Doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/1199r3
IEEE P802.11
Wireless LANs
|TGv Teleconference and Ad-Hoc Minutes August, September 2008 |
|Date: 2008-11-05 |
|Author(s): |
|Name |Affiliation |Address |Phone |email |
|Dorothy Stanley |Aruba Networks |1332 Crossman Ave |+1-630-363-1389 |dstanley@arubanetworks.c|
| | |Sunnyvale, CA 94089 | |om |
| | | | | |
September 23, 2008 Teleconference
Agenda, from e-mail notice:
1. Call to Order, Patent Notification
2. Editor Update
3. Comment Resolution – LB133 and Draft 3.02
4. Agenda for Oct 7th con call
5. Adjourn
Please review the documents at the following links prior to the call:
- IEEE Patent Policy -
- Affiliation FAQ -
- Anti-Trust FAQ -
- Ethics -
Notes – Tuesday, September 23rd, 2008
Attendees: Emily Qi (Intel), Dorothy Stanley (Aruba Networks), Allan Thomson (Cisco Systems), Qi Wang (Broadcom), Joshua Zhao (Atheros), Jing Zhu (Intel)
1. Chair called meeting to order: 12:05 Eastern
Chair called attention to the patent policy slides. Are there any questions on the slides?
None
Chair asked: Are there any patent claim(s)/patent application claim(s) and/or the holder of patent claim(s)/patent application claim(s) that the participant believes may be essential for the use of that standard?
None brought forward
Are there any additions to the proposed agenda? No changes proposed.
2. Editor’s report.
Draft 3.02 is posted; it incorporates all of the resolutions adopted to date. The comment resolution spreadsheet is 08-801-02.
3. Comment resolutions
Discussion on LB133 CID 302-308 (proposed additional bit in collocated interference field):
- Jari Jokela (Nokia) was one of the original proponents of the collocated interference capability. While he is not attending the IEEE meetings any longer, he is reviewing proposed comment resolutions, and has agreed to all of the resolutions to date.
- Several solutions have been proposed to CID 302 et al:
o Decline the comments and make no change.
o Adopt proposed change in 08-233-02 – Issues with new terms/concepts being introduced.
o Adopt proposed change in 08-1010-00 – Issues raised with definition of the bit values. Agree that this language can be cleaned up.
- Is there a need for the additional bit? What are the use cases, and are they of sufficient importance to include the new bit.
- See the explanation in 08-233-02 for the rationale. Use cases include group addressed and unicast frames, where either no ACK is provided, or a noACK policy/Block ACK is in place.
- How the AP will react to this information is not specified. Is a modification of the AP’s transmission of for example Beacon frames expected? Believe not, since Beacon transmission specified by the base spec.
- Skeptical that this feature will be useful. Interference is time varying, questionable that the AP can react in time.
- Is this new bit redundant with existing info? No, it is intended to convey additional info on whether or not the receive path is inhibited or not. Commenter has a point that the interference can impact transmit or receive path.
- Intent of the collocated interference feature overall is to provide a hint to the AP. No requirements on AP behaviour. Not sure one more bit is useful in practice; introduces one more bit that we are not requiring any behaviour for.
- Next steps: Jing to modify the text in 08-1010-00, for an improved specification of the meaning of the bit, when set to 0/1.
- Qi to talk with Jon Rosdahl to get more info on the use cases/background.
Discussion on ; this document contains suggested edits to Draft 3.02. No functionality changes are suggested, changes are for text consistency, improved readability, and similar. Dorothy will post an -01, incorporating agreed changes.
- Comment 3-02-DS-1 – Proxy ARP text consistency – Agreement that the proposed changes make the text consistent; Allan has an action item from Waikoloa to investigate the behaviour of the AP when the IP address of the station changes, to confirm that the qualifying phrase is needed.
- Comment 3-02-DS-2: “range” in mentioned in 12.3.5.5.4, but deleted from 17.2.4.1. Make consistent? – Agree with deletion, looks like an editing oversight. Also “time-of-flight” should be deleted.
- Comment 3-02-DS-3: AP Power down capability uses “AP” as a physical entity, not a virtual entity. “device containing the AP” may not be accurate in a multiple BSSID situation, when one BSS is left active, or for multiradio device, with one radio active. Allan, Dorothy to search for a better term.
In 11.20.6.4 changes, add the field name back in, add the “out of scope” sentence back in. Use primitive references, rather than the frame name.
