October 2006 doc.: IEEE 802.22-06/0214r0
IEEE P802.22
Wireless RANs
Date: 2006-10-24
Author(s):
Name / Company / Address / Phone / email
William Rose / WJR Consulting Inc. / 3 Tunxis Road, West Hartford CT 06107 / 860 313-8098 /
Agenda
1. Attendance
2. Approve Agenda
3. Approve Minutes:
· Review and Approve minutes from October 3 and from Oct 17, 2006
- Continue to review the minutes from Melbourne and identify open issues and dependencies on/to 802.22 standard
- Begin discussion on new proposals (time permitting)
· Samsung proposal (document # 184 under the September Meeting Documents)
- Other Business
- Note: The dial-information is changing. Please watch for a notice with new dial-in numbers/pass code
- Next Meeting: Tuesday October 31, 11:00 AM EDT.
Note: 802.22.1 will meet every Tuesday at 11:00 AM until the November Plenary - Adjourn
Minutes
1. Attendance
Bill Rose (Chair)
Greg Buchwald (Vice Chair)
Soo Young Chang
Monique Brown
Gerald Chouinard
Wu Yuchun
Baowei Ji
Chris Clanton
Steve Kufner
Carl Stevenson
Ed Callaway
2. The agenda was approved without change
3. Review Minutes
The minutes from October 3rd were approved without change
The minutes from October 17th were approved with the following changes:
4b, first paragraph: Spell out IM, events (plural)
4b, second paragraph, first sentence: added “for interbeacon signaling”;
4b, second paragraph, third sentence: changed “channel” to “subchannel”, added “within a TV channel”
4d: Added “to ensure this is not required under IEEE 802”
4. Continue to review minutes from Melbourne
a. Discussion: Is TG1 required to include a source and MAC address in its payload under IEEE 802? Is TG1 required to be a 2-way network under IEEE 802?
Action Item: Monique Brown volunteered to write up the issues and send it to Carl.
Action Item: Carl will request clarification on the above issues.
b. Discussion on Intermodulation
Item for Review: There is a tradeoff between operating a beacon in close proximity to microphone receiver versus the number of beacons operating on distinct channels and the possiblity of the beacon using the lower edge of the channel to take advantage of a WRAN sensing scheme that uses the edge carriers of the channel to sense. This may also be an issue for a recommended practice or annex as to the minimum distance between the beacon and the microphone receiver.
There was also a discussion as to whether it may be better to add an annex to the TG1 standard than to add a Recommended Practice as was suggested on the October 17th call. There was general consensus that this would be a better approach.
c. There may be a reason to have separate WRAN and Interbeacon payloads sent by a beacon. The WRAN only needs channel information whereas other beacons may need subchannel information.
d. If the WRAN is able to capture one “blip” and then schedules future windows, perhaps the 10mSec could be met – needs further discussion
e. Item for Review: Security needs to be addressed in more detail.
f. Action Item: Bill Rose will provide a list of the “To Do’s” (open items requiring further discussion) to Greg Buchwald for prioritization.
g. We completed the review of the Melbourne minutes for open items. See final list below (including items from October 17th call). The next step will be to resolve the open issues.
5. Other Business:
a. FCC First R&O: Greg Buchwald suggested that we set aside some time in Dallas in November to discuss the recent R&O and what if any comments we may want to coordinate with .18.
b. Carl will add a 4th and 5th time slot for TG1 at the November Plenary meetings in Dallas. The time slots will be Monday – Thursday in the PM2 time slot, and Thursday evening if needed.
6. Next Meetings:
There was a discussion on making some of the meetings more accessible to members from Asia and elsewhere. It was decided to go to an alternating time for the calls. Starting next Tuesday, the calls will alternate between 9:00 AM ET, and 10:00 PM ET with the Tuesday October 31st call being held at 9:00 AM ET.
7. The meeting adjourned at 12:20 PM EDT
Decisions Made/Action Items:
1) Begin work on recommended practice document
2) Determine if the payload can be shortened, or if this is needed, for VoIP reasons
3) We have defined sub-channels as increments, such as 200kHz, within a TV channel. Raster to be determined.
4) We have defined sub-bands as a grouping of UHF TV channels, such as 14 – 20, 21 – 28, 29 – 36, etc. that may reduce the payload and make beacon manufacture easier. We also determined the sub-bands should be a percentage of overall bandwidth, not a linear grouping.
5) We need to have further consideration of how many beacaons should continue to operate long term at a given location. Sub-bands may affect this; it has been suggested that one may be too few, but one on every channel is too much.
6) The Samsung proposals must be considered. The increased data capacity from complex modulation has many supporters. There are also additional proposals from Samsung, and new proposals from others, which we must consider on a priority basis – this work must be completed so that the rest of the open items can be properly addressed.
7) Is TG1 required to include a source and MAC address in its payload under IEEE 802? Is TG1 required to be a 2-way network under IEEE 802?
8) There may be a reason to have separate WRAN and Interbeacon payloads sent by a beacon. The WRAN only needs channel information whereas other beacons may need subchannel information.
9) If the WRAN is able to capture one “blip” and then schedules future windows, perhaps the 10mSec could be met – needs further discussion
10) Tradeoff between operating a beacon in close proximity to microphone receiver versus the number of beacons operating on distinct channels and the possiblity of the beacon using the lower edge of the channel to take advantage of a WRAN sensing scheme that uses the edge carriers of the channel to sense.
11) Recommended minimum distance between the beacon and the microphone receiver (annex?)
12) Should issues that fall outside of the phy/mac be referred to a recommended practice or to an annex?
13) Security needs to be addressed in more detail.
Dependancies:
1) We need a defined quiet period from 802.22 for sensing period.
Submission page 1 William Rose, WJR Consulting Inc.