Doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/2507r0
IEEE P802.11
Wireless LANs
|Minutes of the IEEE P802.11 Full Working Group |
|Date: 2007-09-21 |
|Author(s): |
|Name |Company |Address |Phone |email |
|Stephen McCann |Nokia Siemens Networks Roke |Old Salisbury Lane, Romsey, Hampshire, |+44 1794 833341 |stephen.mccann@roke.co.u|
| |Manor |SO51 0ZN, UK | |k |
IEEE 802.11 Interim Meeting – Session #105
Hilton Waikoloa Village, Waikoloa, Hawai’i, USA
September 17th-21st, 2007
Monday, 17 September 2007
Joint Wireless Meeting
(Note: these joint wireless meeting minutes are reproduced from 15-07-0834-00-0000-wg-minutes-from-waikaloa-sep20.doc)
8:09 802.11, 802.15, 802.18, 802.19, 802.20, 802.21, and 802.22 Chairs called the joint meeting to order.
Straw Poll of new attendees: 5
8:10 Financial report by Bob Heile, (15-07-830r0)
• Sep balance was $143,606.51
• July 14 balance was $136,876.51
• Funds in Face-to-Face Events account were $86,659
• Meeting reserve funds of $226,536
• Waikoloa status:
o 445 attendees registered as of 13 May
o Net surplus estimated at $7,721
Announcements:
Wireless Network Updates by Rick Alfvin
• Newton.events.
• When will WPA2 be available? VeriLAN will investigate
Getting your WEBID by Clyde Camp
• and follow directions
Other announcements
• Virtual tour of Keck Observatory at 8:30p on Wednesday
8:28 Review Interim meetings
• 13 – 18 January 2008 Howard hotel, Taipei, Taiwan
o Early bird registration fee expected at AU$1000
• 11-16 May: Hyatt Regency in Jacksonville, FL USA
• 7 - 12 Sept US Midwest location?
o Possibilities include Minneapolis and San Jose
• Straw poll on support of one non-NA venue per year despite the additional costs associated with them
o Favor - 118, Against – 0, Abstain – 23 out of 195 total attendees
8:38 Task Group Updates
802.11
TGk: went to sponsor ballot
TGmb: not meeting this session
TGn: working toward draft 3.0
TGp: comment resolution from letter ballot
TGr: addressing comments from sponsor ballot
TGs: resolve comments
TGt: resolve comments
TGu: continuing comment resolution
TGv: finished letter ballot, will go into comment resolution
TGw: comment resolution
TGy: resolve comments and hear presentations
TGz: (DLS) just became a task group
QES SG:
VHT SG: working on PAR and 5C
VTS SG: working on PAR and 5c
IMT adhoc: wg coordination plan,
802.15
WNG: 2 presentations
TG3c: continue down select process
TG4c: will be reviewing the bands
TG4d: will be hearing presentations
TG5: comment resolution on straw letter ballot
SG4e: working on MAC enhancements
SGBAN: review PAR and 5C, listen to proposals from CFP
802.18
60 GHz matters, band etiquette for 2.4 – 3.5 GHz, IMT advanced requirements
802.19
Evaluation of .11y and .16 coexistence, coexistence metrics
802.20
Processing 1785 comments from letter ballot
802.21
Completed letter ballot last meeting, 650 comments to be resolved
802.22
• TG1 letter ballot did not pass (58%), comment resolution should be complete this week
• Main WG looking to go to letter ballot after this week
Joint inter-change session for group discussion for group discussion
9:00 joint meeting adjourned
Monday 17th September 2007
IEEE 802.11 Opening Plenary
Presiding chair: Stuart Kerry (NXP Semiconductors) opened the meeting at 09:09 HST.
1. Approve/modify joint opening agenda (11-07-2211r4)
1. Following neither discussion nor dissent the agenda was approved by unanimous consent.
2. July 2007 Minutes (11-07-2278r3)
1. Review and approve joint minutes from the San Francisco meeting (11-07-2278r3)
1. The working group (WG) secretary talked about the recommended changes to these minutes, from Michael Lindsay, IEEE-SA legal counsel.
2. Comment: approval at this point may not be a good idea. It should be discussed further, as minutes should not be approved with issues still pending.
3. This item was tabled by the chairman
3. Attendance
1. The chair then asked for those attending for the first time, 10 responded out of a total of 165 people in the room.
2. Attendance (together with affiliations) at this meeting is as follows:
|IEEE802.11 Logged in attendance for the September 2007 session |
| |
|Last |First |Affiliation |
|Aboul-Magd |Osama |Nortel Networks |
|Adachi |Tomoko |Toshiba Corporation |
|Alexander |Thomas |VeriWave |
|Amann |Keith |Polycom |
|Andrus\ |David\ |Apple, Inc. |
|Armstrong |Lee |Armstrong Consulting |
|Ashley |Alex |NDS Ltd |
|Astrin |Arthur |Astrin Radio |
|Audeh |Malik |Tropos Networks |
|Bae |Dong Suk |LG Electronics |
|Bagby |David |Calypso Ventures, Inc |
|Bahr |Michael |Siemens AG |
|Bajko |Gabor |Nokia |
|Basson |Gal |Wilocity |
|Benveniste |Mathilde |Avaya Labs |
|Bjerke |Bjorn |QUALCOMM |
|Blanchard |Colin |BT Group |
|Borges\ |Daniel\ |Apple, Inc |
|Braskich |Tony |Motorola |
|Britz |David |AT&T Labs Shannon Lab |
|Bumiller |George |Research In Motion |
|Bussey |Chris | |
|Cam-Winget |Nancy |Cisco Systems |
|Canpolat |Necati |Intel Corporation |
|Castell |Harold | |
|Chan |Douglas |Cisco Systems |
|Chaplin |Clint |Samsung Electronics |
|Chen |Lily |NIST |
|Choi |Nakjung |Seoul National University |
|Chokshi |Ronak |Marvell Semiconductors Inc. |
|Chu |Liwen |STMicroelectronics |
|Cole |Terry |AMD |
|Conder |Phillip |Victoria University |
|Conner |W |Intel Corporation |
|Cooklev |Todor |Hitachi America Ltd. |
|Cypher |David |NIST |
|de Courville |Marc |Motorola Labs |
|de Vegt |Rolf |Qualcomm, Inc. |
|Denteneer |Theodorus |Philips |
|Deshpande |Manoj |Qualcomm |