- Comment 3-02-DS-4: Text clean-up needed: “a sta that has not requested use of channel usage” – Agree with the changes.
- Comment 3-02-DS-5: Minor editorial comments – Agree with the changes.
4. Agenda for next con calls: October 7th, 21st, Nov 4th
October 7th con call – Timing Synchronization, D3.02 comments – Ganesh Venkatesan
October 21st con call - General 1239, 1257 – Annex A, text clean-up – Qi Wang
Additional topics (Oct 7, Oct 21, Nov 4):
Management Frame Priority – Category 251 – Mike Montemurro
Diagnostics 163, 227 – Collocated device, device type – Allan Thomson; Qi to summarize her issues with this and work offline.
Event CID 1227, 1328 – UTC format, delivery – Joe Kwak
Traffic Generation – 73 – Alex Ashley, Fujio Watanabe
AP Collaboration – comment group 1274 – Bill Marshall
5. Adjourn at 13:10 Eastern.
October 7, 2008 Teleconference
Agenda, from e-mail notice:
1. Call to Order, Patent Notification
2. Editor Update
3. Comment Resolution – LB133 and Draft 3.02
4. Agenda for next con calls
5. Adjourn
Please review the documents at the following links prior to the call:
- IEEE Patent Policy -
- Affiliation FAQ -
- Anti-Trust FAQ -
- Ethics -
Notes – Tuesday, October 7th, 2008
Attendees: Mark Hamilton (Polycomm), Jon Rosdahl (CSR), Dorothy Stanley (Aruba Networks), Ganesh Venkatesan (Intel), Qi Wang (Broadcom)
1. Chair called meeting to order: 12:05 Eastern
Chair called attention to the patent policy slides. Are there any questions on the slides?
None
Chair asked: Are there any patent claim(s)/patent application claim(s) and/or the holder of patent claim(s)/patent application claim(s) that the participant believes may be essential for the use of that standard?
None brought forward
Are there any additions to the proposed agenda? No changes proposed.
2. Editor’s report.
No report.
3. Comment resolutions
Ganesh discussed the current proposed resolution on LB133 Timing Synchronization CIDs, see and .
- Ganesh will produce a new document that incorporates all of the proposed changes, relative to Draft 3.02, and this new document will be referenced in the comment resolutions for all accepted/counter comments as follows: Add “Incorporate changes in 08-document number”
- CID 56 – change to counter
- CID 125 – agree with proposed resolution; additional explanatory text is added. Double check description of sleep mode interaction, if needed.
- CID 126 – change to counter
- CID 268 – agree with proposed resolution
- CID358 – replace current resolution with a reference to the roll-up document and section
- CID 360 – agree with proposed resolution
- CID 361 – deferred. Solution to accuracy still needed – is standard deviation or some other mechanism used?
- CID 387 – agree with proposed resolution
- CID 1234 – change to counter
- CID 1235 – agree with proposed resolution
- CID 1280 – agree with proposed resolution
- CID 1350 – agree with proposed resolution
- CID 1354 – agree with proposed resolution
- CID 1393 – agree with proposed resolution, add reference to IEEE P1588 seminar paper, which describes the difference between distribution of a time value, and synchronizing time.
- CID 1413 – change to counter, describe reference points.
- Additional comment – TOD timestamp use for both location and timing measurement is confusing, implies same accuracy needed. Solution adoped in proposed text is to decouple the two, simplified description for timing synchronization.
- Additional comment – Location applications require high precision, Timing Synchronization requires lower precision. Don’t use same Table v24 values. Solution adopted in the proposed text is to add a new table for Timestamp counter units.
- Additional comment – Standard deviation is one way to calculate accuracy, it is not the only way. Does accuracy apply to both time of departure and time of arrival? Applies to both. Means to indicate accuracy is still being investigated (see CID 361). Discussions ongoing.
- Additional comment – Need to add “disclaimer” text to Annex U, indicating that the Annex U description applies only to Location, not Timing synchronization. Proposed text is included in 08-846-06, improvements welcome.
- Additional comment – The timing synchronization feature makes the assumption that the wireless channel is symmetric, and that any wireless medium differences will be compensated for at higher layers. Need to indicate this in the text. Agree, will be added to the roll-up text document.
Status of discussion on collocated interference – Jing sent out proposed revised text after the last con call. Review and send any proposed changes to Jing, Jon.
