doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/2475r0€¦ · Web viewEmily: I’d like to present document 2368r2, Letter...

July 2007 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/2475r0

IEEE P802.11Wireless LANs

Minutes of 802.11 Task Group VWireless Network Management

Waikoloa, HawaiiJuly, 2007

Date: 2007-09-20

Author(s):Name Company Address Phone emailR. R. Miller AT&T 180 Park Ave, Florham Park NJ 973-236-6920 [email protected]

Submission page 1 IEEE Minutes

AbstractThis document records minutes of the 802.11v Task Group meeting of September, 2007 at Waikoloa, Hawaii.

July 2007 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/2475r0


July 2007 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/2475r0

1. Monday Morning Session, September 17, 2007

1.2. Opening

1.2.1. Call to Order1.2.1.1. Dorothy Stanley (DorothyS): I call the meeting to order.1.2.1.2. Meeting convened at 1030 hours.1.2.1.3. DorothyS: I would like Emily and Bob to identify themselves and to

announce their affiliations.

1.3. Process

1.3.1. Review of Affiliations1.3.1.1. Chair: Dorothy Stanley - Aruba Networks1.3.1.2. Editor: Emily Qi - Intel Corporation1.3.1.3. Secretary: Bob Miller - AT&T

1.3.2. Review of Patent Policy1.3.2.1. DorothyS: I wish to read the IEEE patent policy [reads Slides 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5

of Patent Policy dated 1 May 2007]. Let it be noted that the body was questioned regarding patent procedures that no one spoke to indicate lack of understanding or to notify the chair of relevant patents or patent claims.

1.3.3. Agenda Review1.3.3.1. DorothyS: I show the agenda in 07/2424r0. Today we will cover the plans

for this meeting, and then continue with comment resolutions. On Wednesday we shall consider adoption of resolutions. Any questions? No. Are there any additional items for the agenda? No.

1.3.3.2. DorothyS: Would someone like to move to adopt this agenda.1.3.3.3. Move to adopt the agenda in 11-07-2424-00-000v-september-2007-agenda.1.3.3.4. DorothyS: Is there any objection to approving the motion unanimously?

None. So moved and approved.1.3.3.5. Result: Unanimous.

1.3.4. Status and Objectives for Meeting1.3.4.1. DorothyS: The Draft 1.0 has been issued, and a 07/2368r2 contains

comments. Review of the TGv schedule, content summary, and current timeline will be done. We are targeting recirculation ballot in January.

1.3.4.2. Allan: There was discussion on conference call regarding comments being lost.

1.3.4.3. DorothyS: Alex Ashley’s comments were not received, but the comments have been obtained and included in the document. If anyone else has noted that their comments were not logged, please contact me.

1.3.4.4. Allan: I believe I know an individual, Ms. Cam-Winget, whose comments were not received.

1.3.4.5. DorothyS: I believe her comments were received and included. Please confirm and get back to me if that is not the case.

1.3.4.6.


July 2007 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/2475r0

1.3.5. Approval of Minutes1.3.5.1. DorothyS: We have two sets of meeting minutes to approve. 1.3.5.2. Move to approve the July 2007 meeting minutes in 11-07-2171-00-000v-

minutes-tgv-SanFranl-meeting-July-07.doc.1.3.5.3. Moved: Emily Qi (Intel)1.3.5.4. Second: Allan Thomson (Cisco)1.3.5.5. DorothyS: Is there any objection to approving this motion unanimously?

None.1.3.5.6. Result: Unanimous.1.3.5.7. DorothyS: We should now approve the meeting minutes for the

teleconferences.1.3.5.8. Move to approve the meeting minutes in 11-07-2423-00-000v-Meeting

Minutes September 13th-con call.doc minutes1.3.5.9. Mover: Allan Thomson (Cisco)1.3.5.10. Second: Emily Qi (Intel)1.3.5.11. DorothyS: Is there any objection to accepting these minutes unanimously?

None.1.3.5.12. Result: Unanimous approval.1.3.5.13. Dorothy: On the conference call some individuals volunteered to help with

comment resolution areas. Are there any additional volunteers? Yes. [notes volunteers in 07/2424r0]. I suggest that leaders meet to develop ad-hoc comment resolutions until 1230 hours. Is there any objection to convening in ad-hoc fashion? Yes. Emily would like to present letter ballot resolutions.

1.3.6. Presentation of Document 07/2368r21.3.6.1. Emily: I’d like to present document 2368r2, Letter Ballot 108 Resolutions

before we do that. I suggest that members look at all of the comments, both editorial and technical. I am showing a breakdown by categories so that we can view comment areas. Green are accepted, yellow declined, gray is counter, and white is deferred. You should review this document as well as draft 1.01.

1.3.6.2. DorothyS: We should review these comments, and we will wait at least four hours before considering motions. DorothyS: Very well, as you create resolutions please send a note to the reflector so that members may view them ASAP.

1.4. Closing

1.4.1. Recess1.4.1.1. Is there any objection to breaking into ad-hoc mode? No. Very well, we shall

reconvene at 1220 hours.1.4.1.2. Recessed at 1102.

1.5. Opening

1.5.1. Call to Order1.5.1.1. DorothyS: I call the session back to order following ad-hoc comment

resolution.1.5.1.2. Meeting reconvened at 1225.


July 2007 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/2475r0

1.6. Process

1.6.1. Progress Summary1.6.1.1. I have posted document 07/2480 with ECSA comment resolutions on the

server. We expect to consider these Wednesday. Are there any announcements by any ad-hoc groups?

1.6.1.2. MenzoW: We are close to being done.1.6.1.3. DorothyS: Please notify the group when results are available.1.6.1.4. AllanThomson: Still working1.6.1.5. JariJokela: Still working.

1.7. Closing

1.7.1. Recess1.7.1.1. DorothyS: If there is no objection, we shall recess, reconvening at 1600 in

King’s One. None.1.7.1.2. We are recessed.1.7.1.3. Recess at 1229.

2. Monday Afternoon Session, September 17, 2007

2.1. Opening

2.2.1. Call to Order2.2.1.1. DorothyS: I call the meeting to order.2.2.1.2. Meeting convened at 1602 hours.

2.3. Process

2.3.1. Comment Resolution StatusDorothyS: I propose that we recess to ad-hoc groups to resume comment resolutions. Is there any objection to doing so? None

2.4. Closing

2.4.1. Recess2.4.1.1. DorothyS: We shall reconvene at 1750. We are recessed.2.4.1.2. Recess at 1605.

2.5. Opening

2.5.1. Call to Order2.5.1.1. DorothyS: I call the session back to order following ad-hoc comment

resolution.2.5.1.2. Meeting reconvened at 1750.


July 2007 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/2475r0

2.6. Process

2.6.1. Resolution Status2.6.1.1. DorothyS: The ad-hoc groups are making progress. I urge you to look at the

resolutions posted. We will reconvene at 1930.

2.7. Closing

2.7.1. Recess2.7.1.1. DorothyS: If there is no objection, we are recessed.2.7.1.2. Recess at 1752.

3. Monday Evening Session, September 17, 2007

3.2. Opening

3.2.1. Call to Order3.2.1.1. Dorothy Stanley (DorothyS): I call the meeting to order.3.2.1.2. Meeting convened at 1930 hours.3.2.1.3. DorothyS: I remind everyone to record attendance.

3.3. Process

3.3.1. Review of Comment Resolutions3.3.1.1. DorothyS: Are there any announcements regarding resolutions? No. Very

well, we shall recess in an ad-hoc mode, reconvening at 2120.

3.4. Closing

3.4.1. Recess3.4.1.1. DorothyS: If there is no objection, we are recessed for ad-hoc comment

resolution.3.4.1.2. Recess at 1940 hours.

