March 2005doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0261r0
IEEE P802.11
Wireless LANs
Date: 21-March-2005
Author(s):
Name / Company / Address / Phone / email
Stephen G. Rayment / BelAir Networks / 603 March Road, Kanata, ON, Canada K1S 1W1 / +1 (613) 254-7070 /
Donald E. Eastlake III / Motorola Laboratories / 11 Locke Drive, Marlboro, MA, USA 01752 / +1 (508) 786-7554 /
Bahareh Sadeghi /
Intel Corp. / 2111 NE 25th Ave, JF3-206
Hillsboro, OR 97124 /
+1 (503) 217-8367 /
Contents
Minutes......
Detailed Record......
Minutes
Session I, Wednesday, March 16th, 08:00-10:00, Hyatt Regency Hotel – Centennial I Ballroom
The meeting was called to order at 08:06 by Donald Eastlake III - Chair, Stephen Rayment - Secretary, W. Steven Conner - Editor
The Chair reviewed the overview of the week’s agenda, page 3 of 11-05/113r5
The Chair reminded everyone to use the On-line Attendance system.
The IEEE and 802.11 Policies concerning Patents and Inappropriate topics were explained by the Chair and there were no questions.
Approval of the Minutes of the January 2005 Meeting, 11-05/45r0
by unanimous consent
Approval of the Minutes of the Teleconference held 23 February 2005, 11-05/135r1
by unanimous consent
Adoption of Agenda, 11-05/113r5 by unanimous consent
The Chair reviewed the Status of Task Group
35 Notices received of intent to submit a proposal
34 Accepted, 11-05/112r7
9 requests for proposal linked presentation slots at this meeting
2 requests so far for proposal linked presentation slots at May meeting (deadline is midnight May 13th EST)
Moved, to accept the following 35th notice of intent to submit a proposal which was received before the deadline but had only been addressed to the TGs Chair and not also to the TGs secretary and 802.11 Chair as required by the Call for Proposals (11-04/1430r12):
Contact Person: Bing Zhang
Phone Number: +81-774-95-1533
Email:
Tentative title: Proactive Mesh Networks (ProM)
Moved Guido Hiertz
Second Stephen Rayment
Yes 32 No 0 Abstain 1
08:24, Slot A, Intent #10, “Proposed Extensible Approach for WLAN Mesh Standardization”, W. Steve Conner (Intel) and Hidenori Aoki (NTT DoCoMo), 11-05/165r1
Straw poll on TGs interest in receiving further information:
Yes 51 No 0
08:48, Slot B, Intent #14, “802.11 TGs Mesh Networking Proposal”, 11-05/196r2, Stefano M. Faccin, Carl Wijting, Jarkko Kneckt and Ameya Damle (Nokia)
Straw pollon TGs interest in receiving further information:
Yes 40 No 0
09:12, Slot C, Intent #24, “The Advantages of Invisibility and Cooperation”, 11-05/166r1, Ike Nassi, Jorjeta Jetcheva (Firetide)
Straw pollon TGs interest in receiving further information:
Yes 45 No 1
09:25, Slot D, Intent #4, “Cooperative Communication in Mesh Networking”, 11-05/143r0, Klaus Fosmark (University of Texas at Dallas)
Straw pollon TGs interest in receiving further information:
Yes 14 No 6
The Chair recessed the session at 09:46
Session II, Wednesday, March 16th, 13:30-15:30, Hyatt Regency Hotel – Dunwoody Room
The Chair reconvened the session at 13:30 and reminded everyone to use the on-line attendance system.
13:30 Slot E, Intent #5, “A routing protocol for WLAN mesh networking”, 11-05/174r2, Hang Lui, Jun Li and Saurabh Mathur (Thomson, Inc.)