Discussion on ; this document contains suggested edits to Draft 3.02.
- Comment 3 – Follow-up from the last con call. Propose to use “BSS Termination” to refer to the operation and field names, while using the existing primitive. Also to add changes to 7.4.9 and 7.4.10. Agreement with this approach. Need to investigate changing from disassociation of associated stations to deauthentication of associated stations.
- Comment 6 – Suggested changes to the introduction text – agree to proposed changes.
- Comment 7 – Clause 3 edits– agree to proposed changes
- Comment 8 – Clause 5 edits– agree to proposed changes
4. Agenda for next con calls: October 21st, Nov 4th
October 21st con call
- General CIDs 1239, 1257 – Annex A, text clean-up – Qi Wang
- Update on Collocated Interference proposed solution
- Update on Timing Synchronization CID 361/accuracy solution
Nov 4th con call
- Management Frame Priority – Category 251 – Mike Montemurro review solution approach
- Updates on topics still open from prior con calls
Additional topics:
Diagnostics 163, 227 – Collocated device, device type – Allan Thomson
Event CID 1227, 1328 – UTC format, delivery – Joe Kwak
Traffic Generation – 73 – Alex Ashley, Fujio Watanabe
AP Collaboration – comment group 1274 – Bill Marshall
5. Adjourn at 13:40 Eastern.
October 21, 2008 Teleconference
Agenda, from e-mail notice:
1. Call to Order, Patent Notification
2. Editor Update
3. Comment Resolution – LB133 and Draft 3.02
- General CIDs 1239, 1257 – Annex A, text clean-up – Qi Wang
- Update on Collocated Interference proposed solution
- Update on Timing Synchronization CID 361/accuracy solution
-
-
-
4. Agenda for next con call Nov 4th
5. Adjourn
Please review the documents at the following links prior to the call:
- IEEE Patent Policy -
- Affiliation FAQ -
- Anti-Trust FAQ -
- Ethics -
Notes – Tuesday, October 21st, 2008
Attendees: Alex Ashley (NDS), Mark Hamilton (Polycomm), Emily Qi (Intel), Jon Rosdahl (CSR), Dorothy Stanley (Aruba Networks), Ganesh Venkatesan (Intel), Qi Wang (Broadcom), Joshua Zhao (Atheros), Jing Zu (Intel)
1. Chair called meeting to order: 12:05 Eastern
Chair called attention to the patent policy slides. Are there any questions on the slides?
None
Chair asked: Are there any patent claim(s)/patent application claim(s) and/or the holder of patent claim(s)/patent application claim(s) that the participant believes may be essential for the use of that standard?
None brought forward
Are there any additions to the proposed agenda? No changes proposed.
2. Editor’s report.
Draft 3.02 is currently available. Emily is incorporating additional editorial comments in a next revision, Draft 3.03.
Discussion on 08-1235-00, one comment, see Draft 3.02, page 210, Line 59. There was a cut and paste error, should be 20x, not 22x. See other sections: Clauses 15 and 18 should be 22, and clauses 17 and 20 should be 20. Agree to fix as proposed in 3.03.
3. Comment resolutions
Qi raised questions on the approach to use to resolve LB133 General CIDs 1239 and 1257. First comment, how to clearly indicate in the text that a TGv feature is manatory or optional. Example – TIM Broadcast is an optional feature, see 11.2.1.13. The current text states:
“A STA that has a value of true for the MIB attribute dot11MgmtOptionTIMBroadcastEnabled is defined as a STA that supports TIM Broadcast. A STA for which the MIB attribute
dot11MgmtOptionTIMBroadcastEnabled is set to true shall set the TIM Broadcast field of the Extended Capabilities element to 1.”
- Initial Proposal: Suggest changing to
“TIM Broadcast is an optional feature. When dot11WirelessManagement Implemented is true, dot11MgmtOptionTIMBroadcastEnabled may be set to true. A STA that has a value of true for the MIB attribute dot11MgmtOptionTIMBroadcastEnabled is defined as a STA that supports TIM Broadcast. A STA for which the MIB attribute
dot11MgmtOptionTIMBroadcastEnabled is set to true shall set the TIM Broadcast field of the Extended Capabilities element to 1.”
- Comment – explicit statement saying “optional” duplicates the next sentence.