3.5. Opening

3.5.1. Call to Order3.5.1.1. Dorothy Stanley (DorothyS): I call the meeting to order.3.5.1.2. Meeting convened at 2120 hours.

3.6. Process

3.6.1. Review of Comment Resolutions3.6.1.1. DorothyS: Document 07/2484 is now on the server. Can we have a quick

update on resolution status?3.6.1.2. AllanT: We have made good progress, and will continue our work..


July 2007 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/2475r0

3.6.1.3. EmilyQ: We’ve made progress on roaming management, with review tomorrow afternoon or evening..

3.6.1.4. DorothyS: We have 4 sessions tomorrow. What time slot would you like?3.6.1.5. Emily: Evening.3.6.1.6. Dorothy: I am also making progress, and I am working on the “General”

category myself. Are there any other comments or questions? No.3.6.1.7. Then let us recess until tomorrow at 0800 in Queen’s Five.

3.7. Closing

3.7.1. Recess3.7.1.1. DorothyS: If there is no objection, we are recessed until tomorrow. No

objections.3.7.1.2. Recess at 2130 hours.

4. Tuesday Morning Session, September 18, 2007

4.2. Opening

4.2.1. Call to Order4.2.1.1. DorothyStanley (DorothyS): I call the meeting to order.4.2.1.2. Meeting convened at 0800 hours.

4.3. Process

4.3.1. Review of Agenda4.3.1.1. DorothyS: We have two sessions this morning, and then at 1600. We will be

back in Queen’s Five. Are there any reports on comment resolutions? No. (Four members present). I suggest we recess into ad-hoc mode to continue to craft resolutions.

4.4. Closing

4.4.1. Recess4.4.1.1. DorothyS: If there is no objection we shall recess. No objections. We shall

reconvene at 0950. We are recessed.4.4.1.2. Recess at 0803

4.5. Opening



July 2007 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/2475r0

4.6. Process

4.6.1. Review of Agenda4.6.1.1. DorothyS: Are there any updates on comment resolutions? No. I have been

working on the 104 “General” category comments. Most relate to additional submissions.

4.6.1.2. AlexAshley (NDS): I have done twenty comments so far, with one that I should like to forward to the group for action. Comment 109 in the Multicast Diagnostics. 1930 addresses the same issue, which is specifying what “reliably receive” means.

4.6.1.3. DavidGoodall (G2Microsystems): I am trying to reference the discussion that produced this text in Montreal.

4.6.1.4. DorothyS: It is suggested that the text be changed to “at which the STA can receive multicast frames”.

4.7. Closing

4.7.1. Recess4.7.1.1. DorothyS: We have reached the end of our time. Let’s reconvene at 1030

hours, if there is no objection to recess. None.4.7.1.2. We are recessed.4.7.1.3. Recess at 1000 hours.

4.8. Opening


4.9. Process

4.9.1. Comment Resolution4.9.1.1. DorothyS: I show document 07/2424r2 on the screen. This session is

reserved for comment resolution. At 1600 we shall have a presentation on “Co-Located Interference Enhancement”. Those of you who have been doing comment resolution should let me know if you plan to elevate any for group discussion.

4.9.1.2. AllanThomson: I may have such comments.4.9.1.3. DorothyS: We can use the 1600 segment for that. Are there any other

comments?4.9.1.4. JariJokela: We may wish to discuss some comments as well.4.9.1.5. Dorothy: Perhaps we could do that Wednesday.

4.10. Closing

4.10.1. Recess4.10.1.1. DorothyS: If there is no objection, I suggest we recess. No objection.4.10.1.2. We shall work as ad-hoc groups, and shall reconvene at 1220 hours.4.10.1.3. Recess at 1040 hours.


July 2007 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/2475r0

4.11. Opening

4.11.1. Call to Order4.11.1.1. DorothyS: I would like to reconvene the group.4.11.1.2. Reconvened at 1220 hours.

4.12. Process

4.12.1. Comment Resolution4.12.1.1. DorothyS: I show 07/2424r2 on the screen. Are there any announcements

regarding resolutions? None. I’d like to review the list of documents on the server representing resolved comment areas. I urge you to look at these documents. On my own resolutions, I have suggested multiple action paths in the resolutions to allow us to consider our responses. Are there any other announcements? No.

4.13. Closing

4.13.1. Recess4.13.1.1. DorothyS: We have reached the end of this session. If there is no objection,

I suggest we recess. No objection.4.13.1.2. Recess at 1225 hours.

5. Tuesday Afternoon Session, September 18, 2007

5.2. Opening

5.2.1. Call to Order5.2.1.1. Dorothy Stanley (DorothyS): I call the meeting to order.5.2.1.2. Meeting called to order at 1601 hours.

5.3. Process

5.3.1. Discussion of Agenda5.3.1.1. DorothyS: The agenda for today is a presentation on Co-Located

Interference Enhancement. The presenter is apparently not here. We shall wait for a few minutes.

5.3.2. Presentation of Document 07/2085r4 and 07/2086r25.3.2.1. Jing Zhu presented document 07/2085r4 on Co-Located Interference

Enhancement, with companion text document 07/2086r2. This presentation outlines a means by which multimode devices can notify a serving AP of potential interference caused by concurrent operation of 802.11 and other systems (e.g. cellular, Bluetooth, etc.).

5.3.2.2. Secretarial Note: The secretary wishes to acknowledge and thank Emily Qi for recording the minutes following this point, continuing until the regular secretary returned as noted.

5.3.2.3. The “Co-Located Interference (CLI) Reporting” mechanism currently in 802.11v does not define the operation to protect downlink unicast in the


July 2007 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/2475r0

presence of the radio being temporarily unusable due either to severe collocated interference or resource conflict. This presentation also explains the key ideas of the normative text proposal IEEE 802.11-07/2086r2 that resolves comment #1058 and #96.

5.3.2.4. HenryPtasinski (Broadcom): Please go back to slide 12. Do you mean any unicast frame or any unicast frame to the responding STA?

5.3.2.5. Jing: we mean any unicast frame to the responding STA.

5.3.2.6. AllanThomson (Cisco): Can a station request different interferences?

5.3.2.7. Jing: Yes, by definition, it allows up to 16 different interferences. Here, we only allow up to 8 to be deterministic intervals that will be protected.

5.3.2.8. QiWang (Broadcom): We should be able to change the text to allow an STA to send a response autonomously without explicitly being triggered by the request frame. Why do we still need Query?

5.3.2.9. Jing: Yes, you can do that. But the key question is that the information in the Request frame indicates whether the absence protection is enabled or not. So the responding STA may still want to request the requesting STA to send out the request to indicate the corresponding bit.

5.3.2.10. Qi: Is it mandatory or optional to support this protection?

5.3.2.11. Jing: No it is not mandatory.

5.3.2.12. Qi: Why is the [existing] Co-located Interference Reporting capability bit not enough?

5.3.2.13. Jing: Here we are talking about two different capabilities. One is the signaling. So an STA is capable of transmitting and receiving all the Co-Located Interference related frames or information elements. The other is the dedicated protect for deterministic absences, which means that a STA can differentiate packet loss when such transmission overlaps with the absence bursts.

5.3.2.14. Presentation continues … Normative text proposal (11-07-2086 r2) is reviewed.

5.3.2.15. Qi: Please give a definition on dedicated protection. Also, there seems to be a problem with the DTIM counter. Should it be set to 1 to include Response IE to the beacon?

5.3.2.16. Jing: Yes, we will fix that. It is a typo.

5.3.2.17. Henry: If there are many STAs in the network, will your mechanism still work?

5.3.2.18. Jing: The actual performance will depend upon the implementation and network scenario. And the absence protection should not interact with other stations in the network. Therefore, another station will have 100% time available to contend. And for the station with a Bluetooth radio, the available time will be 5/6, if the HV3 link is assumed.