Straw pollon TGs interest in receiving further information:
Yes 47 No 1
13:54 Slot F, Intent #23, “Deployment Considerations in Wireless Mesh Networking”, 11-05/268r0, Veera Anantha and Roger Skidmore (Wireless Valley)
Straw pollon TGs interest in receiving further information:
Yes 28 No 0
14:08 Slot G, Intent #3, “Proposal for a Dynamic Backbone Mesh”, 11-05/142r0, Dennis Baker, James Hauser (NRL)
Straw pollon TGs interest in receiving further information:
Yes 50 No 0
14:32 Slot H, Intent #26, “Proposal for Higher Spatial Reuse”, 11-05/267r0, Jack Winters (Motia)
Straw pollon TGs interest in receiving further information:
Yes 43 No 1
14:58 Slot I, Intent #32, “Proposal for ESS Mesh”, 11-05/263r0, Song Yean Cho, Jihoon Lee (Samsung), Philippe Jacquet (INRIA), Thomas Clausen (Ecole Polytechnique)
Straw pollon TGs interest in receiving further information:
Yes 47 No 0
The Chair recessed the session at 15:16
Session III, Wednesday, March 16th, 16:00-18:00, Hyatt Regency Hotel – Dunwoody Room
The Chair reconvened the session at 16:00
Presentation #1 “RBridges: Transparent Routing”, subset of 11-05/241r0, Radia Perlman
Questions
Presentation #2 “End to end Performance Considerations in Wireless Bridges”, 11-05/168r0, V. Gambiroza (Rice University), B.Sadeghi (Intel), E. Knightly (Rice University)
Presentation #3 “TGs Proposal Presentation Procedures”, 11-04/1539r4, Donald Eastlake
Presentation #4 “TGs Selection Procedure Recommendation”, 11-05/274, Tricci So, Juan Carlos Zuniga, D. J. Shyy, Tyan-Shu Jou, Guido R. Hiertz
Presentation #5 “TGs Process”, 11-05/207r1, Donald Eastlake
The Chair adjourned the session at 17:55
Session IV, Thursday, March 17th, 13:30-15:30, Hyatt Regency Hotel – Centennial II Ballroom
The Chair convened the session at 13:32, reminded everyone to us the on-line attendance system
And reviewed the latest agenda, 11-05/113r6, and accomplishments of the TG to date
Presentation #6 “Exposed terminal problem solution by using multiple channels”, Atsushi Fujiwara (NTT DoCoMo), 11-05/247r1
Presentation #7 “MAC Components in IEEE 802.11s”, Bahareh Sadeghi, Lily Yang (Intel), Akira Yamada (NTT DoCoMo) 11-05/167r1
First Panel of Proposal Intenders
#10 “Proposed Extensible Approach for WLAN Mesh Standardization”, 11-05/165r1, W. Steve Conner,
#32 “Proposal for ESS Mesh”, 11-05/263r0, (Samsung)
#14 “802.11 TGs Mesh Networking Proposal”, 11-05/196r2, Jarkko Kneckt
#24 802.11s Mesh Portals “The Advantages of Invisibility and Cooperation”, 11-05/166r1, Ike Nassi
Each panelist provided an overview of their proposal, responded to questions from the floor and provided concluding remarks.
Second Panel of Proposal Intenders
#3 “Proposal for a Dynamic Backbone Mesh”, 11-05/142r0, Dennis Baker
#5 “A routing protocol for WLAN mesh networking”, 11-05/174r2, Hang Lui
#23 “Deployment Considerations in Wireless Mesh Networking”, 11-05/268r0, Veera Anantha
#26 “Proposal for Higher Spatial Reuse”, 11-05/267r0, Jack Winters
Each panelist provided an overview of their proposal, responded to questions from the floor and provided concluding remarks.
The Chair recessed the session at 15:22
Session V, Thursday, March 17th, 16:00-18:00, Hyatt Regency Hotel – Centennial II Ballroom
The Chair re-convened the session at 16:01, reminded everyone to use the on-line attendance system and quickly reviewed the Agenda for the session.
Presentation #8 “A security model for wireless meshs”, Robert Moskowitz (ICSA Labs), 11-05/172
The Chair proposed that the existing five documents on process be presented, allowing clarifying questions. Then there would be discussion to try to converge on process
Presentation #9 “TGs Process”, Donald Eastlake, 11-05/207r2
The Chair reviewed this document again, which included the Chair’s projected schedule for the group.