- Need to clarify the meaning of the “implemented” and “enabled” MIB variables. Could do this in the text, or in the Annex where the MIB variables are defined. Suggest adding text description in Annex A, page 231, line 21, for example. The “enabled” MIB variable is used to enable or disable a feature. Each feature – whether mandatory or optional - has an “enabled” MIB variable. Mandatory features don’t have an “implemented” MIB variable, optional features do.
- Propose revising the Initial Proposal to:
“When dot11WirelessManagement Implemented is true, dot11MgmtOptionTIMBroadcastImplemented may be set to true. A STA that has a value of true for the MIB attribute dot11MgmtOptionTIMBroadcastEnabled is defined as a STA that supports TIM Broadcast. A STA for which the MIB attribute
dot11MgmtOptionTIMBroadcastEnabled is set to true shall set the TIM Broadcast field of the Extended Capabilities element to 1.”
- What text to use for mandatory features? As an example, Event Reporting is a mandatory feature. Current text is
o “The Event Request and Event Report frames enable network real-time diagnostics. A STA that has a value of true for the MIB attribute dot11MgmtOptionEventsEnabled is defined as a STA that supports event requests or reporting. A STA for which the MIB attribute dot11MgmtOptionEventsEnabled is set to true shall set the Event field of the Extended Capabilities element to 1. If dot11MgmtOptionEventsEnabled is set to true, a STA shall collect, timestamp and log all transition, RSNA, Peer-to-peer, and WNM Log events.”
- This is fine text, but it doesn’t say that Event reporting must be implemented when dot11WirelessManagement Implemented is true. And, since there is no “implemented” MIB variable, we can’t say that that variable must be set to true. Could add the “implemented” MIB variable for mandatory features.
- Could add text to say that “When dot11WirelessManagement Implemented is true, dot11MgmtOptionEventsEnabled shall be set to true.”
- Is this true?
- Potential for confusion, as different amendments indicate optional/mandatory in different ways in the text, and have different meanings for the enabled MIB variable. In TGk, see 11.10 “When a STA implements support for one or more of the procedures... it shall set dot11RadioMeasurementEnabled attribute to true.”
- Tgn explicitly indicates some capabilities as mandatory and optional.
- Unclear that all of the TGn statements will survive the editing process.
- Look at example of TGe – added statement in clause 5, “A comprehensive statement on mandatory and optional functionalities is available in Annex A”. We have added dimilar text to TGv. However still need text in the body of the document that states what is required. TGe also defined “core QOS facilities” and made a statement that the core facilities must be implemented for interoperability.
- Additional discussion re: implemented/enabled MIB variables, and what they indicate. No conclusion on final text.
- Suggested way forward – review approached used in the base spec and amendments. Bring specific proposal(s) for changed text.
- Discussion on Annex A – should all location features be listed in a single section, or break into multiple sections? Note – WNM 5.5 – numbering error (Emily will fix). No conclusion.
Jing reviewed the proposed text changes for the remaining Collocated Interference comments, see 08-1010r1.
- Is there a need to indicate transmit inhibition? Concern that this is a corner case, that doesn’t need to be covered in the standard.
- The text at the beginning of 1010r1 explains the rationale for adding this bit. May be viewed by some as a corner case, but some see benefit.
- Suggest structuring the discussion in two parts – first agree that there may be use cases for transmit-only case. Second, polish the text for the indicated bit field description.
-
4. Agenda for next con call: Nov 4th
Nov 4th con call
- Management Frame Priority – Category 251 – Mike Montemurro
- Event CID 1227, 1328 – UTC format, delivery – Joe Kwak
- General CIDs 1239, 1257 – Annex A, text clean-up – Qi Wang
- Update on Collocated Interference proposed solution
- Update on Timing Synchronization CID 361/accuracy solution
- Updates on topics from prior con calls: 1197r2
- Plan for November session: 3hours ad-hoc time on Monday morning, and 6 sessions during the week.
