Agenda for PDED Ad Hoc teleconference on 27 September 2016 July 2010 doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0xxxr0 Agenda for PDED Ad Hoc teleconference on 27 September 2016 21 Sep 2016 Authors: Name Company Phone email Andrew Myles Cisco +61 2 84461010 +61 418 656587 amyles@cisco.com Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

Welcome to the first teleconference of the IEEE 802.11 PDED Ad Hoc This group is the IEEE 802.11 PDED Ad Hoc and not the IEEE 802.11 EDPD Ad Hoc which is used in the e-mail calling the teleconference PDED stands for Preamble Detect Energy Detect PDED is an attempt to encapsulate the goal of the group … … which is to discuss issues related to the 3GPP RAN1 request to IEEE 802.11 WG to adopt an ED of -72dBm The IEEE 802.11 PDED Ad Hoc was formed in September 2016 at the Warsaw interim meeting Andrew Myles was appointed as Chair Andrew Myles, Cisco

There will be weekly teleconferences as necessary and two sessions at the plenary in San Antonio The PDED ad hoc Chair has given notice of weekly teleconferences Tuesday, 27 Sep @ 2pm PT Tuesday, 4 Oct @ 2pm PT Tuesday, 11 Oct @ 2pm PT Tuesday, 18 Oct @ 2pm PT (cancelled; clashes with WFA meeting in Madrid) Tuesday, 25 Oct @ 2pm PT Tuesday, 1 Nov @ 2pm PT The PDED ad hoc Chair has requested two session slots in San Antonio Tuesday AM2 Thursday PM1 Teleconferences and sessions will be cancelled if there is insufficient material Andrew Myles, Cisco

There will be no recording of any PDED ad hoc teleconference or meeting The e-mail providing the Webex details of this teleconference included the following text Please note that this WebEx service allows audio and other information sent during the session to be recorded, which may be discoverable in a legal matter. By joining this session, you automatically consent to such recordings. If you do not consent to being recorded, discuss your concerns with the host or do not join the session It has been noted by the IEEE 802.11 WG Chair that such recordings are not allowed under WG rules All PDED ad hoc participants can be assured that there will be no recording of this teleconference The text above was auto-generated, and accidently not deleted Andrew Myles, Cisco

The first task for the PDED ad hoc today is to appoint a secretary It is important to keep proper minutes of all PDED meetings However, it is generally not practical to Chair a meeting and take minutes at the same time Especially without a recording  Therefore we need a volunteer for a Secretary At least for this teleconference … … although a longer term secretary is even better The rewards for the Secretary are numerous Power over the ad hoc Respect from your peers … and a beverage from the Chair in San Antonio Andrew Myles, Cisco

For attendance recording purposes please send an e-mail to the Chair It would be useful to know who & how many are in attendance on this call Please send an “I am attending PDED ad hoc” email to: amyles@cisco.com <secretaries e-mail> Andrew Myles, Cisco

The PDED ad hoc will review the official IEEE-SA patent material for pre-PAR groups All IEEE-SA standards meetings shall be conducted in compliance with all applicable laws, including antitrust and competition laws. Don’t discuss the interpretation, validity, or essentiality of patents/patent claims. Don’t discuss specific license rates, terms, or conditions. Relative costs, including licensing costs of essential patent claims, of different technical approaches may be discussed in standards development meetings. Technical considerations remain primary focus Don’t discuss or engage in the fixing of product prices, allocation of customers, or division of sales markets. Don’t discuss the status or substance of ongoing or threatened litigation. Don’t be silent if inappropriate topics are discussed… do formally object. Andrew Myles, Cisco

The PDED ad hoc will review the official IEEE-SA patent material for pre-PAR groups If you have questions: Contact the IEEE-SA Standards Board Patent Committee Administrator at patcom@ieee.org Visit standards.ieee.org/about/sasb/patcom/index.html See IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, clause 5.3.10 and “Promoting Competition and Innovation: What You Need to Know about the IEEE Standards Association's Antitrust and Competition Policy” for more details. This slide set is available at: development.standards.ieee.org/myproject/Public/mytools/mob/slideset.ppt Andrew Myles, Cisco