5.3.2.19. DorothyS: Are you planning to have motion?

5.3.2.20. Jing: Yes.

5.3.2.21. EmilyQi (Intel): As one of the co-authors, I would recommend to have an updated draft to address the comments that are raised during the discussion. So I suggest a motion on Wednesday or Thursday.

5.3.2.22. DorothyS: Will Thursday AM2 or AM1 work?

5.3.2.23. Emily: Thursday AM2 is fine.

5.3.2.24. DorothyS: If the group agrees, we should continue the ad-hoc meeting for comment resolution. Is there any objection? None.


July 2007 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/2475r0

5.4. Closing

5.4.1. Recess5.4.1.1. DorothyS: We are recessed until 1750 hours.5.4.1.2. Secretarial Note: The secretary of TGv resumed the minutes from this point.

5.5. Opening


5.6. Process

5.6.1. Status Review5.6.1.1. DorothyS: Are there any announcements regarding progress on comment

resolution?5.6.1.2. AllanThomson: I unaccountably lost the comment resolutions my team had

been working on because of a program difficulty; I have been reconstructing. We may wish to handle the deferred ones as soon as I finish my reconstruction.

5.6.1.3. Alex Ashley reports progress.

5.7. Closing

5.7.1. Recess5.7.1.1. DorothyS: If there is no objection, we are recessed. No objection.5.7.1.2. Recess at 1758.

6. Tuesday Evening Session, September 18, 2007

6.2. Opening


6.3. Process

6.3.1. Discussion of Agenda6.3.1.1. DorothyS: What do members want to do this session? Shall we resume

comment resolution, or discuss some of the resolutions?6.3.1.2. DavidGoodall: Allan Thomson and I were assuming we would continue with

ad-hoc work. 6.3.1.3. DorothyS: I’d like to take some time to review some of the “General”

solutions. I show document 07/2525r0, showing these comment resolutions, now on the server. I suggest the members look at these resolutions. [Emily Qi and Dorothy Stanley review selected comments with deferred resolutions


July 2007 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/2475r0

with members, including 101,102, 116, 117, 130, 269, 291, 327, 334, 337, 338, 556, 647, 653, 707, 946, 1000, 1003, 1020, 1022, 1023, 1024, 1037, 1141, 1153, 1193, 1230, 1232, 1233, 1255, 1273, 1300, 1302, 1323, 1329, 1335, 1384, 1385, 1386, 1387, 1388, 1391, 1411, 1433, 1584, 1766, 1767, and 2007]. Many comments address clause 5 deficiencies, and a member has agreed to work on these as a group (approximately 10). The following minutes record extended discussion on some of the comments/resolutions.

6.3.1.4. Secretarial note: Members should review the spreadsheet for detail.6.3.1.5. KeithAmann: I have concerns in 1003 regarding priority of measurement and

diagnostic frames as time-sensitive traffic could be impacted.6.3.1.6. AllanThomson: Perhaps we need a category for measurements.6.3.1.7. EmilyQi: But some management frames will need to be handled quickly.6.3.1.8. AllanThomson: Some frames, for example those with interference

measurement info, may have to be handled specially.6.3.1.9. DorothyS: On 1232 the commenter suggests that there is no need for a

separate IE. The commenter suggested adding an extended capability element. The concern is that the field is not in the beacon frame. We would need to add this, or find another place to add the capability element.

6.3.1.10. [Group discussion on merits of various IE approaches]6.3.1.11. DorothyS: I suggest we keep thinking about this. On 1255, similar to 103,

we could recommend a similar solution. [Discussion]6.3.1.12. On 1254, the commenter says that there is no MIB interface required by the

TGv PAR. This resolution will require some consideration.6.3.1.13. [Discussion on Deferral Management]6.3.1.14. Floor: On 1141, Event Diagnostics, Multicast Diagnostics, and Presence are

mandatory and yet have associated capability bits defined.6.3.1.15. Dorothy: We have several options: we could remove the bits, we could move

them, or we could define new fields to better handle this.6.3.1.16. 1329 addresses the need for a definition of “supports”6.3.1.17. Are there any other comments that members want to discuss? No.

6.4. Closing

6.4.1. Recess6.4.1.1. DorothyS: If there is no objection, we are recessed. No objection.6.4.1.2. Recess at 8:45

7. Wednesday Afternoon Session, September 19, 2007

7.2. Opening


7.3. Process

7.3.1. Agenda and Status Review7.3.1.1. DorothyS: In this session we shall review the comment resolutions to date.

Document 07/2424r3 shows a list of areas, individuals, and document


July 2007 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/2475r0

identifiers on slide 5. I should also like to consider a motion to adopt Draft 1.01 as the TGv draft (this document includes a group of updates from the letter ballot). Would someone like to make a motion?

7.3.1.2. Move to adopt the “accepted”, “counter” and “declined” comment resolutions in 11-07-2368-02-LB108-000v-comment-resolutions and adopt the TGv Draft 1.01 as the TGv draft.

7.3.1.3. Moved: Emily Qi7.3.1.4. Seconded: Qi Wang7.3.1.5. Dorothy: Is there discussion on the motion? None.7.3.1.6. For 11, Against 0, Abstain 0.7.3.1.7. The motion passes unanimously.7.3.1.8. Dorothy: Menzo, would you like to explain how to sort without shuffling

comment numbers? A number of members who are working on resolutions have experienced difficulty when they sorted comments. The sort renumbered comments causing confusion.

7.3.1.9. Menzo: OK. I show spreadsheet 07/2368r2 on the screen. It turns out that the CID information is carried by a formula. To sort without rearrangement, allow all comments to be shown. Then, with all comments visible, select column A, select “copy” then select “paste special” and “value”, and paste back into the same place (column A). Then subsequent sorting will not alter he CID numbers.

7.3.1.10. JariJokela (Nokia): I shall go over the comments for “Co-Located Interference”. We shall start with comment #96.

7.3.1.11. QiWang: Do you want to hold questions until the end? No. You suggest a submission is needed. Do you intend the AP to make a report to the neighboring AP or something else?

7.3.1.12. Jari: Reporting could be AP or non-AP STAs, both are possible.7.3.1.13. Qi: So according to the idea, both are possible.7.3.1.14. Dorothy: Look at 11.20.9. This makes the language consistent.7.3.1.15. Qi: It appears to me that the two require substantially different text to explain

them.7.3.1.16. Dorothy: In 11.20.9 the first sentence says no restriction.7.3.1.17. Qi: I would suggest we keep this comment deferred.7.3.1.18. Emily: The case would seem to prevent AP-AP as they cannot be

associated.7.3.1.19. Qi: I think more thought and detail is needed.7.3.1.20. Dorothy: We should note the ones we want to exclude (like this one).7.3.1.21. Jari: [Reviews each resolution in turn]. 7.3.1.22. Emily: It seems that a comment that is technical may have been made

editorial---I need to check this.7.3.1.23. Jari: On #294, the proposal is to remove the entire end of the sentence.

Recommend “counter”. #474 Add a sentence after “transaction”. Accept the comment.

7.3.1.24. Emily: But the response is automatic…7.3.1.25. Jari: There are two token values, we are using the same value for each of

the automatic responses. [continues with resolution review] #475 Counter: Replace connector with “antenna connector used for reception”. #539. Accept: Make the diagram like 10.3.50, trusting the editor to implement. #591 Counter: Remove word “significantly” from the end of the indicated line.

7.3.1.26. Allan: Wasn’t the commenter raising a bigger issue?7.3.1.27. Jari: There are several comments we could bundle on this. [resumes]


July 2007 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/2475r0

7.3.1.28. #582 Decline: The feature is meant to report only interference produced by co-located radios in the same physical package, not externally.