|Dickey |Susan |California PATH, UC Berkeley |
|Donoghue |Robin |Ofcom |
|Driesen |Bas |Philips |
|Durand |Roger |Research In Motion |
|Eastlake |Donald | |
|Ecclesine |Peter |Cisco Systems |
|Emeott |Stephen |Motorola |
|Engwer |Darwin |Nortel Networks |
|Epstein |Joe |Meru Networks |
|Erceg |Vinko |Broadcom |
|Eyvazkhani |Mahbod |Nokia Research Center |
|Fanfelle |Robert |Marvell Semiconductor |
|Feinberg |Paul |Sony Electronics Inc. |
|Fischer |Matthew |Broadcom |
|Fisher |Wayne |ARINC |
|Fujinami |Makoto |NEC Corporation |
|Gast |Matthew |Trapeze Networks |
|Gloger |Reinhard |Nokia Siemens Networks |
|Goldsmith |Andrea | |
|Gong |Michelle |Intel Corp. |
|Goodall |David |G2 Microsystems |
|Gupta |Pratibha |Atheros Communications |
|Gurevich |David | |
|Hansen |Christopher |Broadcom |
|Hart |Brian |Cisco Systems |
|Hassan |Amer |Microsoft |
|Hassel |Vegard |Telenor |
|Hattig |Myron |Intel Corporation |
|Hayase |Shigenori |Hitachi, Ltd. |
|Hayes |Kevin |Atheros Communications |
|Hiertz |Guido |Philips |
|Hillman |Garth |AMD |
|Hinsz |Christopher |Motorola |
|Hu |Wendong |STMicroelectronics |
|Huang |Robert |Sony Electronics |
|Hunter |David |Panasonic |
|Inoue |Yasuhiko |NTT |
|Jeon |Ho-In |Kyung-Won University |
|Jeon |Hongseok |ETRI |
|Jetcheva |Jorjeta |Firetide |
|Ji |Lusheng |AT&T Labs, Research |
|Jiang |Daniel |DaimlerChrysler |
|Jokela |Jari |Nokia |
|Jones |VK |Qualcomm |
|Kafle |Padam |Nokia Inc. |
|Kain |Carl |Noblis |
|Kakani |Naveen |Nokia |
|Kasher |Assaf |Intel Corporation |
|Kennedy |Richard |OakTree Wireless |
|Kenney |John |Toyota Technical Center |
|Kerry |Stuart |NXP Semiconductors |
|Ketchum |John |QUALCOMM |
|Kim |Joonsuk |Broadcom |
|Kim |Jung-Rae |ETRI |
|Kim |Youjin |ETRI |
|Kneckt |Jarkko |Nokia |
|Kobayashi |Mark |Broadcom Corp |
|Kolze |Thomas |Broadcom |
|Kraemer |Bruce |Marvell |
|Krishna |Nikhil |KPIT Cummins Infosystems |
|Kueh |Victor |BT Group |
|Kuehnel |Thomas |Microsoft |
|Kumar |Rajendra |Ittiam Systems (P) Ltd. |
|Kumar |Rajneesh |Cisco Systems |
|Kwak |Joe |InterDigital |
|Lauer |Joseph |Broadcom |
|Ledford |Steven |Broadcom |
|Lee |Jehun |ETRI |
|Lee |Jin |LG Electronics |
|Levy |Joseph |InterDigital Comm. |
|Li |Sheung |SiBEAM |
|Li |Wei |Orange/France Telecom R&D |
|Liu |Hang |Thomson, Inc.- Corp. Res. |
|Livshitz |Michael | |
|Loc |Peter |Marvell Semi. |
|Lou |Hui-Ling |Marvell |
|Lubar |Dan |RelayServices |
|Maida |Anthony | |
|Malinen |Jouni |Devicescape Software |
|Mani |Mahalingam |Avaya, Inc. |
|Marshall |Bill |AT&T Labs Research |
|Matta |Sudheer | |
|McCann |Stephen |Nokia Siemens Networks |
|Merrill |Mark |NETGEAR |
|Mesecke |Sven |Buffalo Inc. |
|Meyer |Klaus |ATMEL |
|Miller |Robert |AT&T Labs |
|Mlinarsky |Fanny |octoScope |
|Montemurro |Michael |Research in Motion |
|Moorti |Rajendra |Broadcom Corp |
|Morioka |Yuichi |Sony Corporation |
|Myles |Andrew |Cisco Systems |
|Nabar |Rohit |Marvell Semiconductor |
|Nagata |Kengo |NTT |
|Ngo |Chiu |Samsung |
|Nikula |Eero |Nokia |
|O'Hara |Bob |Cisco Systems |
|Paine |Richard |Boeing |
|Palanivelu |Arul |Marvell Semiconductor |
|Pankratov |Denis |LG Electronics |
|Park |Minyoung |Intel Corp. |
|Patel |Vijay |Andrew Corporation |
|Peiris |Bemini Hennadige |Atheros Communications Inc. |
|Perahia |Eldad |Intel Corporation |
|Perez Costa |Xavier |NEC |
|Petranovich |Jamer |Conexant |
|Preece |Rob | |
|Ptasinski |Henry |Broadcom |
|Qi |Emily |Intel Corporation |
|Qian |Luke |Cisco Systems |
|Rai |Vinuth | |
|Raissinia |Ali |Qualcomm Inc. |
|Rayment |Stephen |BelAir Networks |
|Rosdahl |Jon |CSR |
|Roy |Richard |SRA, Inc. |
|Ryu |Kwhang Hyun |ETRI |
|Safonov |Alexander |IITP RAS |
|Sakoda |Kazuyuki |Sony Corporation |
|Sargologos |Nicholas |AMCC |
|Scarpa |Vincenzo |STMicroelectronics |
|Schultz |Don |Boeing |
|Shao |Huai-Rong |Samsung Electronics |
|Sharma |Neeraj |Intel |
|Sherlock |Ian |Texas Instruments |
|Simon |Francois | |
|Simons |John |Yokogawa Co. |
|Smith |Matt |Atheros Communications |
|Song |Leilei |Marvell Semiconductor |
|Sood |Kapil |Intel Corporation |
|Sridhara |Vinay |Qualcomm Inc. |
|Stanley |Dorothy |Aruba Networks |
|Stephens |Adrian |Intel Corporation |
|Stephenson |Dave |Cisco Systems |
|Stranne |Andre |TeliaSonera |
|Strutt |Guenael |Motorola |
|Suzuki |Hideyuki |Sony Corporation |
|Takai |Mineo |Space-Time Engineering |
|Tan |Teik-Kheong |GCT Semiconductor |
|Thomson |Allan |Cisco Systems |
|Tokubo |Eric |Motorola - Enterprise WLAN |
|Trachewsky |Jason |Broadcom Corporation |
|van Zelst |Allert |Qualcomm |
|Varshney |Prabodh |Nokia |
|Venkatesan |Ganesh |Intel Corporation |
|Victor |Dalton |Broadcom Corp |
|Vlantis |George |ST Microelectronics |
|Walker |Jesse |Intel Corporation |
|Wang |Qi |Broadcom Corporation |
|Watanabe |Fujio |DoCoMo USA Labs |
|Wentink |Menzo |Conexant |
|Williams |Kyle |Robert Bosch LLC |
|Worstell |Harry |AT&T/Research |
|Xie |Zhen |Atheros Communications, Inc. |
|Yagi |Akiyoshi |Mitsubishi Electric |
|Yamaura |Tomoya |Sony Corporation |
|Yang |Sihoon |LG Electronics |
|Yee |Peter |RSA Security |
|Yoshida |Seiji |NTT-MCL, Inc. |
|Young |Christopher |Broadcom |
|Zhang |Hongyuan |Marvell Semiconductor Inc. |
|Zhao |Meiyuan |Intel Corporation |
|Zhu |Jing |Intel Corp. |
|Zuniga |Juan-Carlos |InterDigital |
|Zweig |Johnny |Apple Inc. |
4. Patent Policy
1. The slides from the PatCom website must be the ones used for the PatCom statement. ( ). These slides were read out by the WG chair. No issues rose about these slides.
