.1.JohnF: Srini, please give us an update on the letter ballot recirculation.
1.3.7.2.Mathilde: Are you going to consider papers on open comments?
1.3.7.3.JohnF: Yes, as long as the comment is open.
1.3.7.4.Srini: The comments are in document 131r0. There are 11 “no” comments, all from one commenter.
1.3.7.5.JohnF: We have to respond to these comments. I want to advise the group that if it determines good reasons to reject them and there are consequently no changes to the draft, then we can close the process as far as balloting. In July we could get final approval from ExCom. The next date for that, if we go to July, would be September for finalizing the standard through RevCom. If we make changes, we might go through several more recirculations. In this case the process could run until December or next year.
1.3.7.6.Mathilde: What would be the implications of Bob O’Hara’s maintenance activity? Is Bob’s activity a “rolling” one?
1.3.7.7.JohnF: One would have to go through a new PAR. This requires a formal request. So, we have 11 new technical comments. Amjad is here. You are one of the “no” voters?
1.3.7.8.Amjad: Yes.
1.3.7.9.Srini: Amjad had no comments from the last ballot.
1.3.7.10.Amjad: Yes they were outstanding from a previous ballot.
1.3.7.11.JohnF: If we make any changes on the draft, there could be a risk of not being ready by July. If we make no changes, we shall be moving toward closure. Let us look at the 11 comments, and see if we can “escape” with no changes. After completing these comments, then we can revisit, upon request, any other outstanding comments we answered previously. What I prefer to do is what we have done in the past: Discussion in an ad-hoc fashion with recommended resolutions. We can then try to act on them in formal session. Have you worked any of them?
1.3.7.12.Srini: All of the new comments are from Stephen Palm.
1.3.7.13.JohnF: I would like to recess the meeting into an ad-hoc meeting.
1.3.7.14.Srini: In my opinion at least 9 of the 11 are invalid. but I would prefer not to work these as moderator.
1.3.7.15.JohnF: Srini I would appreciate it if you could do it, as you are in the best position as editor to avoid protests.
1.3.7.16.Srini: OK, I will assist the process.
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 1745 at which time we will reconvene formally. Are there any objections? No objections noted. Therefore, we are recessed.
1.4.1.2.Recess at 1632.
1.5.Opening
1.5.1.Call to Order
1.5.1.1.JohnF: I call the meeting to order.
1.5.1.2.Meeting reconvened at 1745.
1.5.2.Process and Comment Resolution
1.5.2.1.JohnF: Srini, could you summarize the ad-hoc group progress?
1.5.2.2.Srini: We have responded to all 11 comments from Palm and have recommended declining them. For the other 12 comments, we may wish to continue considering them. For the last few minutes in ad-hoc, we have been discussing Mathilde’s comments on multiple NAVs. I believe of the remaining 12 comments, the technical ones are easy to address.
1.5.2.3.JohnF: Are there comments on changes?
1.5.2.4.Srini: Most of them are not.
1.5.2.5.JohnF: We need to reject these with a politeness. We can then say that the editorial changes will not change the text materially, and we shall say the draft is not changed. Is that approach viewed as satisfactory by the group?
1.5.2.6.Srini: Some of the comments will be handled by the IEEE editors as well.
1.5.2.7.JohnF: I suggest orders of the day. I would like to work forward on the proposed resolutions for the 1030 meeting tomorrow. Let’s recess at 6:00 to allow the secretary to present his 802 tutorial. The rest of us can work on resolutions. We have a 1030 session tomorrow until 1530. I want to be within the 4 hour rule on anything we submit for action tomorrow morning. Sometime before 1530 we can act on them. Is there any discussion on the plan I discussed? None. We’ll make the 1930 slot available to the ad-hoc group. Accordingly we shall begin the ad-hoc discussion at 1930.
1.6.Closing
1.6.1.Recess
1.6.1.1.JohnF: Is there any objection to recessing until 1030 tomorrow? None. Hearing none, we are recessed until 1030 Tuesday morning.