7.3.1.29. Emily: I agree with the “decline”, but I think the reason might be different. The idea is to minimize collisions between several stations. I think the suggestion was to randomize responses so they don’t collide.

7.3.1.30. Dorothy: So we should add additional text?7.3.1.31. Emily: I think so.7.3.1.32. Jari: [continues] #611 Counter: See CID 475. #612 Declined: The text in the

indicated sections describes the index adequately. #613 Decline: The listed section describes the center frequency adequately.

7.3.1.33. Allan: The commenter asks more detail, so we have to respond in that way. Perhaps we should make a reasonable effort to add detail?

7.3.1.34. Emily: How due we handle decline comments? Will we have a motion on these or talk to commenter?

7.3.1.35. Dorothy: We have 2000 comments, so contacting each commenter would be difficult.

7.3.1.36. Allan: I’m just suggesting that we respond by giving more detail to stop this from repeating.

7.3.1.37. Dorothy: We have to accept the resolution for every comment, even the declined ones. On this particular one, I can contact the commenter.

7.3.1.38. Jari: [continues] #614 Declined: Similar to previous. #666 Accepted. #667 Accepted: Use -128 dBm as “low interference”. #758 Accepted. #760 Accepted. #785 Declined: The proposed change does not affect the normative operation, and the same language is used in the 802.11k draft.

7.3.1.39. BobO’Hara: I have several things to say. In the text, the section describes the behavior of the station. That entire sentence is misplaced. Second, it used the word “shall”---changing the word to another word is a change in the normative requirement. Thus the response is not correct.

7.3.1.40. Dorothy: We’ll work to change it.7.3.1.41. Jari: [continues] #977 Accepted. #978 Accepted. #979 Accepted. #980

Accepted. #990 Accepted: Removed. #991 Counter: See CID #4757.3.1.42. RogerD: Your counter references #475, yet the question is, “What happens if

more than one antenna is in use?” It appears to be a separate question.7.3.1.43. Jari: I said in #475 that it is the antenna currently used for receiving.7.3.1.44. BobMiller (AT&T): But there can be multiple receivers working with multiple

antennas, as in 802.11n.7.3.1.45. Dorothy: Does the 11k definition apply to 11n systems? We’ll mark down 911

for continuing action.7.3.1.46. Jari: [continues] #992 Declined: See CID 612. #993 Declined.7.3.1.47. Emily: We need to check on/make a list of the categories.7.3.1.48. Jari: I don’t believe that is feasible.7.3.1.49. Allan: When you proposed the final text you actually removed the table from

the original proposal, right?7.3.1.50. Jari: Yes, we did originally have that table, but we deleted it.7.3.1.51. Allan: I suggest declining, but with a better explanation.7.3.1.52. Jari: [continues] #994, Similar, Declined. #995 Declined, Similar. #1034

Declined: The feature can be enabled or not, depending upon AP determination. #1127 Accepted. #1128 Accepted.

7.3.1.53. Emily: You accepted #1128, but what should the editor do?7.3.1.54. Jari: We recommend that the commenter’s suggestion be adopted. 7.3.1.55. Allan: We need to specify exactly what is to be done.


July 2007 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/2475r0

7.3.1.56. Jari: [continues] #1277 Declined: #1278 Declined: Text is believed clear enough.

7.3.1.57. RogerDurand (RIM): I’m getting confused by dB vs. dBm. Is the value you want relative or absolute? You say it’s clear, but I don’t think so. I might vote for dBm, but in two paragraphs it uses different metrics.

7.3.1.58. Emily: I second Roger’s opinion. I think we should propose new text to make it clear.

7.3.1.59. Jari: [continues] #1279 Decline: Co-located interference is already clearly defined. #1280 Declined. #1291 Counter: Replace with alternate language. #1431 Accept. #1435 Declined:

7.3.1.60. Emily: You suggest decline, but perhaps deferred would be better.7.3.1.61. Jari: We can handle the comment here, and I do not see any problem with

the response.7.3.1.62. Qi: I think this comment should be transferred to the sleep-mode group.7.3.1.63. Emily: Resolution in my sheet it to remove from the definitions.7.3.1.64. Roger: I suggest you just put this in brackets: e.g. [xxxx seconds].7.3.1.65. KeithA: I don’t know of anything that references “seconds”7.3.1.66. Jouni: In 802.11r we used “seconds”.7.3.1.67. Dorothy: We should use TUs, and the sentence should be moved to a

different part of the document. Is that what we recommend? Yes. These two were mis-characterized. We’ll put it with sleep mode.

7.3.1.68. QiWang: I am OK with transferring, but believe we should decline.7.3.1.69. Dorothy: Are you disagreeing with “TU”?7.3.1.70. Qi: Yes.7.3.1.71. Dorothy: Sounds like we’re still not agreeing on this…7.3.1.72. Roger: It seems like either would be OK.7.3.1.73. Jouni: If someone doesn’t know what a TU is, then that would be a problem.7.3.1.74. Emily: In the base draft, TU is 1024 microseconds.7.3.1.75. Qi: However 1000 TU is not a small unit, so seconds would be better.7.3.1.76. Allan: If you’re implementing, you’re using TUs.7.3.1.77. Qi: If the time scale is small, TUs are appropriate. But if large scale,

seconds is better.7.3.1.78. KeithA: I suggest “decline”.7.3.1.79. Emily: This issue will be back once we transfer to sleep mode.7.3.1.80. Dorothy: Any objection to transfer comments to the sleep mode? None.

#1435 and #1586 will be transferred to sleep mode, with no resolution.7.3.1.81. Jari: [continues] #1436 Counter: CID 294. #1437 Accepted. #1586 Already

covered above. #1587 Counter CID 294. #1588 Accepted. #1725 Counter.see CID 474. 1728 Counter. 1729 Counter: Replace text with alternate. 1731 Counter as with CID474. #1732 Decline: There are 16 possible responses.

7.3.1.82. Allan: Do we have a “shall” in section 11 on the 16 responses?7.3.1.83. Jari: Are you saying that we should add that?7.3.1.84. Allan: Yes. In FBMS we had to add such an imperative.7.3.1.85. Dorothy: Is there any objection to adding a “shall”?7.3.1.86. Allan: I suggest adding something like “provisions shall be made for up to

16…” What if implementers use different numbers?7.3.1.87. Jari: I am OK with adding that.7.3.1.88. Dorothy: I suggest Allan and Jari work on this.


July 2007 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/2475r0

7.3.1.89. Jari: [continues] #1733 Remove Counter: Remove “expected”. #1734 Counter: Replace “self-interference” with “co-located interference”. #1735 Decline: Co-located refers to internal rather than external interference. #1736 Counter: See CID 475. #1737 Declined: Time between two successive periods means the time difference of the two successive interference occurrences. The time could be constant or periodic.

7.3.1.90. Dorothy: Is there a place in the text that has that description?7.3.1.91. Jari: No.7.3.1.92. Dorothy: I suggest we add it for clarification.7.3.1.93. Jari: [continues] #1738 Counter: Add a sentence after 65535.7.3.1.94. Allan: We should be careful when we work with special values that mean

something other than a real value. Perhaps a bit field that specifies a specific condition.

7.3.1.95. Dorothy: Let’s handle this off-line.7.3.1.96. Jari: [continues] #1739 Same as before. Will work on it. #1740 Counter:

“Replace the least significant four octets…” #1741 Counter: Same as 1739. #1743 Counter. #1745 Declined: “It is assumed that the STAs will not generate these reports…”

7.3.1.97. Allan: We should pay attention to when the client should send this report. The commenter is looking for help regarding exactly when to send the report. I suggest we leave the comment open.