2. Please review these slides for all current procedures and information together with:
1. Patent FAQ -
2. LoA Form -
5. Affiliation
1. If you do not provide your affiliation then your rights can be withdrawn. Please see: for further information.
6. Anti-Trust
1. Please note the following anti-trust statements
7. Ethics
1. Please note the following ethics statements
8. Call for essential Patents
1. The chair called for essential patents and there were none.
2. A Letter of Assurance (LoA) from Research in Motion (RIM) has been received. The LoA from Conexant will arrive shortly.
3. Following a second LoA (& associated documents) submission to CSIRO, no response has not been received. The chair has informed the PatCom committee that he has sent the LoA (and associated documents) twice to CSIRO, together with a complete track record (audit trail) of all correspondence.
9. IEEE 802.11v letter ballot results
1. This ballot has met the 50% returned ballot ratio requirement, per the 802 LMSC Policies and Procedures, dated January 4th, 2006, section 7.2.4.2 requirement.
2. 278 eligible people in this ballot group.
3. 132 affirmative, 77 negative, 38 abstention, 274 votes received = 88.85% returned, with 15.38% abstention
4. The 75% affirmation requirement has not been met, per the 802 LMSC Policies and Procedures, dated January 4th, 2006, section 7.2.4.2 requirement.
5. 132 affirmative votes = 63.16% affirmative, 77 total negative votes = 36.84% negative results
10. Wi-Fi Alliance Liaison
1. Liaison received from Andy Myles, Chairman of the board. The chair read out this liaison letter (document 11-07-2497r0):
[pic]
[pic]
2. The chairman asked the QSE study group to address these issues this week.
11. Plenary Tutorials
1. Please remember that WG chairs sponsor these, so if you are interested in anything for the November 2007, please talk to the chair.
12. Policy and procedures
1. No updates at this meeting. Current document is 11-07-0360r4.
13. Voter Membership & Documentation (11-07-2458r0)
1. Harry Worstell (AT&T Labs Incorporated)
2. There are currently 247 voters members in IEEE 802.11
3. Please note the slides from the joint opening plenary about how to use the new attendance server at .
4. The document server is also at the same URL.
5. Network information is also in this document.
6. Please remember to use the local website, as opposed to the external one.
7. Please remember to ask to be a voter. You have to submit a request.
8. Please note, you can only be a voting member if you state your affiliation.
14. WG Opening Reports & Goals for the week
1. Publicity
1. Nothing to report
2. Official Timeline chart, including the new working group TGz will be updated this week.
2. Technical Editor (11-07-2389r0)
1. The ANA database will be updated this meeting to 11-07-1942r9
2. Please note the Editor’s Meeting Tuesday 07:00
3. WNG SC
4. 1 presentation this week: Aggregated Data Services
5. TGk (11-07-2465r0)
1. Now going into Sponsor Ballot comment resolution. Will miss the 15th October 2007 deadline for ExCom, so the date for ExCom consideration will now be March 2008
2. Chair: I’ll try and bring this forward to ExCom
6. TGmb
1. No meetings planned for this week.
2. There are 2 interpretations requests, which are now postponed until November, with the consent of the authors.
7. TGn (11-07-2455r1)
8. Need to adopt a position regarding the following letter from the IEEE-SA board (document 11-07-2496r1):
[pic]
[pic]
[pic]
9. 1 hour has been reserved within the mid week plenary for further discussion.
10. TGp (11-07-2466r0)
1. Completed letter ballot #110
2. Basically doing comment res this week.
11. TGr (11-07-2462r1)
1. Finished its 1st sponsor ballot.
2. A few outstanding comments will be dealt with this week, following last week’s ad hoc.
12. TGs (11-07-2290r2)
1. Again resolved comments during ad hoc last week and will continue this process this week.
13. TGT (11-07-2390r0)
14. TGu (11-07-2419r1)
1. Comment resolution and liaison issues this week.
15. TGv (11-07-2424r1)
1. Comment resolution this week.
16. TGw (11-07-2490r0)
1. Small number of comments remaining from LB #102, which will be dealt with this week.
17. TGy (11-07-2464r2)
1. Comment resolution this week from LB #109.
18. TGz (11-07-2514r0)
1. Technical presentations this week. Please note that the sessions are still noted as DLS SG on the room allocation sheets.
19. QSE SG
1. Further Consideration of the PAR and 5Criteria to move towards task group status.
20. VHT SG (11-07-2378r0)
1. Please note the change in the meeting schedule.
21. VTS SG (11-07-2448r0)
1. This week will be spent discussing the PAR and 5Criteria.
22. IMT-A Ad Hoc (11-07-2500r0)
1. Discussion with 802.18 this week. There is some work to be done this week.
15. AOB
1. None
2. We are now in recess.
Wednesday, 19 September 2007
IEEE 802.11 Mid Week Plenary
Presiding chair: Stuart Kerry (NXP Semiconductors) opened the meeting at 10:39 HST.
148 people present.
16. Approve/modify joint opening agenda (11-07-2211r5)
1. Item 4.1 has been removed. Business as normal.
2. Following neither discussion nor dissent the agenda was approved by unanimous consent.
17. Policies and procedures
1. Please note that this meeting is still operating under Monday’s P&P rules
18. Call for Essential Patents
1. Call for essential patents
2. Comment: An issue was raised by AT&T within TGr.
3. The chair asked AT&T to provide a contact for their legal counsel, so that the appropriate documentation can be forwarded to them.
4. Chair mentioned that RIM has now sent information to IEEE which is now on the IEEE LoA page, following his comments during Monday’s opening plenary
19. CAC
1. Reminder about 7.30pm meeting on Thursday
20. Attendance Recording
1. Attendance is now using the old system. As the new system crashed on Monday. Everyone will have attendance rights granted for them on Monday.
21. Letter Ballots Results
1. IEEE 802.11p LB #110.
1. This ballot was a Technical Letter Ballot for Task Group-p to approve Draft document 802.11p_D3.0.pdf.
2. This ballot has met the 50% returned ballot ratio requirement, per the 802 LMSC Policies and Procedures, dated January 4th, 2006, section 7.2.4.2 requirement.
3. 278 eligible people in this ballot group.
4. 143 affirmative votes, 50 negative votes, 58 abstention votes
5. 249 votes received : 90.55% returned, 23.11% abstention
6. The 75% affirmation requirement has not been met, per the 802 LMSC Policies and Procedures, dated January 4th, 2006, section 7.2.4.2 requirement.
7. 143 affirmative votes = 74.09% affirmative
8. 50 total negative votes = 25.91% negative
2. IEEE 802.11k LB #111
1. This ballot was a Technical Letter Ballot for Task Group-k to approve Sponsor Ballot comment resolutions.
2. This ballot has met the 50% returned ballot ratio requirement, per the 802 LMSC Policies and Procedures, dated January 4th, 2006, section 7.2.4.2 requirement.