Motion to adopt the following motto for the TG “Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing left to add but when there is nothing left to take away”
Moved Guido Hiertz, Second James Woodyatt
For 19 Against 1 Abstain 17
Presentation #10 “Proposal Presentation Procedures for July and later”, Donald Eastlake, 11-04/1539r4
Presentation #11 “Selection Procedure”, Juan Carlos Zuniga, 11-05/274r1
Presentation #12 “Selection Procedure Recommendation”, Timothy Wakeley, 11-05/300r0
Presentation #13 “TGs Downselect alternative timeline”, Chair, 11-05/295r0
Chair states that we will first approve changes in 11-04/1539r4, then on changes in 11-05/0274 (including the changes suggestion in 11-05/300), vote to choose between the amended 1539 and the amended 274, and finally vote on adopting the chosen document.
Document 04/1539r4
Vote: In favor of the change presented in document 11-04/1539r4 to drop the bottom quarter of proposals.
Result: about 20 to 2 (no accurate counting was done, the Chair asked if there was any objection to declaring the vote passed and there was no objection)
The first alternative in the document, providing for dropping the bottom 25% of proposals, is approved.
Document 05/274
Vote on whether people should be required to give reason for the no votes in the final stage of downselect:
No 7 Yes 18 Abstain 2
Vote on incorporation of the provision compelling merger of the two last proposals under some circumstances:
Yes 18 No 5 Abstain 4.
Vote by show of hands/voting-tokens on removing item 9 from 05/174:
Yes 10 No 10 Abstain 7.
There being a tie, the Chair voted in favor and declared the motion passed which would have resulted in item 9 being removed from the document.
There was a demand for a Division (a standing counted voted). Results:
Yes 10 No 12 Abstain 6
Based on this more reliable count the Chair declared the motion lost and: Step 9 remains in the document.
The Chair offered to do yet another recount by an even more reliable method but no one requested it so the results immediately above stand. The Chair then proceeded to the choice between 11-05/1539r3 as amended and 11-05/274 as amended.
Vote to choose between documents 274 and 1539 as amended:
11-04/1539: 10 11-05/274: 11 Abstain: 6
The Chair then proceeded to the vote on adopting 11-05/274 as amended.
The Chair called for debate but there was none.
Vote to adopt document 11-05/274 as amended:
Yes 12 No 6 Abstain 8
The Chair declared document 11-05/274 adopted as amended. It was later uploaded as 11-05/274r3.
[IMPORTANT NOTE: The policy in 802.11 and its task groups, as set by the Chair of 802.11, is that the adoption or amendment of proposal selection procedures is considered a Technical matter as it involves choices between technical approaches. Therefore, document 11-05/274 as amended (later uploaded as 11-05/274r3) was NOT adopted as the vote in its favor was only 2/3, not the required 3/4. The Chair publicly apologized for his error during the 802.11 Closing Plenary Friday morning the following day.]
The Chair suggested that TGs hold one teleconference between the March and May meetings on 20 April 2005 at 14:00 Eastern US time. The Chair called for alternative dates and times but none were offered. The Chair proceeded to a vote:
Yes 21 No 0 Abstain 1
Discussion ensued on holding an Ad hoc meeting.
Date: Aug 30 - Sep 1
Place: Portland, Oregon
Purpose: Discussion of proposals
Intel has offered to host this meeting. The Chair called for alternative dates or locations or hosts. There were none offered.
Vote on requesting permission to hold an ad hoc meeting
Yes 9 No 4 Abstain 7
The Chair adjourned the session sine die at 18:01pm.
Detailed Record
Session I, Wednesday, March 16th, 08:00-10:00, Hyatt Regency Hotel – Centennial I Ballroom
The meeting was called to order at 08:06 by Donald Eastlake III - Chair, Stephen Rayment - Secretary, W. Steven Conner - Editor
The Chair reviewed the overview of the week’s agenda, page 3 of 11-05/113r5
The Chair reminded everyone to use the On-line Attendance system.
The IEEE and 802.11 Policies concerning Patents and Inappropriate topics were explained by the Chair and there were no questions.
Approval of the Minutes of the January 2005 Meeting, 11-05/45r0
by unanimous consent
Approval of the Minutes of the Teleconference held 23 February 2005, 11-05/135r1
by unanimous consent
The Chair reviewed the remainder of the Agenda in detail.