7.3.1.98. Dorothy: Could you and Jari work on this, perhaps a submission? Yes.7.3.1.99. Allan: I can work on it, but it will require work.7.3.1.100. Dorothy: Let’s discuss last comments that are not duplicates.7.3.1.101. #1967 Accepted. #1968 Accepted.7.3.1.102. Dorothy: There have been a fair number of changes recommended. I

suggest that a Revision 1 document be prepared so we can refine the resolutions on conference calls.

7.4. Closing

7.4.1. Recess7.4.1.1. DorothyS: If there is no objection, we are recessed. No objection.7.4.1.2. Recess at 1800.

8. Thursday Morning Session, September 20, 2007

8.2. Opening


8.3. Process

8.3.1. Agenda and Status Review8.3.1.1. DorothyS: In this session we shall review the comment resolutions to date. I

show the agenda. Is there any objection to deferring the objectives review until later? None. Yesterday we went through the co-located interference comments, and provided feedback which will lead to a revision of some of


July 2007 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/2475r0

the resolutions. [Works on a motion to accept the resolutions, however this is deferred until later] We should begin work on another comment resolution spreadsheet: ECSA handled by Dorothy.

8.3.1.2. Clint takes chair at Dorothy’s request.8.3.1.3. Dorothy: I show document 07/2480 with ECSA comment resolutions. ECSA

would be a cleanup to assure coherence with TGy. #60, #61 etc. Accepted: Removes item from table and references. #82 is the first one that is substantive. Counter: 7.3.2.68 and add new language. #273 Counter: Remove references to ECSA. #344 and beyond Accepted, All by removing references. #996 Counter: Remove RME10. The balance of the comments are accepted.

8.3.1.4. Clint: Are there any comments on these resolutions?8.3.1.5. Qi: In TGy and TGn they are still modifying, so this may not be stable.8.3.1.6. Clint: Any other questions? No. Motion? Yes.8.3.1.7. Move to adopt the “Extended Channel Switch” category “accepted” and

“counter” comment resolutions in 11-07-2480-000-000v-LB108-ECSA-comment-resolutions, and include the indicated text changes into the TGv draft.

8.3.1.8. Moved: Allan Thomson8.3.1.9. Seconded: Qi Wang.8.3.1.10. Clint: Discussion? None.8.3.1.11. Clint: Any objection to calling the question? No. Question is called.8.3.1.12. For 17, Against 0, Abstain 0. The motion passes.8.3.1.13. Dorothy: The next document is 07/2484 on Proxy ARP.8.3.1.14. There are 17 comments, a large number of which are comments like the first.

The solution for all of them is to change the text in 11.2.4.1 to new text. 8.3.1.15. Clint: Any questions? Yes.8.3.1.16. Qi: [Question regarding what is replaced, asked and answered]8.3.1.17. Dorothy: The next that is different is #1261 which will be declined. This will

not be part of the motion.8.3.1.18. Allan: Why not?8.3.1.19. Dorothy: I thought it would be faster to include the ones that do not produce

changes to the draft.8.3.1.20. Qi: There are a few other comments like this. I think #1261 should be

excluded.8.3.1.21. Dorothy: Good input. We will put this comment in an r1 and not include it in

the motion. [continues] #1376 Accepted.8.3.1.22. Qi: We should find a way to make this optional.8.3.1.23. Dorothy: I agree. It is so stated in the resolution.8.3.1.24. Qi: We should add optional.8.3.1.25. Dorothy: The sentence containing “optional” was already added. [continues]

#1529 Same as all the others. The comments following are duplicates of ones already covered. [continues] #1933 Counter: 7.3.2.62 revisions. #1988 Declined. Not talking about this one now.

8.3.1.26. Clint: Comments or questions? None.8.3.1.27. Move to adopt the “Proxy ARP” category “accepted”, and “counter” comment

resolutions in 11-07-2484-00-000v-LB108-Proxy-ARP-comment-resolutions, and include the indicated text changes into the TGv draft.

8.3.1.28. Moved: Allan Thomson8.3.1.29. Second: Emily Qi8.3.1.30. Clint: Is there discussion on the motion? None.


July 2007 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/2475r0

8.3.1.31. For 14, Against 0, Abstain 1. The motion passes.8.3.1.32. Clint: Do you have another group? Yes8.3.1.33. Dorothy: We have the General category in 2525r1, but a motion is not ready.8.3.1.34. #232 Accept: will correct. #245 Accept: Add definition for multiple BSSID.

#247, #248, #249, #250, #251 Accepted. Changes in progress or already made. #253 Accepted. #275 Accepted.

8.3.1.35. JesseWalker: Is there enough information for the editor to act?8.3.1.36. Dorothy: This is a renumbering issue, I think OK.8.3.1.37. Emily: I am OK with this.8.3.1.38. Dorothy: [continues] #482 to #509 Accepted. #641 Accepted. #642

Accepted.8.3.1.39. Allan: We need to think about TGn coherence.8.3.1.40. Dorothy: The editor will take care of this.8.3.1.41. Emily: I think I can do this.8.3.1.42. Dorothy: [continues] #646 Accepted: Modify the table. I have to correct this

one. It should say “change to”.8.3.1.43. Emily: There may be some missing capabilities.8.3.1.44. Dorothy: In each one we refer to a different section. I shall pull this one

(#646) out of the motion and revise. [continues] #672 Accept: Preserve TGn coherence. #685 Accept. #997 Accept.

8.3.1.45. Roger: Is this tracked by the Working Group?8.3.1.46. Clint: It is tracked through the working group via the web site.8.3.1.47. Roger: I can accept the answer, but will discuss with others.8.3.1.48. Dorothy: [continues] #1231 Accept: Editor to correct. #1232 Accept: Update

Table 8. This will require a lot of work by the editor to implement. It would be useful to decide this at this meeting to allow me time to process the changes. #1282 Accepted: make changes.

8.3.1.49. Jesse: I’m not clear what that says. Still useful in ad-hoc mode? I’m worried about 11s compatibility.

8.3.1.50. Dorothy: At the beginning of the document. In line 33 amendment MAC/PHY that enables management…

8.3.1.51. Jesse: Call out the language in the PAR?8.3.1.52. Dorothy: I will pull #1282 out, so we can work on improving the language.

[continues] #1283 Accept: Change “interference limited” to “interference reduced”. #1305 Accept: #1309 Accept. #1354 Accept.

8.3.1.53. Emily: On #1309, we don’t have measurement requests. These are defined in 802.11k.

8.3.1.54. Dorothy: The measurement Pause Request could apply to many measurements.

8.3.1.55. Allan: 11.10.8.7 applies. I think the comment should be accepted.8.3.1.56. Dorothy: Do you want me to exclude this one from the motion?8.3.1.57. Emily: I would like remove it for now.8.3.1.58. Dorothy: OK [continues] #1371 Accepted. Re-association seems valid.

#1389 Accepted. 8.3.1.59. Emily: On 1371, there would be no changes to draft? What should I say? Is

it “done”?8.3.1.60. Dorothy: Suggest we say it produces no change and that it is done.8.3.1.61. Allan: When we get rid of the WNM IE are we also getting rid of the capability

bit?8.3.1.62. Dorothy: Good question. I think we want to know if certain capabilities are

present, but I think a MIB variable would be better.


July 2007 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/2475r0

8.3.1.63. Emily: On #1309, I am OK with your recommendation.8.3.1.64. Dorothy: [continues] #1389 Accept: New material added. #1766 and #1767

are duplicates and are accepted. 8.3.1.65. Clint: Questions? None.8.3.1.66. Dorothy: I am not yet ready for a motion. We still have a lot of counter

resolutions. #215, #332. #332 Counter: change language. #881 Counter. #921 Counter: Reword.