3. 278 eligible people in this ballot group.
4. 196 affirmative votes, 22 negative votes, 35 abstention votes
5. 253 votes received = 90.04% returned, = 13.83% abstention
6. The 75% affirmation requirement has been met, per the 802 LMSC Policies and Procedures, dated January 4th, 2006, section 7.2.4.2 requirement.
7. 196 affirmative votes = 89.91% affirmative, 22 total negative votes = 10.09% negative
8. Chair instructed TGk chair to start re-circulation sponsor ballot.
22. Other Announcements
1. IMT-A advanced and IEEE 802.18 joint meeting
1. The 7pm Thursday evening meeting has now been cancelled
2. Wednesday evening Observatory slide show
3. Please remember that this is still occurring at 20:00 on Wednesday evening, following the evening social.
23. Liaisons
1. 802.18 : Radio Regulatory Tag (11-07-2548r2)
2. 802.19 (11-07-2541r0)
1. Chair: Please remember to correct document templates. Please can this report be revved to r1?
2. Question: What is the recommended practice about
3. Answer: It’s a general 802.19 general objectives document.
3. 802.21 (11-07-2544r0)
1.
2. How is 802.21 going to sort out a document for another sponsor ballot in November
3. Don’t know.Can I get back to you on Friday with a response.
4. Wi-Fi Alliance (11-07-2497r0)
1. Liaison received on Monday
2. Usage models will start in the WFA in November.
3. WFA sponsoring a conference in Beijing China. There is a lot of interest in China. The 2-day conference has over 1000 registered attendees.
4. Chair: I was invited to speak, but I am unable to attend. However, there will be an IEEE representative there.
5. IETF (11-07-2220r0)
1. Refer back to July’s report. Emergency Services still continues.
2. Planning for the 3rd Emergency Services Workshop is ongoing is being dealt within TGu. Stephen McCann and Harry Worstell will attend from IEEE 802.11, and hope to re-use material from an earlier IEEE 802 tutorial on emergency services.
6. ISO JTC1/SC 6
1. Next activity is the ballot resolution meeting in London (British Standards Institute - BSI) in Jan/Feb 2008.
7. TIA
1. No report
24. VTS PAR & 5Criteria (11-07-1972r5)
1. Question: Regarding the scope, I wonder if “mechanisms to increase robustness” can be removed from the scope. I don’t think this will help video operation in the home.
2. Answer: There is a problem here, as it’s important for video. Prime time viewing, which leads to overlapping video channels and video distribution in houses require this feature.
3. Comment: The VTS group should not write protocols to solve this. Other groups looking at intra-BSS issues should consider this.
4. Question: Allowing the delivery of frames in this way is not good.
5. Answer: There is a presentation within VTS which addresses this problem.
6. Question: How are IP errors dealt with? There is no mechanism for the 802.11 PHY to do this. It does not look very promising.
7. Question: You should consider more issues here, which should have been in the study group. This scope will not pass ExCom. The wording of the scope is wrong. Bit errors at the PHY layer should not a problem in 802.11. Parsing of MAC layer payloads should not be required.
8. Question: Is the motion on the table yet.
9. Chair: No. You are correct, I did not read the motion, and so it is not on the table.
10. Motion details
11. Against: I speak against the motion that the MAC FEC bits will not work. I also do not want intra-BSS communication
12.
13. Question: The PAR is a list of topics. Perhaps the task group will only address a subset of this list. This is acceptable.
14. Answer: The VTS task group could always come back with a change to the PAR.
15.
16. Question: I think the scope is ok
17.
18. Question: The scope appears to be quite short. Some of these items are really difficult. The points are very general and impact on work of 802.11e. Indeed since 802.11e took 6years to do this, I think the scope needs to be made more specific, before it is approved. If the scope is similar to an existing standard, then you will have problems with ExCom approval.
19. Answer: What do you recommend?
20. Question: I would change the scope to clearly state the limits as to what you wish to do.
21. Question: I think the study group still has some more work. You can come back on Friday, as you have time. Additionally are you only going to talk to 802.1 about this?
22. Chair: After discussion with the mover, I would like to withdraw this motion, so that the SG can consider comments and come back at some later point.
23. Question: The purpose of the amendment is unclear and needs to be changed. You need to state the purpose of the amendment, as opposed to the purpose of the task group. You don’t need a work breakdown structure.
24. Chair: Could you mentor the study group please.
25. Question: I just wanted to mention that the scope needs more work.
26. Chair: Is there any objection to removing this motion.
27. No objections noted, motion withdrawn.
25. TGr Sponsor Ballot
1. Move to approve the contents of 11-07-2295-08-000r-d7-comments.xls as the comment resolutions for Initial Sponsor Ballot of IEEE 802.11r Draft 7.0
2. Moved on behalf of the Task group (TG results 15,0,0)
3. No discussion on the motion
1. For 61, Against 1, Abstain 21 (Motion passes 98.34%)
26. Joint Interchange – Bluetooth SIG (11-07-2361r0)
1. Presentation from the chairman of Bluetooth SIG
2. Chair: please can you remove the logo from the presentation and rev it.
3. Question: Does the SIG want to standardize Bluetooth at all.
4. Answer: The SIG wants to concentrate on the product and not be encumbered by 802.15. Those guys wanted to work alone. If there is a better way of doing this, it would be great. WiMedia have also done the same thing.
5. Question: It looks as though you are saying, here’s Bluetooth, please adapt to it.
6. Answer: I agree that it is a different type of co-existence. The Bluetooth SIG cannot abandon what is already out there. IEEE 802.11 must be used for the next level of technology. The SIG is trying to work on some sort of harmony.
7. Question: There are many IEEE 802.11 devices in the same unlicensed band as Bluetooth and therefore the co-existence mechanism must be considered.
8. Answer: Yes, I realize this must be done.
9. Question: What do you expect from 802.11, as the Bluetooth layers are very well defined? You must recall that 802.11 is only PHY and MAC.
10. Answer: I don’t expect any special interface. IEEE 802.11 has well defined characteristics. Bluetooth just needs to ship packets from A to B. We will also consider aspects of the IP layer.
11. Question: What would 802.11 then require? A study group?
12. Answer: Improvements to the 802.11 link for dual Bluetooth operation.
13. Question: It appears that a combination of devices is essential here. Please consider co-ordination of schedules in this matter.
14. Answer: Ok, however 2 chips may work separately in a single device.
15. Question: DLS (now TGz) may be useful for the dual Bluetooth/IEEE 802.11 link
16. Answer: Yes, sure, we’ll have to consider this further.
27. Any Other Business
1. TGr has now finished all work for this week and is now adjourned
2. Comment: I believe that the comfort of the members is not been met. The afternoon food is rather sparse. In addition the meeting rooms are too cold.
3. Chair: I will take this issue to the organizers.
4. Chair: We are now in recess.
Friday, 21st September 2007
IEEE 802.11 Closing Plenary
Call to order at 08:11 HST by Stuart Kerry (NXP Semiconductors).