Links are available to a variety of other useful resources July 2010 doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0xxxr0 Links are available to a variety of other useful resources Link to IEEE Disclosure of Affiliation http://standards.ieee.org/faqs/affiliationFAQ.html Links to IEEE Antitrust Guidelines http://standards.ieee.org/resources/antitrust-guidelines.pdf Link to IEEE Code of Ethics http://www.ieee.org/web/membership/ethics/code_ethics.html Link to IEEE Patent Policy http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.ppt Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

July 2010 doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0xxxr0 The PDED ad hoc will operate using accepted principles of meeting etiquette IEEE 802 is a world-wide professional technical organization Meetings shall be conducted in an orderly and professional manner in accordance with the policies and procedures governed by the organization Individuals shall address the “technical” content of the subject under consideration and refrain from making “personal” comments to or about others Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

The PDED ad hoc will consider a proposed agenda Bureaucratic stuff – done! Why was the PDED ad hoc formed? What is one possible path for the PDED ad hoc? Are they any other submissions today? Will participants be willing to make future submissions? Any objections to this agenda? Andrew Myles, Cisco

Why was the PDED ad hoc formed? Andrew Myles, Cisco

3GPP RAN1 & IEEE 802 are having an ongoing discussion related to LAA’s ED threshold From 11-16-1263-00 The IEEE 802 review of LAA Rel. 13 resulted in IEEE 802 requesting 3GPP RAN1 to make LAA more sensitive to 802.11 transmissions: See Comment 3 in 19-16-0037-09 for details (March 2016) 3GPP RAN1 rejected the request on the basis that they have had considerable debate and have agreed there is not a problem, but without responding to the particular issues raised by IEEE 802 See Response 3 in R1-166040 (June 2016) IEEE 802 responded by noting that 3GPP RAN1’s assertions are based on invalid assumptions about common 802.11 deployments and asking 3GPP RAN1 to rerun their simulations with more realistic assumptions See IEEE 802 liaison to 3GPP RAN (August 2016) The issue is currently still open and unresolved … Andrew Myles, Cisco

3GPP RAN1 are now requesting that 802 3GPP RAN1 are now requesting that 802.11 also adopt a lowered ED threshold of -72dBm From 11-16-1263-00 In R1-166040 (June 2016), 3GPP RAN1 further suggested that 802.11 be redefined to also use an ED of -72dBm in the future ... … rather than the currently defined ED of -62dBm (and PD of -82dBm) Such a change would mean that 802.11 would defer to LAA (and 802.11) at the same ED threshold that LAA currently defers to 802.11 RAN1 respectfully requests future IEEE 802.11 technologies to align the energy detection threshold used with other technologies operating in the same unlicensed band, e.g., -72 dBm. An energy detection threshold of -72 dBm has been chosen by 3GPP for Rel-13 LAA also with an interest in aligning with other technologies in the future. Andrew Myles, Cisco

IEEE 802 have not yet responded to 3GPP RAN1’s request for 802 IEEE 802 have not yet responded to 3GPP RAN1’s request for 802.11 to use ED threshold of -72dBm From 11-16-1263-00 In July 2016, IEEE 802.19 WG focused on responding to 3GPP RAN1’s responses on the twelve open issues in IEEE 802’s March 2016 liaison It did not respond to 3GPP RAN1’s request for ED = -72dBm In Sept 2016, a thought piece was presented to IEEE 802.19 WG that discussed some possible responses to 3GPP RAN1’s request See 19-16-0110-00 (by Andrew Myles, the author of this summary) After discussion in the IEEE 802.19 WG, there was consensus that the request really needs to be considered by IEEE 802.11 WG It is probably of particular interest to IEEE 802.11 TGax from a technical perspective A timely response probably requires IEEE 802 to develop a response out of the Nov 2016 plenary Although it was suggested by an 802.19 participant that IEEE 802 could simply ignore the request Andrew Myles, Cisco

There are many related issues that need to be addressed before responding to 3GPP RAN1 From 11-16-1263-00 Some potential related (mostly technical) issues What is the effect of ED = -72dBm on billions of legacy devices? Does an ED = -72 dBm make sense when 802.11ax is focusing on improved frequency reuse? Should IEEE 802 continue recommending that LAA should be more sensitive to 802.11 transmissions? Should IEEE 802 recommend that LAA adopt 802.11 ED/PD levels? Should IEEE 802 recommend that LAA use 802.11 preambles (or CTS-to-self wrappers) to make it easier for 802.11 to detect LAA? How should IEEE 802 deal with related proposals in ETSI BRAN that the next revision of EN 301 893 specify an ED = -72dBm? … Andrew Myles, Cisco