Additional topics:
Diagnostics 163, 227 – Collocated device, device type – Allan Thomson
Traffic Generation – 73 – Alex Ashley, Fujio Watanabe
AP Collaboration – comment group 1274 – Bill Marshall
5. Adjourn at 14:00 Eastern.
November 4, 2008 Teleconference
Agenda, from e-mail notice:
1. Call to Order, Patent Notification
2. Editor Update
3. Comment Resolution – LB133 and Draft 3.02 – status, then discussion of comments
- Management Frame Priority – Category 251 – Mike Montemurro
- Event CID 1227, 1328 – UTC format, delivery – Joe Kwak
- General CIDs 1239, 1257 – Annex A, text clean-up – Qi Wang
- Update on Collocated Interference proposed solution
- Update on Timing Synchronization CID 361/accuracy solution
- Updates on topics from prior con calls: 1197r2, 1232
-
-
4. Plan for November session: 3 hours ad-hoc time on Monday morning, and 8 sessions during the week
5. Adjourn
Please review the documents at the following links prior to the call:
- IEEE Patent Policy -
- Affiliation FAQ -
- Anti-Trust FAQ -
- Ethics -
Notes – Tuesday, November 4th , 2008
Attendees: Mark Hamilton (Polycomm), Joe Kwak (Interdigital), Emily Qi (Intel), Dorothy Stanley (Aruba Networks), Allan Thomson (Cisco), Ganesh Venkatesan (Intel), Qi Wang (Broadcom), Joshua Zhao (Atheros), Jing Zu (Intel)
1. Chair called meeting to order: 12:05 Eastern
Chair called attention to the patent policy slides. Are there any questions on the slides?
None
Chair asked: Are there any patent claim(s)/patent application claim(s) and/or the holder of patent claim(s)/patent application claim(s) that the participant believes may be essential for the use of that standard?
None brought forward
Are there any additions to the proposed agenda? No changes proposed.
2. Editor’s report.
Draft 3.02 is available. The current version of the comment resolution spreadsheet is 08-801-02.
Draft 3.03 is being prepared, and currently incorporates the editorial comments from Allan (08-1232-01), and the corrections discussed last time. Not enough changes to post yet, will post after additional changes are approved next week. Also have a resolution/response to one of Bill Marshall’s editorial comments re: figures (resolution to be added to the spreadsheet, no change to the draft).
3. Comment resolutions
Status of current issues being worked was reviewed. Note that there are no tutorial sessions for the Dallas meeting, so we will have two additional evening slots available.
- Management Frame Priority – Category 251 – Mike Montemurro – Mike is working on this; planning time to discuss in the Monday AM ad-hoc time, Dorothy to confirm time with Mike.
- Event CIDs 1227, 1328 – UTC format, delivery – Joe Kwak – 08-1262-00 is posted, discussion below. Currently planned for Monday PM2 session.
- General CIDs 1239, 1257 – Annex A, text clean-up – Qi Wang – Dorothy has looked at approaches taken by other task groups, and summarized possible approaches. Discuss with Qi offline, and post a proposal later this week. Should this be addresses at the WG level? Potentially consider in TGmb; however don’t defer and hold up a TGv solution. Currently planned for the Monday evening session next week.
- Update on Collocated Interference proposed solution – e-mail discussion ongoing – Tuesday AM2 next week.
- Update on Timing Synchronization CID 361/accuracy solution – 08-1229-01 posted, 842r6 was the previous document
o Monday evening for next week’s discussion.
o Background explanation ppt presentation will be updated and posted, Ganesh to send notice to the reflector.
- Updates on topics from prior con calls: 1197r2 – delete clause 5 changes, post an r3; motion to incorporate changes next week
- 08-1232-01 - ready to go through the technical and deferred editorial comments (see discussion below).
- Diagnostics - Collocated link type and device types – email discussions ongoing, no resolution yet. Plan to discuss Tuesday AM2 next week.
- Traffic generation – CID 73 – Alex & Fujio were going to work on this. Dorothy to check with them on status.
- Document 08-801-02 has the latest official comment resolutions
Dicussion on Comments from 08-1232-01:
Note that the comments in 08-1232-01 are not LB133 comments; Allan just re-used the spreadsheet. The comments are additional editorial and technical comments to clean up and improve the current draft.
|7.3.2.21.12 |23 |51 |T |N |The 1st sentence states the "measurement duration field is set to |Clarify. Suggest it should be Tus. |
| | | | | |the duration of the requested measuremented in Tus". The next | |
| | | | | |sentence then states it is a multiple of beacon intervals. Is it | |
| | | | | |either Tus or multiples of beacon intervals? | |
Check with Alex, if there was a reason – for this, if not delete. Dorothy to e-mail Alex.
|7.3.2.62.1 |41 |42 |T |N |Technically the length field's value is based on the length of the full element rather |
| | | | | |than just the Event Request field as it currently states. Although the Event Request |
| | | | | |field is variable the length is the full length of the element minus the element ID + |
| | | | | |length fields |
Change to “Is 3 plus the length of the Event Request field” .View as editorial, Emily to make sure that the other section text in the document is consistent.
|7.4.11.10 |101 |17 |T |N |Why is the BSS Transition Management response frame optional in response to a BSS |Remove the words "is optionally" |
| | | | | |Transition Management request frame. Should a STA always respond? | |
- Why is “optionally” there?