1. Announcements
1. 123 people in the room.
2. Agenda
1. Agenda is now r6. Chair explained the changes from r5 and explained letter ballot and sponsor ballot motions coming up.
2. No objection to approving the revised agenda.
3. Patents
1. Please note that this meeting is still operating under Monday’s P&P rules
2. Call for Essential Patents.
3. Chair: I have to send a LoA to AT&T, and have a requested contact for general counsel.
4. Dates also in agenda for CAC meeting and editors meetings
4. P&P
1. No updates at this time
5. Attendance Server
1. Vice-chair: We have reverted to the old system, due to a system crash on Monday. I will liaise with IEEE after this meeting to try and sort this out.
6. Documentation
1. Please remember to use the new templates from the website. IEEE has requested that we remove the disclaimer from all templates.
7. WG Reports
1. Publicity
1. Regarding various emails to IEEE 802.11 regarding 802.11n LoA queries, Paul Nikolich (IEEE 802 Chair) will now deal with all of these.
2. Timelines
1. Changes have been received from various sub groups and there will be some updates on the external website.
3. Technical editor (11-07- 2599r0)
1. ANA: 1942r9 is the version of the current database. However a new version 1942r10 will appear next week.
2. Publication status is unchanged. Editors’ meeting was very well attended and there are currently no problems.
3. Secretary will update external timeline web page with the changes to the publication dates.
4. Question: Surely your September date should be November
5. Answer: Yes, I will correct the report and re-submit it.
6. Question: What does MEC mean?
7. Mandatory Editorial Coordination
8. Session Location
1. Straw Poll: Do you like this location and would want to come back
2. For: 54, Against: 26 (67.5%)
9. WG Committee Reports
1. WNG SC (11-07-2460r1)
1. Please remove the IEEE copyright statement from template and revise to 2460r2
2. TGk (11-07-2613r0)
1. Question: What does Sponsor ballot re-circ 1 mean?
2. Answer: I’ll change it to “first”.
3. TGmb
1. Did not this meet this week. The 2 current interpretation requests will be dealt with at the next meeting.
4. TGn (11-07-2583r0)
1. TGn chair expressed his thanks to all those who helped with the work this time.
5. TGp (11-07-2611r0)
6. TGr (11-07-2612r0)
1. Question: What is the problem with your ad-hoc meeting?
2. Answer: The TGr chair had another meeting to attend to.
3. WG Chair: We can also re-use the TGk sponsor ballot letter for TGr.
7. TGs (11-07-2570r0)
1. Thanks for the TGs editor, who is standing down after this meeting. There is now a call for a new technical editor for TGs.
8. TGT (11-07-2391r0)
1. Please revise the document to correct the typo.
2. Question: Why was one of the sessions this week cancelled? I believe that this was due to lack of interest.
3. Answer: One of the Monday sessions was cancelled due to lack of stakeholders being present. Rest of week there were 7 people. Can the chair explain why this occurred?
4. Comment: Please note that at some points TGma only had about 5 people.
9. TGu (11-07-2606r0)
1. Question: What is the difference between 3GPP SA1 and SA2.
2. Answer: SA1 determines requirements; SA2 is development of protocols and algorithms.
10. TGv (11-07-2615r0)
11. TGw (11-07-2596r0)
12. TGy (11-07-2580r1)
1. Minutes 11-07-2505r0
2. Comment from Draft D4.0 11-07-2333r6
3. LB109 returned a 93.63% approval ratio
13. TGz (11-07-2461r0)
14. There is a call for a technical editor of TGz.
15. QSE SG (11-07-2476r0)
16. VHT SG (11-07-2610r0)
1. Question: regarding slide #3, the document number is incorrect
2. Answer: It should be 2500r0. The report will be revised.
17. VTS SG (11-07-2595r0)
1. Please can you correct the front page, to state “VTS Report”, as opposed to “Waikoloa Report”.
18. IMT Ad Hoc (11-07-2608r0)
Working Group Motions
19. Teleconference motion
[pic]
1. Approved by unanimous consent
20. WNG SC creation of study group
1. Chair: Let us come back to this one, as the motion requires some re-drafting
21. TGk sponsor ballot
1. Move to authorize a WG Letter Ballot (without comments from voters) for approval of the 11k Sponsor Ballot Recirculation first comment resolutions.
2.
3. SB Comment Resolution Committee: Ganesh/Kwak 3/0/1
4. Moved: Richard Paine on behalf of TG
5. For 50, Against 0, Abstain 6 (Motion passes 100%)
22. TGn 15 day procedural letter ballot
1. Having approved comment resolutions for all of the comments received from LB97 on Draft 2.0 and instructed the editor to create Draft 3.0
2. approve a 15-day Working Group letter Ballot asking the procedural question “Should 802.11n Draft 3.0 be forwarded to Working Group letter ballot?”
3. if successful, begin as soon as possible, a 15 day Working Group Recirculation Ballot asking the technical question “Should 802.11n Draft 3.0 be forwarded to Sponsor Ballot?”
4. Moved by Bruce Kraemer of behalf of TG
5. This motion is here because we were not sure about the Quorum situation of this meeting.
6. Chair: We have Quorum at 50.1%, hence this motion can be modified.
7. Having approved comment resolutions for all of the comments received from LB97 on Draft 2.0 and instructed the editor to create Draft 3.0 begin as soon as possible, a 15 day Working Group Recirculation Ballot asking the technical question “Should 802.11n Draft 3.0 be forwarded to Sponsor Ballot?”
8. New motion is now moved by Bruce Kraemer, second Eldad Perahia
9. Question: I think more than 15 days is required here.
10. Answer: Perhaps we can move to 20 days. TGn has about 5 days of slack which can be play with.
11. Is there any objection to changing 15 to 20 days?
12. Objections noted
1. Jon Rosdahl: I would move to amend the motion to change this motion to 20 days.
2. Second: Darwin Engwer
3. Point of order: we need to discuss this motion to amend, not the original motion
4. Chair: Yes, sorry
5. Chair TGn: For TGn this is ok.
6. Comment: I speak against the change. There are not that many changes to be made. Since everyone reads everything in the last 5 days, I don’t think it makes any change.
7. Comment: I speak in favor of this amendment.
8. Comment: Please can we see this motion to amend on the screen.
9. Chair: Yes
10. Comment: I think we do this, as it does give people a longer window to read the document within.
11. For 40, Against 10, Abstain 6 (Motion passes 80%)
13. Back to main motion
14. Having approved comment resolutions for all of the comments received from LB97 on Draft 2.0 and instructed the editor to create Draft 3.0 begin as soon as possible, a 20 day Working Group Recirculation Ballot asking the technical question “Should 802.11n Draft 3.0 be forwarded to Sponsor Ballot?”
15. For 56, Against 0, Abstain 1 (Motion passes 100%)
23. TGn Ad Hoc
1. Request authorization for TGn to hold an ad hoc in the Atlanta Hyatt Regency on Saturday November 10, 2007 for the purpose of resolving comments received during balloting on Draft 3.0.