1.6.1.2.Recess at 1800.
2.Tuesday Morning Session, March 15, 2005
2.1.Opening
2.1.1.Call to order
2.1.1.1.JohnF (John Fakatselis): I call the meeting to order.
2.1.1.2.Meeting convened at 1035.
2.2.Process
2.2.1.Comment Resolution
2.2.1.1.JohnF: Let me just review status for those who may not have attended yesterday. We went through a sponsor ballot reciecultation between meetings and reduced our “no” voter complement, however we received some 11 comments more. We have worked in ad-hoc to treat the 11 comments. I hope to approve these resolutions today at 1135. We might be complete this work before lunch. Given that, Srini, can you give us an update?
2.2.1.2.Srini: 131r2 is the document that shows the resolutions, and it is on the server.
2.2.1.3.JohnF: Between now and 1100, I would like to have a discussion on any comment not part of the last 11, but may still be open. Examples would be a persistent “no” vote from a commenter. I’d be happy to entertain these discussions now. After 1100, I’d like the membership to examine the proposed resolutions and take part in a block vote to approve them together. However, I would also like to offer the opportunity for members to mark any resolutions as exceptions to the block. At 1130 I shall ask for exceptions. At 1135 I shall act upon votes to accept the resolutions that are not excepted. Any objection to following the approach? None. Having said that, we shall proceed. Mathilde, did we finish discussion on your topic?
2.2.1.4.Mathilde: Is there anyone who supports additional NAV protection?
2.2.1.5.Amjad: I put some comments on the reflector that say that it would be better to have a mechanism for handling [multiple NAVs] than not. However, at the Berlin meeting it was decided by some that it should be optional and removed. I have not persisted with advocacy of the capability because its re-insertion would add delay.
2.2.1.6.Mathilde: The NAV that we have does not give the same protection as the current standard. This will have an effect on VoIP and streaming media, and the performance of EDCA will suffer. Document 04/1093r5 is the reference for these.
2.2.1.7.JohnF: Are there any other comments?
2.2.1.8.One question regarding data flowsusing HCCA.
2.2.2.Discussion on the Question
2.2.2.1.Question relates to latitude of HCCA to send other traffic following the completion of CF-Poll + Data and Ack sequence. Answer was that HC has the power to send arbitrary traffic in such a case, whether or not power control is in process.
2.2.3.Comment Resolution Process
2.2.3.1.JohnF: Are there any other items?
2.2.3.2.Srini: Comments 9 and 10 by Mathilde still require resolutions. Shall we work on them now?
2.2.3.3.JohnF: Yes
2.2.3.4.Srini: What resolution would be acceptable to you Mathilde?
2.2.3.5.Mathilde: I’d like a straw poll: How many feel lack of dual NAV will have no effect? I would like responses for "no effect”, and “don’t know” 3 votes for “no effect”, and 5 “don’t know”.
2.2.3.6.Srini: May I suggest a resolution for comment 9 based on this discussion?
2.2.3.7.Resolution “ Comment declined. The task group could not reach a concensus that the proposed mechanism provides significant improvement in performance”
2.2.3.8.Moved Srini. Osama seconds.
2.2.3.9.JohnF: Is there any discussion on accepting the proposed resolution? None. Hearing none, we shall vote. Vote passes unanimously 12 “for”, 0 “against”, 4 “abstain”.
2.2.3.10.Srini: I propose to address comment 10 similarly. I move to accept the resolution:
2.2.3.11.“Comment declined. The task group could not reach a concensus that the proposed mechanism provides significant improvement in performance”
2.2.3.12.Moved Srini, Second Steven
2.2.3.13.JohnF: Is there any discussion on the motion? None. Hearing none, we shall vote. I call the question. Is there any discussion? No, the question is called. We shall vote on the motion. The motion passes 12 “for”, 1 “against”, and 4 “abstain”.
2.2.3.14.Srini: We still have Amjad’s old comments (not from this re-circ).