How should IEEE 802.11 WG consider the issues related to 3GPP RAN1’s request for a new 802.11 ED? From 11-16-1263-00 Some options for IEEE 802.11 WG action (out of Nov plenary?) Do nothing - few Leave it to IEEE 802.19 WG - none Ask IEEE 802.11 TGax to consider the request - some And associated issues Establish an IEEE 802.11 WG ad hoc to consider the request - many … others? Votes for different option during straw poll during Wednesday plenary in Warsaw (from memory) Andrew Myles, Cisco

EN 301 893 is another reason to consider the question of an ED of -72dBm now The next version of EN 301 893 is likely to require an ED of -72dBm, but has an exception to allow ED of -62dBm for IEEE 802.11ac EN 301 893 documents requirements for Europe and other parts of the world The following version of EN 301 893 may require an ED of -72dBm, with no exception for any version if IEEE 802.11ax This is subject to an evaluation at the time The blanket rule is in the interests of “technology neutrality” This suggests it might be a good idea to evaluate the pro’s and con’s of an ED of -72dBm now It will inform development efforts for IEEE 802.1ax in general but particularly in the context of frequency reuse It will inform the ETSI BRAN evaluation of the next EN 301 893 revision … Andrew Myles, Cisco

One anonymous stakeholder (not Cisco) has provided some potential answers already Will an ED = -72dBm cause any issues with plans for IEEE 802.11ax? There will be issues with the Spatial Reuse features being developed in 11ax which uses variable thresholds for spatial reuse gains (it would result in diminished gains).  Should IEEE 802 respond to the 3GPP RAN request?  Yes, IEEE should respond to 3GPP While 802.11-based devices will need to meet relevant requirements in regulatory domains, it is undesirable for 802.11 specification to adopt a lower ED threshold because it already incorporates a preamble detection mechanism that is highly sensitive (10x more sensitive than -72 dBm ED would be) and supported by billions of 802.11 devices already in active use Per above, IEEE 802.11 notes that this simple mechanism can be reused by LAA devices to achieve equal and equitable sharing of the channel between all LAA and 802.11 devices, including both 11ax and legacy. Andrew Myles, Cisco

What is one possible path for the PDED ad hoc? Andrew Myles (Cisco)

Questions need to be answered, possibly using simulation and testing A variety of questions must be resolved before 3GPP RAN1’s request can be accepted (or rejected) Investigation of the effect of ED of -72dBm could be undertaken using 802.11 devices At least three experiments (by simulation and/or testing) are suggested to provide a basis to respond to the 3GPP RAN1 request What happens if all Wi-Fi uses ED of -72dBm What happens if some Wi-Fi uses ED of -72dBm What happens if both LAA and Wi-Fi operate at ED of -72dBm but with no PD communication Control: ED/PD using today’s thresholds This investigation approach will require support from volunteers with good simulation or test setups Andrew Myles, Cisco

A variety of questions must be resolved before 3GPP RAN1’s request can be accepted (or rejected) Suppose we accepted the 3GPP RAN1 request for … … future IEEE 802.11 technologies to align the energy detection threshold used with other technologies operating in the same unlicensed band, e.g., -72 dBm This would effectively mean new versions of 802.11 would Defer to 802.11 preambles above -82dBm (using frame lengths) Defer to any energy above -72dBm when a 802.11 preamble is not detected This raises a whole range of questions, including What is the effect of this change on billions legacy devices? Does the performance of new devices suffer significantly? For both questions above the answer would probably need to be “not much” for the 3GPP RAN1 request to be accepted by the 802.11 WG and by the greater community Assuming legacy devices matter! Andrew Myles, Cisco