2. moved on behalf of the task group
3. moved by unanimous consent
24. WNG SC creation of new study group
1. Moved, To request the IEEE 802.11 Working Group to approve and forward to the IEEE 802 Executive Committee the creation of a “WLAN Segregated Data Services” Study Group to consider how best to meet requirements as follows and how best to coordinate such activities with 802.1:
2. labeling frames per service; security of data within a service; and the configuration and management of such services.
3. moved by Donald Eastlake, 2nd Clint Chaplin
4. For 19, Against 9, Abstain 24 (Motion fails 67.85%)
5. Orders of the day called. Can we have just a 15 minute break please?
6. Chair: Yes, but after the next motion please.
25. TGs Ad Hoc
1. Moved, to request that 802.11 working group authorize a TGs ad hoc meeting 23-25 October in the Boston, Massachusetts, area to resolve comments.
2. moved on behalf of the task group
3. moved by unanimous consent
26. Stuart Kerry handed over chair to Harry Worstell
27. TGu 1st Motion : Liaison to GSMA, GSMNA etc
1. Move to approve liaison document 11-07-2508r0 and request the IEEE 802.11 WG chair to forward it to GSMA, GSMNA, CDG Roaming International, ATIS WTSC, WiMAX Forum and FMCA.
2. Moved on behalf of task group
3. For 33, Against 0, Abstain 10 (Motion passes 100%)
28. TGu 2nd Motion : Liaison to 3GPP SA1 and SA3
1. Move to approve liaison document 11-07-2519r1 and request the IEEE 802.11 WG chair to forward it to 3GPP SA1 and 3GPP SA3.
2. Moved on behalf of task group
3. For 36, Against 0, Abstain 6 (Motion passes 100%)
29. TGu 3rd Motion : Liaison to 3GPP SA2
1. Move to approve liaison document 11-07-2520r1 and request the IEEE 802.11 WG chair to forward it to 3GPP SA2.
2. Moved on behalf of task group
3. For 32, Against 0, Abstain 8 (Motion passes 100%)
30. TGu 4th Ad Hoc
1. Move to approve an IEEE 802.11u ad-hoc meeting in the Bay Area, California, USA from October 22nd – 24th 2007.
2. Moved Stephen McCann, 2nd David Hunter
3. moved by unanimous consent
31. Harry Worstell handed over chair to Stuart Kerry
32. TGv Ad Hoc
1. Move to authorize a TGv ad-hoc meeting on November 5-6-7, 2007 in San Jose area.
2. moved on behalf of task group
3. moved by unanimous consent
33. TGw 15 day re-circulation ballot
1. To request the 802.11 Working Group authorize a 15-day Working Group Recirculation Ballot on P802.11w D3.0.
2. moved on behalf of task group
3. For 39, Against 0, Abstain 1 (Motion passes 100%)
34. TGw Ad Hoc
1. Move to hold a TGw ad hoc on Wednesday, November 7, 2007, in Santa Clara, CA, from 9 AM to 4 PM PT
2. moved on behalf of task group
3. moved by unanimous consent
35. TGy 15 day re-circulation ballot
1. Motion: Instruct the technical editor to rename 802.11y draft 4.2 as P802.11y draft 5.0. Having addressed all comments arising from the WG Letter Ballot 109, Task Group y resolves to forward P802.11y draft 5.0 to the working group for the purpose of conducting a 15-day recirculation letter ballot. The purpose of the working group letter ballot is to forward the draft to sponsor ballot.
–The text of the motion to be presented to the working group will be “Move to authorize a 15-day Working Group Recirculation Letter Ballot of P802.11y draft 5.0, asking the question “Should the P802.11y draft 5.0 be forwarded to sponsor ballot?”
2. moved on behalf of task group
3. For 41, Against 0, Abstain 2 (Motion passes 100%)
36. TGy 15 day re-circulation ballot (New Business Motion)
1. Move to conduct a 15 day recirculation LB on 11y draft P802.11-D5.0 to commence as soon as practical after the closing of the fourth recirculation letter ballot and conditional on that ballot passing.
2. moved by Peter Ecclesine, 2nd Richard Kennedy
3. Question: Will be this be draft 5.0 or 6.0?
4. Answer: It will be draft 5.0. In other words no changes will be made.
5. For 42, Against 0, Abstain 1 (Motion passes 100%)
37. QSE SG Comments on the PAR & 5 Criteria
1. QSE SG Chair (QSC): Request that the WG chair makes a procedural decision to allow a poll
2. Chair: Can you explain more please.
3. QSC: The SG is at deadlock and I think this is a way to move forward.
4. View slide #23 of the QSE report (document 11-07-2476r0)
5. Chair: I want to limit the debate to 30 minutes and ask the opinion of the WG, with no objections, until 11:15 HST.
6. QSC: The SG would benefit from further comments from the WG
7. Against: I think this is a mis-use of the IEEE SG procedural. I believe that this will prove troublesome and this will encourage more behavior like this. The true feeling of the study group is not being upheld. This is very important for future standard development. The SG is equally split. There should be another way of resolving this impasse. I am concerned about the procedural decision of the QSE chair. He is supposed to conform to the IEEE code of ethics and has a moral responsibility to the SG. The standards procedure must remain free of undue influence.
8. Information: I would like to mention that I don’t understand what happened from the QSE report and minutes. It does not read very well. What is the poll, is this a motion on the floor or not.
9. QSC: The order was: motion, motion seconded, then a discussion took place. The chair then decided that this could be a procedural issue. The chair then asked the feeling of the room about this and continued.
10. For: I only attended the second part of the QSE meeting and therefore I think that this poll would be a good idea.
11. Against: I object to this issue being resolved by a letter ballot. However, I do agree that this is a way to break you deadlock.
12. For: I agree with the earlier speaker about the misuse of the SG procedures. However, I think that this suggested way forward may help the group.
13. Information: By the way, the document is not in the proper template. In section 7.4.2, LMSC, it says that all SG members may vote and require 75%. It also mentions that LBs are not allowed. I appreciate that the SG chair is trying to move forward and I think the idea is fine, but the procedure to get here are not very good.
14. Against: I know this has happened before. I’m concerned about sending this out, as it restricts it to voting members only. Everyone should be able participate.
15. Against: I agree with earlier speakers. If the WFA was not setting standards then this discussion would not be required. The standard should be done in IEEE 802.11 and certification should be done in the WFA. I think an official agreement should be established. I agree that these standards should be harmonized, but this motion allows the WFA to define standards and then re-apply them to IEEE 802.11. Not having a harmonized standard has not affected the market so far. This bigger issue needs to be clarified by the IEEE 802.11 and WFA.
16. For: I think that IEEE 802.11 is the SDO and WFA is the compliance body. However, reality is different; WPA was created by the WFA and then re-applied to IEEE 802.11i. Regarding WMM, it should be re-aligned with IEEE 802.11. The cost of this is that IEEE 802.11 will become ineffectual in time. I think this is an incredibly important issue and the widest body of people must be consulted. Ignoring the importance of this issue, is clearing a path of impending irrelevance for IEEE 802.11.