8.3.1.67. Allan: In the context, is that clear?8.3.1.68. Dorothy: I believe so [reads].8.3.1.69. Allan: What “information” though?8.3.1.70. Dorothy: We can pull this out.8.3.1.71. Allan: The line number is also wrong.8.3.1.72. Dorothy: I will pull this one (#921).8.3.1.73. Emily: I think the whole paragraph should be rewritten.8.3.1.74. Dorothy: Maybe we should move to “Traffic Generation”.8.3.1.75. #1020 Counter: Wireless management ID deleted. #1168 Later version of

comment already treated. #1172 Counter. #1206 Counter: Recap what is in the beacon to justify.

8.3.1.76. Emily: On #1172, I am not sure the resolution will satisfy the concerns. [re-reads] I take it back. I’m OK with it.

8.3.1.77. Dorothy: I will prepare the appropriate motion and bring it later.8.3.1.78. Clint: Any questions for Dorothy? None. Any objection to turning the chair

back to Dorothy? None.8.3.1.79. Dorothy: Who is next? If there are comments that are resolved, but have

broad changes, I suggest we get them in place early.8.3.1.80. AlexAshley: I shall review resolutions for “Multicast Diagnostics”. Document

2509r1. I’ll begin with “accepted” ones. #134 Accepted. #549 Accepted: See CID 42, and reword. #788 Accepted: Reword. #799 Accepted.

8.3.1.81. Allan: I’d suggest an alternate wording closer to the original sentence in contrast to the proposed resolution.

8.3.1.82. AlexA: [examines draft] I need time on this…8.3.1.83. Dorothy: We’ll exclude that one (#799).8.3.1.84. Alex: #819 Accept. #975 Accept: Replace reason code with Element Status

field value. #1110 Accepted: Reference similar CIDs countered. 8.3.1.85. Allan: Can you clarify how it is measured? We may have multiple behaviors.8.3.1.86. Dorothy. Let’s exclude #903, #1110, and #1929 until we can resolve this.8.3.1.87. Alex: [continues] #1366 Accepted. 8.3.1.88. Allan: The rates aren’t connected to anything you can change. 8.3.1.89. Alex: My reading is that it has already been defined.8.3.1.90. Allan: I think we need to table this one.8.3.1.91. Alex: #1480. Accept. #1545 Accept. 8.3.1.92. Emily: TGk has already set a template for these measurements. If you go to

page 30 on the TGk draft in 7.3.2.22, see figure 81. This already defines “refused”.

8.3.1.93. Alex: So you want to decline and refer to 802.11k as a reference?8.3.1.94. Emily: Yes.8.3.1.95. Dorothy: We need to add the TGk clarification. So this may be a “counter”

and we shall pull this from the motion. I suggest Allan and Emily work this to decide whether “decline” or “counter” is more appropriate and what the resolution will be.


July 2007 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/2475r0

8.3.1.96. Alex: [continues] #1631 Accept: Same as 1480. #1700 Accept: Corrected “same as CID#” error. This will be pulled out. #1804 Accepted. #1871 is pulled out. #1927 Accepted: text changes.

8.3.1.97. Allan: [inaudible discussion between Allan and Alex on #1927 w.r.t. language to be changed.]

8.3.1.98. Alex: #1927 and #1928 are essentially the same.8.3.1.99. Dorothy: We will pull both of them8.3.1.100. Alex: We begin the “Counters”. #32 Counter with alternate text. #586

Counter with alternate text. 8.3.1.101. Emily: I am not sure that’s the language I would use. Perhaps we could take

the suggestion to make a new subfield.8.3.1.102. Allan: If you look at the table on page 23, the explanation is there.8.3.1.103. Alex: This tells you what to do with the field…8.3.1.104. Allan: I agree with you, but we ought to modify the resolution.8.3.1.105. Alex: Would you like to change the response to be exactly as the commenter

says?8.3.1.106. Allan: I think that might be worth considering.8.3.1.107. Dorothy: Emily are you OK?8.3.1.108. Emily. I’d like to defer.8.3.1.109. Dorothy: Let’s discuss on the break.8.3.1.110. Alex: [continues] #902 Counter by referring to CID903 resoluiton. #1112.

Counter with CID 1480 reference.

8.4. Closing

8.4.1. Recess8.4.1.1. Any objection to recess? None.8.4.1.2. Clint: We won’t be in this room next time.8.4.1.3. Dorothy: Right. Well be in Queen’s Five. We are in recess.8.4.1.4. Recess at 1000 hours.

8.5. Opening


8.6. Process

8.6.1. Agenda and Status Review8.6.1.1. DorothyS: In this session we shall review the comment resolutions to date.

Before you is the agenda. We are working on a motion on Co-Located Interference.

8.6.1.2. EmilyQi: I show document 07/2533r0 on “Roaming Management” on the screen. I’d like to review the comments and resolutions. #69 Accepted per commenter’s suggestion. #95 Accepted, revising tables as suggested. #139 Accepted as per CID 719. #380 Accepted per commenter’s suggestion. #468 Accepted. #470 Accepted. #1036 Accepted.

8.6.1.3. Allan: I don’t agree it should be optional.


July 2007 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/2475r0

8.6.1.4. Emily: OK we’ll defer. #1036 Deferred. #1166 Accepted with MIB entry updated.

8.6.1.5. Allan: I don’t think I agree.8.6.1.6. Emily: OK we shall make #1166 “Deferred”.[continues] #1986. Accepted.

#1987 Accepted. Next I shall cover the countered comments… #462 Countered: changed to alternate text.

8.6.1.7. Allan: what page of draft?8.6.1.8. Emily: Table 7-23. 8.6.1.9. Allan: How does the station act with respect to the base standard as well as

this?8.6.1.10. Emily: A threshold should be defined.8.6.1.11. Allan: What are we achieving by introducing this information? If the

management transition report is requested, what is supposed to be done with it? If we are not going to explain this, why would anyone do it? If there is too little throughput, what would be done about it? We need either a threshold or an actionable duty. Your suggestion is to change the line in the table, but this really doesn’t clarify anything.

8.6.1.12. Emily: We can defer this one.8.6.1.13. Allan: Thanks.8.6.1.14. Emily: [continues] #463 Countered: Change to alternate text. #644

Countered: Already reviewed as CID 69. #664 Countered: page 87, see CID 464. #974 Countered with modified text. #989 countered. #1148 Countered. #1165 Countered with revised text. #1224 countered. #1359 Countered. #1360 Countered. The commenter kindly explained how to pattern-match. #1361 Countered as #1360. #1362 Countered with added text. #1564 Countered per CID 464 (editorial, in r2). #1719 and #1890 Countered per suggestion, but alternate wording.

8.6.1.15. Dorothy: I am uploading r6 of the agenda with the motion.8.6.1.16. Move to adopt the “Roaming Management” category “accepted” and

“counter” comment resolutions, except for CIDs 1038, 1166, 462, 974, and 1359 in 11-07-2533-00-000v-lb-108-comment-resolutions-RoamingManagement, and include the indicated text changes into the TGv draft.

8.6.1.17. Moved: Emily Qi8.6.1.18. Second: Allan Thomson8.6.1.19. Dorothy: Discussion? None.8.6.1.20. For 17, Against 0, Abstain 2. The motion passes.8.6.1.21. Dorothy: I’d now like to revisit co-located interference and interference

diagnostics from yesterday. 8.6.1.22. Move to adopt the following “Co-located Interfence” category “accepted” and

“counter” comment resolutions in 11-07-2480-00-000v-LB108-ECSA-comment-resolutions, and included the indicated text changes into the TGv draft.