Investigation of the effect of ED of -72dBm could be undertaken using 802.11 devices One possibility to investigate the affect of an ED of -72dBm is to run a simulations (OK) or experiments (better) using: “Legacy” 802.11 devices implementing ED/PD of -62dBm/-82dBm “New” 802.11 devices implementing ED/PD of -72dBm/-82dBm LAA devices implementing ED -72dBm only (no LAA PD?) Some problems with this approach include: LAA devices do not yet exist Proven/credible/reviewed LAA simulations do not yet exist The use of LAA devices adds another dimension of complexity without necessarily providing additional insight These problems suggest an approach whereby the request from 3GPP RAN1 is investigated and insight obtained using 802.11 devices only With appropriate modifications With some modified 802.11 devices acting as proxies for LAA devices Andrew Myles, Cisco

At least three experiments are suggested to provide a basis to respond to the 3GPP RAN1 request There are at least three questions that could be investigated by real or simulation experiment: Will ED of -72dBm make performance in a “new” 802.11 only scenario worse in the future than is the case today? Will ED of -72dBm make performance in a mixed 802.11 scenario (some using -72dBm and others using -62dBm) worse in the future than is the case today? Will ED of -72dBm make performance in an “new” 802.11/“proxy” LAA scenario worse in the future than is the case today? If the answer to any of these questions (in a reasonable, typical deployment configuration) is “yes” then 802.11 WG should probably reject 3GPP RAN1’s request If the answer to the last question is “yes” then 802.11 WG should probably ask 3GPP RAN1 to adopt 802.11 preamble detection (and transmission) Andrew Myles, Cisco

Will ED of -72dBm make performance in a “new” 802 Will ED of -72dBm make performance in a “new” 802.11 only scenario worse in the future? Experiment 1 (simulation or real) All 802.11 devices use ED/PD = -72dBm/-82dBm This is equivalent to a “new” 802.11 device only scenario The control is where all 802.11 devices use ED/PD = -62dBm/-82dBm This is equivalent to a “legacy” 802.11 device only scenario Question for investigation Is there any reasonable common deployment scenario where the “new” 802.11 devices have significantly less performance than the “legacy” 802.11 devices? Andrew Myles, Cisco

Will ED of -72dBm make performance in a mixed 802 Will ED of -72dBm make performance in a mixed 802.11 scenario worse in the future? Experiment 2 (simulation or real) A proportion of 802.11 devices use ED/PD = -72dBm/-82dBm, while the rest use ED/PD = -62dBm/-82dBm This is equivalent to a mixed 802.11 device scenario of legacy and “new” 802.11 devices Different experiments could be run using a variety of proportions The control is where all 802.11 devices use ED/PD = -62dBm/-82dBm Question for investigation Is there any reasonable common deployment scenario where the devices in the mixed environment have significantly less performance than the control environment? Andrew Myles, Cisco

Will ED of -72dBm make performance in an “new” 802 Will ED of -72dBm make performance in an “new” 802.11/“proxy” LAA scenario worse in the future? Experiment 3 (simulation or real) Two groups of 802.11 devices use ED/PD = -72dBm/-82dBm, but arranged so devices only recognise PD from their group This is equivalent to a “new” 802.11/”proxy” LAA device scenario The simulation should account for uncertain edges when only using ED to capture the potential for ALOHA like access (rather than slotted ALOHA) Different experiments could be run using a variety of proportions for the two groups The control is where all 802.11 devices use ED/PD = -62dBm/-82dBm Question for investigation Is there any reasonable common deployment scenario where the devices in the “new” 802.11/”proxy” LAA environment have significantly less performance than the control environment? Andrew Myles, Cisco

This investigation approach will require support from volunteers with good simulation or test setups The experiments in the previous pages are just a suggested starting point – they could be modified or extended … … are there any comments/suggestions/extensions? Regardless of the final set of agreed experiments, someone needs to run them with real equipment or with simulations The author of these slides is looking for volunteers to run these experiments and/or simulations … … are there any volunteers with appropriately sophisticated simulation or test setups? Andrew Myles, Cisco

Are they any other submissions today? Andrew Myles, Cisco

Are they any other submissions today? None known as this time Andrew Myles, Cisco

Are participants planning to make future submissions? Andrew Myles, Cisco

Are participants planning to make future submissions? Please request time on the next agenda as soon as possible If no submissions are available by CoB on Monday the next call will be cancelled Andrew Myles, Cisco

The PDED ad hoc teleconference is adjourned! Reminder: please send an “I am attending PDED ad hoc” email to: amyles@cisco.com <secretaries e-mail> Andrew Myles, Cisco