17. QSC: I object to the member who talked about my conduct and not adhering to the IEEE 802.11 code of ethics. I request the chair asks that these statements be stricken from the record. Undoing the past is futile and we need to face industry issue. There are essentially two standards, one created in IEEE 802.11 which is ignored by industry, whereas the one in WFA is accepted by industry. Hence there are features of IEEE 802.11e which may never be implemented. WFA is also about to extend the WMM work, so this harmonization must occur. People have created something wonderful within IEEE 802.11, so for it to become irrelevant is a sad thing. I think this is a very stupid thing to do. I think we may destroy the IEEE 802.11 market if we are not careful. The point that this issue may go away in the future is not going to happen. Regarding the procedural decisions, I was trying to extend the participation of the SG. A question to the member will help and will assist the SG to improve the PAR and 5C. There is no intimidation going on and we are not trying to side step the process. This is not a letter ballot and the SG is not conducting it. This is a WG poll. There is no draft for approval. Please recall that the PAR 0029r5 was approved by 75% in the May meeting. What we are trying to do, is to assess the WG’s opinion about this. Within the SG there are a small number of attendees and there is a small group of people who are blocking progress. Those participants do not want the PAR and 5Criteria to succeed within the SG. I would ask everyone here to support this effort.
18. Chair: Let’s extend the debate time to all those in the queue.
19. Many of the SG members understood that they were voting on a motion. In some previous meeting, we had members in the corridor. I also object to the statement about attacking the other speakers conduct. I wish to appeal the decision of the QSE chair, and I retract my statement about attacking anyone.
20. Chair: There is no current WG appeal underway at this moment. I have not received any documentation in this respect.
21. Information: ok, so what can we do about this? We have to find reconciliation here. Additionally we can amend one of these documents, not both of them and this causes ill will. I don’t think this is good and I wish WFA had taken a different approach than sending the letter earlier this week. The phrase on the screen “acceptability of PAR and 5 Criteria” is rather odd. What does a yes actually mean? Is this a question of information or asking for approval of the PAR & 5Criteria? I don’t mind the concept of asking for more import, but I’m wondering how we got here. A SG does not necessarily have to produce a PAR and 5Criteria, they can do nothing. A SG can decide not to do anything and this should not be regarded as blocking the progress of the SG.
22. For: Task Groups decide how to actually do the work. The details are determined with the TG, not the SG. There is plenty of opportunity for further debate is still possible within the TG. There are few issues which are so dangerous that it cannot e talked about. Let’s continue the discussion.
23. Against: In May 2007, the PAR and 5Criteria was approved by the SG, but it was subsequently rejected twice by the WG. Subsequent PAR amendments have not yet come back to the WG. There are some offline drafts around, which state that you should only use them at your own risk. I believe that WFA is asking us to share this risk. I believe this is bad behavior. I believe that the maintenance group (11mb) should be dealing with this. I don’t believe there are any problems with the existing 11 standard. What will WFA do with the output? They are pushing for us to make changes to 11. Surely any output would be different from WMM itself? So then we would have to go round this debate again. We need a statement from WFA to see if any output will also become a WMM revision. I don’t think we need a motion here to just ask for comments. Why cannot a question be placed on the IEEE 802.11 reflector. If you want an email discussion, why not just do it.
24. Against: I believe this motion speaks of in-opportune convenience. I think that non-interoperating documents would make things worse. We cannot have 2 bodies making standard decisions. It is not for them to tell us our goal.
25. For: I realize that this procedure is rather extreme, but I do support the idea of allowing members to give some assistance to this SG. I believe that the PAR & 5Criter should resolve the differences between the two organizations, not rubber stamp a WFA document.
26. Against: I again agree with the intent, but I think the motion on the floor is poor. We must resolve this difference between IEEE 802.11 and WFA. Indeed I think that WFA members are also IEEE 802.11 members. Hence we should not talk of us and them.
27. Chair: The QSE SG minutes are accurate. Technical votes should be 75% whereas the chair is responsible for procedural matters. He may share them with the group if he wishes. A ballot means a vote, with a voting pool. Hence this will disenfranchise those non voting members of the SG. The SG has a specific task to study an issue, with a certain lifetime. The SG cannot move forward and can not come up with a solution. A letter ballot should be no considered. The PAR and 5Criteria are not being voted upon.
38. Straw Poll Regarding the QSE SG PAR and 5Criteria:
1. Comments by WG Electronic Poll : 23
2. Comments on the WG Email reflector : 6
3. Continue with SG normal business : 20
4. Abstain : 2
39. Chair: Therefore I would like to proceed with option 1 for 30 days. Please note this is not a letter ballot. There is no vote. It does not affect anyone’s voting member status. I have based my ruling on the opinion of the WG members here present, and yet not to disenfranchise any of the WG members who are not.
40. At 11:59, Chair asks for any no objection to continuing with last motion of the day, through the 12:00 end time. No objections were noted.
41. VTS SG Motion
1. Move to approve the PAR and 5 Criteria document IEEE 802.11-07/1972r6 and forward to ExCom for Approval, and to 802.1avb for consideration.
2. Moved on behalf of VTS SG
3. Against: I was very concerned about the earlier discussion in the mid week plenary about the scope. The scope now states that any change will be made which applies to video. This is an incredibly vague scope and I think this is the wrong way to go at this time.
4. For: There were indeed issues about the scope, during the mid-week plenary. The controversial items have been removed from the scope and placed it in another part of the PAR document. Therefore I state that the scope of the document has not changed. Regarding the Bluetooth SIG presentation on Wednesday, you can see the number of TVs which are sold.
5. Against: I think the PAR should be re-written. I would perhaps like to ask if we have Quorum now, which I don’t think we have. I do want to avoid a roll call vote at this point.
6. For: I think that this is what the study group were empowered to do.
7. May I suggest that we rework the PAR at this point?
8. Chair: I’m not sure if 802.1avb has been currently consulted about the PAR.
9. VTS SG Chair: No, we have not consulted 802.1avb about the PAR.
1. John Rosdahl. Motion to amend: Change the motion to forward the PAR to 802.1avb only, without approving the PAR itself. 2nd Bruce Kraemer.
2. Call the question: Jason Trachewsky, 2nd Dave Bagby
3. For 28, Against 4, Abstain 2 (motion passes 87.5%)
10. Main motion
11. Move to approve PAR/5C as specified in document 07/1972r6 and request the 802.11 WG chair to forward it to 802.1avb for approval.
12. Call the question: Jason Trachewsky, 2nd Dave Bagby
13. For 23, Against 7, Abstain 2 (motion passes 76.66%)
42. VTS SG Straw Poll
1. Which of the following would you consider as the best approach for the VTS SG PAR/5C Criteria:
2. Option-A: the scope statement defines the general problem space – video streaming over 802.11. The specifics of what is included and what is not is defined by the TG in a “principles” or “requirements” document
3. Option-B: the scope statement is detailed enough to describe the specific areas that will be the focus of VTS
4. Option-C: the scope statement defines the general problem space but section 7.4 of the PAR document will include the specifics
5. Question: What does 7.4 of the PAR state
6. Answer: Additional explanations
7. Straw Poll result : A) 3 ,B) 13 ,C) 8 , D) None of the above: 1
10. Next Meeting
1. The next meeting is in Atlanta, Georgia, USA, from November 11th – 16th 2007 and the agenda for this meeting will be document 11-07-2485r0.