The Chair indicated in response to a question from the floor that any additional proposals on post – July process are accommodated by the Agenda on Wednesday and/or Thursday PM
Adoption of Agenda, 11-05/113r5by unanimous consent
Straw poll on repeating the full Perlman presentation on rbridges
Yes 15 No 40
The Chair reviewed the Status of Task Group
35 Notices received of intent to submit a proposal
34 Accepted, 11-05/112r7
9 requests for proposal linked presentation slots at this meeting
2 requests so far for proposal linked presentation slots at May meeting (deadline is midnight May 13th EST)
Moved, to accept the following 35th notice of intent to submit a proposal which was received before the deadline but had only been addressed to the TGs Chair and not also to the TGs secretary and 802.11 Chair as required by the Call for Proposals (11-04/1430r12):
Contact Person: Bing Zhang
Phone Number: +81-774-95-1533
Email:
Tentative title: Proactive Mesh Networks (ProM)
Moved Guido Hiertz
Second Stephen Rayment
Yes 32 No 0 Abstain 1
08:24, Slot A, Intent #10, “Proposed Extensible Approach for WLAN Mesh Standardization”, W. Steve Conner (Intel) and Hidenori Aoki (NTT DoCoMo), 11-05/165r1
Straw poll on TGs interest in receiving further information
Yes 51 No 0
08:48, Slot B, Intent #14, “802.11 TGs Mesh Networking Proposal”, 11-05/196r2, Stefano M. Faccin, Carl Wijting, Jarkko Kneckt and Ameya Damle (Nokia)
Straw pollon TGs interest in receiving further information
Yes 40 No 0
09:12, Slot C, Intent #24, “The Advantages of Invisibility and Cooperation”, 11-05/166r1, Ike Nassi, Jorjeta Jetcheva (Firetide)
Straw pollon TGs interest in receiving further information
Yes 45 No 1
09:25, Slot D, Intent #4, “Cooperative Communication in Mesh Networking”, 11-05/143r0, Klaus Fosmark (University of Texas at Dallas)
Questions ensued, including how does the relay know that there was an error in the original transmission?
Straw pollon TGs interest in receiving further information
Yes 14 No 6
The Chair recessed the session at 09:46
Session II, Wednesday, March 16th, 13:30-15:30, Hyatt Regency Hotel – Dunwoody Room
The Chair reconvened the session at 13:30 and reminded everyone to use the on-line attendance system.
13:30 Slot E, Intent #5, “A routing protocol for WLAN mesh networking”, 11-05/174r2, Hang Lui, Jun Li and Saurabh Mathur (Thomson, Inc.)
Straw pollon TGs interest in receiving further information
Yes 47 No 1
13:54 Slot F, Intent #23, “Deployment Considerations in Wireless Mesh Networking”, 11-05/268r0, Veera Anantha and Roger Skidmore (Wireless Valley)
Questions ensued, particularly regarding the plug and play nature
Straw pollon TGs interest in receiving further information
Yes 28 No 0
14:08 Slot G, Intent #3, “Proposal for a Dynamic Backbone Mesh”, 11-05/142r0, Dennis Baker, James Hauser (NRL)
Questions ensued, including node synchronization, hidden nodes, configuration
Straw pollon TGs interest in receiving further information
Yes 50 No 0
14:32 Slot H, Intent #26, “Proposal for Higher Spatial Reuse”, 11-05/267r0, Jack Winters (Motia)
Questions ensued, including details of smart antenna details, access vs backhaul use, specific MAC changes
Straw pollon TGs interest in receiving further information
Yes 43 No 1
14:58 Slot I, Intent #32, “Proposal for ESS Mesh”, 11-05/263r0, Song Yean Cho, Jihoon Lee (Samsung), Philippe Jacquet (INRIA), Thomas Clausen (Ecole Polytechnique)
Straw pollon TGs interest in receiving further information
Yes 47 No 0
The Chair recessed the session at 15:16
Session III, Wednesday, March 16th, 16:00-18:00, Hyatt Regency Hotel – Dunwoody Room
The Chair reconvened the session at 16:00
Presentation #1 “RBridges: Transparent Routing”, subset of 11-05/241r0, Radia Perlman
Questions
What’s IPR status of RBridges? It’s been released in IETF in accordance with their rules so if IETF standardizes it, we should be safe building on that. In addition, efforts are underway to get a separate Letter of Assurance for IEEE 802.11 TGs as a back up.