8.6.1.23. – 474, 539, 666, 667, 758, 760, 977, 978, 979, 980, 990, 1127, 1437, 1588, 1967, 1968, 125, 294, 475, 1281, 1436, 1587, 1725, 1729, 1733, 1734, 1740, 1743

8.6.1.24. Moved: Jari Jokela8.6.1.25. Second: Qi Wang8.6.1.26. For11, Against 0, Abstain 6. The motion passes.8.6.1.27. Dorothy: Let’s work on the multicast diagnostics next.8.6.1.28. Move to adopt the following “Multicast Diagnostics” category comment

resolutions in 11-07-2509-01-000v-LB108 Multicast Diagnostics comment resolutions, and include the indicated text changes into the TGv draft.


July 2007 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/2475r0

8.6.1.29. – 134, 549, 788, 819, 975, 1480, 1631, 1804, 32, 12228.6.1.30. Moved: Alex Ashley8.6.1.31. Second: Emily Qi8.6.1.32. Dorothy: Discussion? None.8.6.1.33. For 11, Against, 0, Abstain 5. The motion passes.8.6.1.34. Dorothy: Next, the “General” category…8.6.1.35. Move to adopt the “General” category “accepted” and “counter” comment

resolutions, except for CIDs 646, 1282 and 921 in 11-07-2525-01-000v-LB108-General-comment-resolutions, and include the indicated text changes into the TGv draft.

8.6.1.36. Moved: Allan Thomson8.6.1.37. Second: Emily Qi8.6.1.38. Dorothy: Discussion? None.8.6.1.39. For 13, Against 0, Abstain 4. The motion passes.8.6.1.40. Dorothy: Emily, would you like to cover the Clause 10 resolutions?8.6.1.41. Emily: OK8.6.1.42. Allan: Why are we doing this right now?8.6.1.43. Emily: We should discuss how we’d like to deal with these comments. We

probably need submissions to fix these problems.8.6.1.44. Allan: We should agree what the solutions will be, though…8.6.1.45. Dorothy: We should take this off-line, and deal with the motion at 1330

hours. If the changes to the draft are extensive, we should be careful. We could take the remaining time for ad-hoc work, or go though another comment resolution area. Since “Sleep Mode: is ready now, and may not be too large, let’s go ahead with that one.

8.6.1.46. Emily: I’d like to review document 07/2561r1, Sleep Mode comments and resolutions. First, Let’s review the Accepted resolutions. #91 Accepted: modify text.

8.6.1.47. BobO’Hara (Cisco): Clause 10 content has no normative consequence. The terms “shall”, etc. have no relevance. Was all of this text created by 11b, or something else? I went through this with 11u and .21 as they want to make service primitives normative. How to make something abstract normative is interesting philosophically, but not easy to do. In 11e, there are no “shalls” and “mays” in Clause 10, for example. I suggest that we use “is” instead.

8.6.1.48. Allan: I don’t see how that would work.8.6.1.49. Bob: Suggest you just replace “shall” with “is”, as “is only present” in the

BSSMaxIdlePeriod description.8.6.1.50. Dorothy: Take offline?8.6.1.51. Bob: I don’t understand Allan’s concerns. The comment is simple: just

replace with “is”.8.6.1.52. Secretarial note: The numbers in the minutes below represent line numbers

on the spreadsheet, not comment IDs (apparently due to the sorting difficulty discussed previously).

8.6.1.53. Emily: We shall not include #91, #170, #326, #328, and #329 in the motion, then. #502 Accepted with commenter’s text.

8.6.1.54. Allan: Is he suggesting that the “AP shall maintain” will be removed?8.6.1.55. Emily: Yes, that’s what I understand.8.6.1.56. Bob: I disagree with the comment, but it doesn’t seem to point to any

functional change to what the commenter suggests.8.6.1.57. Emily: The suggested approach is to clarify station behavior.8.6.1.58. HenryPtasinsky: I was seeking detail on the how the counter is set up.


July 2007 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/2475r0

8.6.1.59. Allan: When a timer is in the MIB it’s self-evident.8.6.1.60. Henry: I may keep track of time differently from the way you keep track of it,

e.g. the sampling interval on the timer. What’s the other comment?8.6.1.61. Allan: I don’t know the number, but it had to do with the MIB definition for the

counter.8.6.1.62. Bob: This is part of the MAC manager.8.6.1.63. Dorothy: Usually timers are defined in the MIB.8.6.1.64. Henry: This rewrites a lot of the paragraph. The intent was to specify how

the AP operates the timer.8.6.1.65. Emily: [continues] #547, #764, #879 Accepted. #934 Accepted. #935

Accepted.8.6.1.66. BobO’Hara: I am concerned with changing “may” to “can”. For me this little

consequence. 8.6.1.67. Emily: Will change to “Defer”. [continues] #1201 Accepted as per

commenter’s recommendation.8.6.1.68. Bob: I suggest we defer this, because it should be a description not a

statement of a normative requirement. The usage in 802.11 is “if you do this, then you shall…”. These are not normative statements [here]. The language in the draft seems correct as it is.

8.6.1.69. Emily: OK. #1380 Accepted using commenter’s suggestion. #1846 Accepted using commenter’s suggestion. #1962 Accepted using commenter’s suggestion. Now we shall do the “countered” ones…

8.6.1.70. Secretarial Note: The CID numbers are shown in parentheses following the line numbers on the spreadsheet.

8.6.1.71. #455 (CID 547) Clause 10, countered with resolution recommend modifying text. #546 (CID 739) countered: with text changes. #739 (CID 326) Counter: with CID 325. #806 (CID 880) Counter. Allan: Isn’t the commenter asking for clarification in the text? You are not actually changing anything.

8.6.1.72. Emily: What would you prefer? Defer? Alternative text?8.6.1.73. Allan: Leave it.8.6.1.74. Emily: [continues] #880 (CID 935) Counter: change the text. #985 (CID

1435) Counter: link to CID 1620 and 1909. #986 (CID 1586) Counter. #1435 (CID 1956) counter. #1520 (CID 1520) Counter.

8.6.1.75. Qi: I would prefer to use seconds. If this was a small time scale, I could agree with TUs, but this is big.

8.6.1.76. Dorothy: Any objection to making it “seconds”?8.6.1.77. Alex: I’d suggest that we want to avoid vagueness.8.6.1.78. Qi: Even when you reach the max idle time, you still don’t have to do

anything at an exact instant. It’s the AP’s choice. The AP can act after the time expires.

8.6.1.79. Emily: Let us defer this one #1520 (CID 1520).8.6.1.80. Dorothy: There seems to be no push-back for accepting “seconds”, though.8.6.1.81. Allan: I don’t agree.8.6.1.82. Emily: [continues] #1585 (CID 1571) Counter. #1586 (CID 1546) Counter.

#1896 Counter with CID 170. 8.6.1.83. Dorothy: CIDs 1960, 170, and 1961 will be removed from the motion. When

we reconvene at 1330, we will handle the associated motion. I’d like to ask if anyone minds deferring the objectives until November. No objection. Seeing none it is deferred. We are almost out of time.


July 2007 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/2475r0

8.7. Closing

8.7.1. Recess8.7.1.1. Dorothy: Is there any objection to recessing? None.8.7.1.2. Recess at 1230.

9. Thursday Afternoon Session, September 20, 2007

9.2. Opening


9.3. Process

9.3.1. Agenda and Status Review9.3.1.1. DorothyS: Let us have a motion on the Sleep Mode resolutions.9.3.1.2. Move to adopt the “Sleep Mode” category “accepted” and “counter” comment

resolutions except for CIDs 489, 495, 502, 505, 510, 810, 355, 1520, 1671, 1846, 1960, 170 and 1961 in 11-07-2561-00-000v-lb 108 Sleep Mode comment resolutions, and include the indicated text changes into the TGv draft.