2.2.3.15.Amjad: I believe the comments are still valid. However, I shall not discuss them now, because I do not see a resolution. Moreover, it could require changes in the document which would extend the time to finish the process. I have offered that I am willing to request the working group chair to take these comments into consideration by the maintenance task group. I shall be willing to support the draft by changing my “no” votes to “yes”. It is up to the task group to handle the comments as they would like.
2.2.3.16.Mathilde: It may be as long as three years from the time “e” is certified until “m” can act. It could mean a lot of legacy product gets into the field before problems can be resolved with new equipment.
2.2.3.17.JohnF: I shall see to handling Amjad’s comments as he has suggested. I would like to give the next 15 minutes to the membership...
2.2.3.18.Srini: I propose a motion to deal with Amjad’s comments:
2.2.3.19.“Move that the Task Group requests to forward all “disapprove” comments by Amjad Soomro, Javier del Prado, and Stuart Kerry to Task Group “m” for consideration for a future revision of the standard.”
2.2.3.20.Moved Amjad/Srini seconds.
2.2.3.21.JohnF: If we make no changes to the draft, we may move the process forward materially. In my view this would be a good thing to do.
2.2.3.22.Mathilde: I believe there has to be a delay in processing issues through the maintenance group. Moreover, I am unclear on the rules regarding the need to re-circulate if a change of no to yes votes remove the comment and other commenters want to attach to those comments.
2.2.3.23.Mat Sherman: As long as there is no new “no” vote, no recirculation should be necessary.
2.2.3.24.JohnF: Is there any further discussion on the motion? None. Very well, let us vote on the motion. The vote passes unanimously, 16 “for”, 0 “against”, 2 “abstain”.
2.2.3.25.Mat: I shall check during the break on the details of Mathilde’s question and get back to her.
2.2.3.26.JohnF: In accordance with our plan, I would like to recess until such time as we act on the block of resolutions.
2.3.Closing
2.3.1.Recess
2.3.1.1.JohnF: Is there any objection to recess for 10 minutes? None. Very well, we are recessed.
2.3.1.2.Meeting recessed at 1122.
2.4.Opening
2.4.1.Call to order
2.4.1.1.JohnF (John Fakatselis): I call the meeting to order.
2.4.1.2.Meeting convened at 1132.
2.4.1.3.Srini, can you prepare a motion to accept the resolutions in the new document?
2.4.1.4.Srini: I wish to so move:
2.4.1.5.“Move to accept the resolutions as written in 05/131r2 for the comments contained therein.
2.4.1.6.Moved Srini. Seconded Andrew
2.4.1.7.JohnF: Before I ask for a second, would anyone like to pull out a comment for individual discussion? Would any one like to propose an exception. None. Seeing no indication of exception, is there any discussion on the motion? None. Seeing none, we shall vote. The vote to accept the proposed reolutions passes unanimously 12 “for”, 0 “against”, and 2 “abstain”. This concludes all of the mandatory responses and discussion on outstanding comments. We can conclude the meeting if we create the motions necessary to proceed without changes to the draft and recirculation. Technically, people cannot add any more comments, and all areas have been closed. If there is a comment made, it is up to the group to consider it. We may now move quickly towared closure. The next step is to present the final draft to Revcom. That requires a meeting in July, so we may have an approved standard by September.
2.4.1.8.Srini: I have prepared a motion:
2.4.1.9.“Believing that sponsor ballot comment responses in 11-05/0131R3 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 04/15/2005.
Movers: Srini, Andrew Estrada seconds
TGe: Result:
WG: x/xResult: x-x-x”
2.4.1.10.JohnF: Is there any discussion on this motion? None. Hearing none, we shall vote. The vote passes unanimously.15“for”, 0“against”, 0“abstain”
2.4.1.11.JohnF: Barring any other items, I declare that the work of the task group is completed for this plenary session.
2.5.Closing
2.5.1.Recess
2.5.1.1.JohnF: Is there any objection to adjourning the task group? None. Hearing none, we are closed.
2.5.1.2.Meeting adjourned at 1147.
Submissionpage 1R. R. Miller, AT&T