Why encapsulate? To provide for a hop count and to make sure that intervening bridges and RBridgess are not confused into thinking that a device was on the local link when it’
Presentation #2 “End to end Performance Considerations in Wireless Bridges”, 11-05/168r0, V. Gambiroza (Rice University), B.Sadeghi (Intel), E. Knightly (Rice University)
Presentation #3 “TGs Proposal Presentation Procedures”, 11-04/1539r4, Donald Eastlake
The Chair reviewed the minor changes being suggested for this document which was adopted at the last meeting in so far as it outlines the process until July.
Presentation #4 “TGs Selection Procedure Recommendation”, 11-05/274, Tricci So, Juan Carlos Zuniga, D. J. Shyy, Tyan-Shu Jou, Guido R. Hiertz
The document is based on the TGn procedure and a previous TGs document 11-04/1107r1
Questions
Why have a low hurdle which won’t reject anything?
How to distinguish complete from partial proposals when it is the submitter that declares compliance with functional requirements?
How to merge partial proposals based on technical merit?
Presentation #5 “TGs Process”, 11-05/207r1, Donald Eastlake
The Chair reviewed this overall process document, which includes a new timeline after July.
Questions
General concern over the time required to down-select given the large number of proposals
The Chair adjourned the session at 17:55
Session IV, Thursday, March 17th, 13:30-15:30, Hyatt Regency Hotel – Centennial II Ballroom
The Chair convened the session at 13:32, reminded everyone to us the on-line attendance system
And reviewed the latest agenda, 11-05/113r6, and accomplishments of the TG to date
Presentation #6 “Exposed terminal problem solution by using multiple channels”, Atsushi Fujiwara (NTT DoCoMo), 11-05/247r1
Question
How is channel allocation performed?
Presentation #7 “MAC Components in IEEE 802.11s”, Bahareh Sadeghi, Lily Yang (Intel), Akira Yamada (NTT DoCoMo) 11-05/167r1
Questions…
- Multi or single frequency solution? Both
- How can you do single frequency with EDCA? Deal with mesh and client traffics separately, different queues.
- How does EDCA help in half duplex? Off-line discussion
- Explain which Mesh Points beacon and which don’t. Trade-off as explained in presentation, needs work
- Is beaconing overhead that high? Studies mentioned
- Clarify beaconing? Intent here was beacon for whole mesh. Term not in current terms document
PCF can co-exist with EDCA
First Panel of Proposal Intenders
#10 “Proposed Extensible Approach for WLAN Mesh Standardization”, 11-05/165r1, W. Steve Conner,
#32 “Proposal for ESS Mesh”, 11-05/263r0, (Samsung)
#14 “802.11 TGs Mesh Networking Proposal”, 11-05/196r2, Jarkko Kneckt
#24 802.11s Mesh Portals “The Advantages of Invisibility and Cooperation”, 11-05/166r1, Ike Nassi
Each panelist provided a brief overview of their proposal
Questions…
What part of proposal is immutable?
#24 – doesn’t address APs, draw line between L2 and L3, mesh is for backhaul
#14 – very open, home applicaitions, simplicity, power consumption for handhelds
#32 – self configuring, security, extensibility, don’t be too evolutionary if it doesn’t serve multi-hop mesh needs
#10 – working on complete proposal, enabler for new WLAN opportunities, multi-vendor interop is key, so open to other proposers’ input
Scalability / stability of routing with large routing tables
Chair reminded people of the PAR target of 32 forwarding nodes
#10 – unlike MANET, focus on self configuring for common usage scenarios, limit number since we’re working at L2
#32 – agree
#14 – home networks
#24 – with mesh nodes and mesh portals can build larger networks, unify with management
Comment – Larger networks are happening, how does limited TGs fit and scale?
Power of AP and STA – how does it relate to meshes and not APs
#14 - MP has both, would like it battery operated, leave STA AP interface untouched
Separate forwarding from AP logically or physically?
#24 – should be able to use existing APs, build meshes out of different units, may have same elements but used for backhaul, if you combine you get more complexity, no need given Moore’s Law
#10 – given scope of PAR and evolution of BSS, need to consider implementation on single physical device but should logically separate
#32 – separate protocol from implementation
Power consumption – is there really a requirement for a handheld to act as a mesh device?