11. Adjournment
1. The meeting is adjourned without objection
Annex A : Working Group Officers
|Name |Position |Phone, eMAIL & Affiliation |
|Stuart J. |IEEE 802.11 Working Group (WG) Chair |NXP Semiconductors |
|Kerry | | |
| |Mail: |c/o: NXP Semiconductors, |Phone: |
| | |1109 McKay Drive, M/S 48A SJ, | |
| | |San Jose, CA 95131-1706, | |
| | |United States of America | |
|Al |WORKING GROUP - 1st Vice-Chair / Treasurer |Jones-Petrick & Associates |
|Petrick | | |
| |Policies & Treasury |+1 (321) 235-3269 |
| | |al@ |
|Harry R. |WORKING GROUP - 2nd Vice-Chair |AT&T Labs, Inc. |
|Worstell | | |
| |Attendance, Ballots, Documentation & Voting |+1 (973) 236-6915 |
| | |hworstell@research. |
|Stephen |WORKING GROUP - Secretary & Publicity |Nokia Siemens Networks |
|McCann | | |
| |Minutes, Reports, & Communications |+44 (1794) 833341 |
| | |stephen.mccann@roke.co.uk |
|Terry |WORKING GROUP - Technical Editor |Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. |
|Cole | | |
| |Standard & Amendment(s) Coordination | |
| |WORKING GROUP - ANA LEAD |+1 (512) 602-2454 |
| |802.11 Assigned Numbers Authority |terry.cole@ |
|Name |Position |Phone, eMAIL & Affiliation |
|Teik-Kheong |WNG Standing Committee - Chair |GCT Semiconductor, Inc. |
|"TK" | | |
|Tan | | |
| |Wireless Next Generations |+1 (408) 480-0431 |
| | |tktan@ |
|Name |Position |Phone, eMAIL & Affiliation |
|Richard H. |Task Group K - Chair |The Boeing Company |
|Paine | | |
| |Radio Resource Measurements |+1 (206) 854-8199 |
| |(802.11k Amendment) | |
| | |richard.h.paine@ |
|Al |Task Group MB - Chair (TEMPORARY) |Jones-Petrick & Associates |
|Petrick | | |
| |802.11 Accumulated Maintenance Changes |+1 (321) 235-3269 |
| | |al@ |
|Bruce P. |Task Group N - Chair |Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. |
|Kraemer | | |
| |High Throughput |+1 (321) 427-4098 |
| |(802.11n Amendment) | |
| | |bkraemer@ |
|Sheung |Task Group N - VICE-Chair |SiBEAM, Inc. |
|Li | | |
| |High Throughput |+1 (408) 245-3120 |
| |(802.11n Amendment) | |
| | |sli@ |
|Lee |TASK GROUP P - Chair |US Department of Transportation |
|Armstrong | | |
| |Wireless Access for the Vehicular Environment |+1 (617) 620-1701 |
| |(802.11p Amendment) | |
| | |LRA@ |
|Clint |Task Group R - Chair |Samsung |
|Chaplin | | |
| |Fast Roaming |+1 (408) 239-3348 |
| |(802.11r Amendment) | |
| | |clint.chaplin@ |
|Donald E. |Task Group S - Chair |Motorola, Inc. |
|Eastlake 3rd | | |
| |Mesh Networking |+1 (508) 786-7554 |
| |(802.11s Amendment) | |
| | |donald.eastlake@ |
|NEERAJ SHARMA |Task Group T - Chair |Intel Corporation |
| |Wireless Performance |+1 (503) 712-7458 |
| |(802.11.2 Recommended Practice) | |
| | |neeraj.k.sharma@ |
|Stephen |TASK GROUP u - Chair |Nokia Siemens Networks GmbH & Co. KG |
|McCann | | |
| |InterWorking with External Networks |+44 (1794) 833341 |
| |(802.11u Amendment) | |
| | |stephen.mccann@roke.co.uk |
|DOROTHY v. |TASK GROUP V - Chair |Aruba Networks |
|sTANLEY | | |
| |Wireless Network Management |+1 (630) 836-9734 |
| |(802.11v Amendment) | |
| | |dstanley@ |
|JESSE WALKER |TASK GROUP w - Chair |Intel Corporation |
| |Protected Management Frames |+1 (503) 712-1849 |
| |(802.11w Amendment) | |
| | |jesse.walker@ |
|PETER ECCLESINE|TASK GROUP Y - Chair |Cisco Systems, Inc. |
| |3650-3700 MHz Operation in USA |+1 (408) 527-0815 |
| |(802.11y Amendment) | |
| | |petere@ |
|MENZO WENTINK |TASK GROUP Z - Chair |Conexant Netherlands BV |
| |Direct Link Setup |+31 65 183 6231 |
| |(802.11z Amendment) | |
| | |menzo.wentink@ |
|Name |Position |Phone, eMAIL & Affiliation |
|Bob |QSE SG - CHAIR |Cisco Systems, Inc. |
|O'Hara | | |
| |802.11 QoS Enhancements |+1 (408) 853-5513 |
| | |boohara@ |
|ELDAD PERAHIA |VHT SG - Chair |Intel Corporation |
| |802.11 Very High Throughput |+1 (503) 712-8081 |
| | |eldad.perahia@ |
|GANESH |VTS SG - CHAIR |Intel Corporation |
|VENKATESAN | | |
| |802.11 Video Transport Streams |+1 (503) 264-0637 |
| | |ganesh.venkatesan@ |
Annex B : Minutes
This Annex contains references to all IEEE 802.11 SC/TG/SG & Ad Hoc group minutes from this meeting. Please note that they are NOT subject to the approval of these minutes, but are confirmed and approved by their individual group in the opening meeting at their next session.
|WG |TE |07-2507r0 |
|WNG SC |SCC |07-2510r0 |
|TGK |TGC |07-2487r2 |
|TGMB |TGC |n/a |
|TGN |TGC |07-2616r0 |
|TGP |TGC |07-2542r0 |
|TGR |TGC |07-2473r2 |
|TGS |TGC |07-2495r0 |
|TGT |TGC |07-2582r0 |
|TGU |TGC |07-2474r0 |
|TGV |TGC |07-2475r1 |
|TGW |TGC |07-2594r0 |
|TGY |TGC |07-2505r0 |
|TGZ |TGC |07-2527r1 |
|QSE SG |SGC |07-2476r0 |
|VHT SG |SGC |07-2479r0 |
|VTS SG |SGC |07-2581r0 |
|IETF AHC |AHC |n/a |
|IMT AHC |AHC |07-2609r0 |
-----------------------
Abstract
This document constitutes the minutes of the IEEE 802.11 full working group for the September 2007 interim session at Waikoloa, Hawai’i, USA.
................
................
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.