IEEE 802 Coexistence SG Meeting Minutes

July, 2001 IEEE P802.15-346

IEEE P802.15

Wireless Personal Area Networks

IEEE 802 Co-Existence SG

Teleconference

2 July 2001

Monday 07/02/01

Meeting called to order at 12:00 p.m.

Gordon Chinn Intel

Roger Marks, NIST

Dave Chauncey, Clearwire

Steve Shellhammer, Symbol

Tim Blaney, Mobilian

Jim Lansford, Mobilian

The group discussed how the operating rules for the TAG might be set up. We followed document number 01347r0P802.15_IEEE-Coexistence-CTAG as a reference during the teleconference

• Voting Rights:

Three proposals for establishing voting rights were presented:

1. A given number of members from each of the wireless WGs (currently that would be 802.11, 802.15 and 802.16) would require a rule change. A similar proposal is to require people to attend and sign a sheet just for acquiring CTAG voting rights, but this isn’t workable, considering everybody who participates in this TAG is almost certain to be a voter in one of the other groups.
2. Any current voting member of 802.11, 802.15 and 802.16 can attend the meetings and vote. This approach probably doesn’t require a rule change.
3. The CTAG generates a report that is voted on by each WG individually.

• Roger does not believe the group should deviate from the norm of existing TAGs because then the new operating rules would need SEC approval. The original concern was that 802.16 might not be fairly represented in this activity. However, Roger pointed out that there are now 137 members in 802.16, so Roger feels that they are not a minority as compared to either members of 802.11 or 802.15. The only logistical concern is that 802.16 sometimes meets in different hotels, so Roger is concerned about dual attendance at the scheduled meetings.

• Steve would like the rules to be set up so that if you already have established voting rights in either 802.11, 802.15 or 802.16, then you don’t have to re-establish rights in the TAG.

• After further discussion, Roger now thinks that maybe we should do a rules change to make the voting fair for existing, as well as, new members. He suggests that we put this change forward for approval at the November Plenary.

• After further discussion, Jim decided to talk this issue over with Stuart Kerry (802.11 Chairman) and Bob Heile (802.15 Chairman) in order to determine their support for this suggestion.

• Jim suggested that there be three (3) representatives from each group with voting rights. A question was raised as to whether this enough of a representation.

• Jim will revise the org chart slide prior to his ExComm presentation and put together an options slide for the three (3) proposals.

• Voting Procedures
• Jim then reviewed the selection of the chairman and editorship positions, as well as, the general operating procedures for the SG. This included how voting would take place during actual SG meetings.

• Tim accepted the responsibility of getting the website and document numbering schemes setup for the group

• Roger liked the idea of a minority opinion. However, he still wanted us to strive towards a consensus. The minority opinion is merely a way of capturing the other perspective.

• ROG (Rules of Engagement)
• Roger feels that it is important to get the TAG involved at the PAR level. Interference can then be looked at as a key component in the development of the standard. Roger is also concerned about the chairs of each WG being a mechanism for initiation of the work. It should be more open so that others can voice their opinions. Also, the TAG needs to make it more generic because there may be more wireless WGs in the future.

• TAG Output
• There is a general consensus that we do not want to write recommended practices. The output of the TAG is for internal use inside of 802 to make more informed decisions.
• Steve suggested that the TAG might function like the OET of the FCC. Majority opinion, recommendations, and technical analysis. A WG rather than this TAG would do the in depth analysis.
• The recommended practice could be an output that is given to another specific WG to do the actual work. We do NOT want to take on the burden of writing a recommended practice.
• An example: Use of the mid-band in the 5 GHz UNII bands. There are no regulatory rules that discuss coexistence, so maybe this group could make these recommendations.
• The TAG’s mission statement needs to be more precise. It might read something like: “To recommend to ExComm how PARs and Standards can be made to be more cogniscient of coexistence issues.”
• A question was raised as to under what conditions will coexistence be required and not be required.

• We want this TAG to level the playing field for all participants developing wireless standards, and not just give the advantage to the incumbents. Just because 802.11b was there first, doesn’t mean that it always gets first right of refusal to new proposals.

• Summary

• Fair representation from 802.11, 802.15 and 802.16

• Determine the point that the TAG becomes involved

• Create a Mission statement

• Plan and Action Items
• Jim will ask ExComm for an extension of the SG to November’s Plenary in order to give the group enough time to create the TAG properly.
• Additionally, we need to determine if we are going to ask the SEC for a rules change in terms of participation and voting rights. Jim will talk with Stuart Kerry, Bob Heile and Roger Marks regarding proposed membership rules.
• Jim will propose a Mission statement and authority of the TAG for the group’s review.

• Roger made the comment that ExComm would like to not view coexistence debates during ExComm meetings. This TAG can resolve that problem if it is implemented properly.

Meeting was adjourned at 1:10 p.m.

SubmissionPage 1Tim Blaney, Mobilian Corporation