- By the time the station goes to send the frame, channel condition may have deteriorated.
- STA does respond, but frame is lost. Protocol still requires frame to be sent though.
- Station advertises no support – the AP des not issue a request.
- Changes also needed in clause 11.
- Allan to prepare a text submission.
Page 109, line 64 – incremental or binary? Incremental – need to remember, versus binary. Allan to e-mail Menzo re: intent, prepare text changes as needed.
|7.4.11.22 |109 |64 |T |N |There is no definition of what value is defined in the check beacon field. |Define what values are defined in the integer field for check |
| | | | | | |beacon |
|11.2.1.13 |180 |25 |T |N |The sentence states that the AP may provide TIM Broadcast schedule in response to a |Remove this sentence. |
| | | | | |malformed TIM broadcast. This makes no sense why the AP would respond with this | |
| | | | | |information. | |
Page 180, line 25 – Allan to e-mail Menzo re: why this is needed.
|11.10.7 |183 |34 |T |N |Why are we combining diagnostics enablement with multicast diagnostics? i.e. we have a |Consider adding separate mib object for multicast diagnostics |
| | | | | |single mib object dot11MgmtOptionDiagnosticsEnabled for both diagnostics and multicast |enabled |
| | | | | |diagnostics | |
Page 183, line 34 - Dorothy to e-mail Alex.
|11.20.12 |203 |35 |T |N |"If dot11MaxIdlePeriod is non-zero". The MIB defines the mib object ranges as minimum |Change "If dot11MaxIdlePeriod is non-zero" to "If |
| | | | | |value 1. So this sentence is never possible and BSS Max Idle Period element is |dot11WirelessNetworkManagementImplemented is true" |
| | | | | |mandatory is wireless network management implemented is true | |
Page 203, line 35 - Editorial, text describes as min value of 1. Allan to include the proposed text change in his submission.
|A.4.21 |226 |55 |T |N |WNM14 is not broken down like WNM13. We should make consistent |Fix as WNM13 |
Page 226, line 55 - Qi to include Annex A changes in her submission.
|3 |4 |40 |E |N |confusing definition. "non-transmitted BSSID" then has a definition of One or more |clean up definition |
| | | | | |BSSIDs". How can a non-transmitted BSSID be defined as one or more BSSIDs? | |
Page 4, line 40 - Change from “one or more BSSIDs” to “A BSSID”. – Editorial, Emily to make the change.
|5.2.11.12 |8 |16 |E |N |Improved definition |Change end of sentence to "will not receive ARP frames, and can |
| | | | | | |help the non-AP STA to save power" |
Duplicate and slightly modify the “power saving” sentence from the intro description of Proxy ARP; editorial, Emily to make the change.
|7.3.2 |14 |25 |E |N |The order for Table 7-25 seems arbitrary (i.e. the order in which the elements were |Order the rows of Table 7-25 based on the information element |
| | | | | |added to the spec) and not defined in any order |numerical order |
Align per the element ID assignment from ANA – no change for this comment.
Joe Kwak reviewed 08-1262-00, which is normative text to resolve the 2 remaining event comments, CIDs 1227, 1328 regarding UTC format, delivery.
- Approach is for the AP to deliver UTC to the Station. Station uses this for events that occur while at that station.
- STA can do the conversion. Alternatively, AP can indicate offset to other APs in the ESS.
- Have the timestamp already there.
- This proposal is simpler from an overall complexity point of view. Other adds a lot of complexity to the AP and infrastructure.
- Keeping UTC is a simplification.
- Is a complete and clear solution. Addresses the need for clarification in the comments.
Meeting adjourned 1:45pm Eastern.
-----------------------
Abstract
This document contains the meeting notes from the TGv teleconferences held September 23rd, October 7th, October 21st, and November 4th 2008.
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.