9.3.1.3. Moved: Emily Qi9.3.1.4. Second: Qi Wang9.3.1.5. Dorothy: Discussion? None. Is there any objection to accepting these

resolutions by unanimous consent? None. So moved and approved.9.3.1.6. Dorothy: Let us now work on November meeting plans…9.3.1.7. • Objectives9.3.1.8. – Letter Ballot Resolution9.3.1.9. – Hear Presentations9.3.1.10. – Letter Ballot9.3.1.11. • Conference Call(s)9.3.1.12. • Ad-Hoc Meeting9.3.1.13. Dorothy: Let’s handle the ad-hocs first. 9.3.1.14. Straw Poll9.3.1.15. – (a) November 5-6-7 Portland9.3.1.16. – (b) November 5-6-7 San Jose9.3.1.17. – (c) October 24-25-26 Portland9.3.1.18. (a) 3 (b) 5 (c) 39.3.1.19. Dorothy: So we shall have an ad-hoc in San Jose, November 5-6-7.9.3.1.20. JoeKwak: The Cisco location is good if you fly into San Jose airport.9.3.1.21. Move to authorize9.3.1.22. – A TGv ad-hoc meeting on November 5-6-7, 2007 in San Jose area.9.3.1.23. Moved: Allan Thomson9.3.1.24. Second: Emily Qi9.3.1.25. Discussion? None.


July 2007 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/2475r0

9.3.1.26. Dorothy: Is there any objection to adopting by unanimous consent? None. So moved and approved.

9.3.1.27. Dorothy: Now let’s work on teleconferences…9.3.1.28. We need at least a 10 day notice on teleconferences. The first opportunity

would be October 2nd, 16th, or 30th at say, 1300 Eastern for 1½ -2 hours.9.3.1.29. Emily: How about weekly conferences.9.3.1.30. Dorothy: [works with group to isolate dates/times]9.3.1.31. Move to authorize9.3.1.32. TGv Teleconferences on Thursday October 4, 18, 25, and November 1 at

14:00 Eastern for 1½ hours.9.3.1.33. Moved: Emily Qi9.3.1.34. Second: Qi Wang9.3.1.35. Dorothy: Discussion? None. Can we adopt the motion unanimously? Yes.

So moved and approved.9.3.1.36. Dorothy: That takes care of November meeting planning. This is a plenary,

so there are fewer slots available. I think we will get some ad-hoc time on Monday morning, so you may wish to schedule travel accordingly. Now let’s work on resolutions for STA Statistics…

9.3.1.37. Yongho Seok: I’d like to review document 07/2501r1 containing the comments and suggested resolutions. Document 07/2126 was changed to show the context of the changes. [Yongho reviewed 2126 highlighted items then the spreadsheet comments] Accept #1468 directly using commenter language via 2126r1. Accept #1469 via 2126r1, accepting wording directly.

9.3.1.38. QiWang: There is no sliding window, only a block?9.3.1.39. Yongho: Yes.9.3.1.40. Qi: But has the text been placed arbitrarily?9.3.1.41. Allan: The wording now is “shall”…9.3.1.42. Emily: I also suggest that you reference Draft 1.01, instead of Draft 1.0.9.3.1.43. Yongho: [continues] #1764 Accepted. 9.3.1.44. Allan: You suggest changing 1000 TUs to seconds?9.3.1.45. Yongho: Yes.9.3.1.46. Allan: I disagree with the change.9.3.1.47. Emily: I’d like to evaluate what makes sense here.9.3.1.48. Yongho: [continues] #202 Accepted: change “shall be requested” to “is

requested”.9.3.1.49. Emily: This should be “shall” or “may”.9.3.1.50. Allan: The whole sentence is badly written.9.3.1.51. Dorothy: Perhaps the way the two sentences are written is confusing. 9.3.1.52. Allan: We should hold this out.9.3.1.53. Dorothy: It may eventually be a “counter”.9.3.1.54. Yongho: [continues] #263 Accepted with reference inserted. 9.3.1.55. Allan: Reference?9.3.1.56. Dorothy: If the reference is in another section, it should be specified directly.9.3.1.57. Emily: I’m OK with this.9.3.1.58. Yongho: [continues] #296 Accepted change octets to bits. #298 Accepted.9.3.1.59. Emily: Should it be “bit field”?9.3.1.60. Dorothy: I think bit would be correct. Everywhere else refers to a bit or bits.9.3.1.61. Yongho: [continues] #300 Accepted. #368 Accepted with corrected figure

inserted. #377 Accepted. #629 Accepted. #632 Accepted. #636 Accepted, based on same comment. #776 Accepted.


July 2007 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/2475r0

9.3.1.62. Allan: What was wrong with “present”? You’re saying the field is present when the bit is set to one? There are many other places where we have a similar situation and they are treated as in the draft.

9.3.1.63. JoeKwak: I think Bob O’Hara feels that it should be written in present tense, with no functional difference between the two. In the latest draft, Bob thinks “is” is sufficient.

9.3.1.64. BobO’Hara: The extra words don’t add anything. If x is true, then y… seems direct and actionable.

9.3.1.65. Emily: Sometimes we may have “if and only if”9.3.1.66. Bob: “Only” doesn’t really change the meaning of the sentence.9.3.1.67. Dorothy: I think we’ve beaten this one to death…9.3.1.68. Yongho: [continues] #1039 Accepted with counter deleted. #1040 Accepted

with update report field. #1194 Accepted with addition of 2nd octet with all bits reserved. #1195 Accepted: similar to previous. #1196 Accepted with added octet. #1218 Accepted.

9.3.1.69. [Protracted discussion regarding termination of statistics measurements, culminating in agreement that changed text is better than the original]

9.3.1.70. Yongho: [continues] #1218 remains on the “good” list. #1223 Accepted with reworded text supplied by commenter.

9.3.1.71. [Discussion regarding whether the rewording changes the intended meaning]9.3.1.72. Dorothy: #1223 is taken care of, requiring change to the spreadsheet but no

changes to the draft. 9.3.1.73. BobMiller: What about the TU/Seconds comments?9.3.1.74. Dorothy: The change of 100 TU to seconds is declined. (comment/resolution

#1257)9.3.1.75. [discussion regarding the value issue]9.3.1.76. BobM: There are many cases where measurements can be misused,

however these tools are designed for administrators who should use them wisely.

9.3.1.77. Dorothy: Sounds like disagreement so defer.9.3.1.78. Yongho: [continues] #1310 Accepted. #1311 Accepted. 9.3.1.79. Allan: Is documents 07/2126r1 going to have to be read in order to get it into

the draft?9.3.1.80. Dorothy: If the reference to 07/2126 is kept in the spreadsheet that might be

harder than just incorporating the recommendations from 2126 into the spreadsheet directly.

9.3.1.81. Yongho: [continues] #1313 Accepted with added comments. #1316 Accepted.

9.3.1.82. Emily: This could cascade into many changes. It should be reviewed carefully. I’d like an opinion from Joe, since he has experience with TGk. In 802.11k it seems there are references to MSDU.

9.3.1.83. JoeK: There may be existing statistics in the baseline MIB. TGk may reference specific Management Based Information Elements. We didn’t get this kind of comment in TGk, but that doesn’t mean the comment isn’t valid.

9.3.1.84. Qi: Perhaps to the commenter it might have looked like a new feature, when actually it could be based on a misinterpretation.

9.3.1.85. Dorothy: [shows 802.11-ma on screen] Section 7.3.21.3.8 was added by 802,11k.

9.3.1.86. JoeK: It looks like all the 802.11k counters are MPDUs.9.3.1.87. Dorothy: I will send out a message for the teleconference information. We

are almost at the end of our time. Is there any other business? No. Is there any objection to adjourning TGv? No.


July 2007 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/2475r0

9.4. Closing

9.4.1. Recess9.4.1.1. Hearing no objection, we are adjourned.9.4.1.2. Adjourn at 1530 hours.


Date post:	30-Mar-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/2475r0€¦ · Web viewEmily: I’d like to present document 2368r2, Letter...

Documents