PPC Closing Report for Session #88 [IEEE 802.16 Mentor Presentation Template (Rev. 0)] Document Number: IEEE 802.16-13-0186-00-Gdoc Date Submitted: 2013-11-14 Source: Harry Bims Voice: Bims Laboratories, Inc. E-mail: harrybims@me.com *http://standards.ieee.org/faqs/affiliationFAQ.html Re: Session #88 Base Contribution: None Purpose: PPC Report to 802.16 WG Closing Plenary meeting. Notice: This document does not represent the agreed views of the IEEE 802.16 Working Group or any of its subgroups. It represents only the views of the participants listed in the “Source(s)” field above. It is offered as a basis for discussion. It is not binding on the contributor(s), who reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein. Copyright Policy: The contributor is familiar with the IEEE-SA Copyright Policy <http://standards.ieee.org/IPR/copyrightpolicy.html>. Patent Policy: The contributor is familiar with the IEEE-SA Patent Policy and Procedures: <http://standards.ieee.org/guides/bylaws/sect6-7.html#6> and <http://standards.ieee.org/guides/opman/sect6.html#6.3>. Further information is located at <http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-material.html> and <http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat >.

Session #88 – PPC Closing Plenary Report Harry Bims PPC Acting Chair November 14, 2013 Dallas, TX IEEE 802.16-13-0186-00-Gdoc

Summary of Session #88 Meeting The PPC held meetings at the following times: Tuesday 12 Nov 2013 AM1 08:00 AM – 10:00 AM Tuesday 12 Nov 2013 PM1 01:30 PM – 03:30 PM

Activities for the Week Administrative: Introductions, Review of patent slides Presented and approved the Agenda Review of input contributions previously unassigned contributions submitted to the Working Group Review of 802 PARs under consideration http://ieee802.org/PARs.shtml Commented on 802-REV PAR extension request, and P802.22 PAR revision

Summary of PPC Input Contributions SG REF TITLE SOURCE ACTION 802.16-13-0123-02 D2D Resource Allocation under the Control of BS Ran Rejected for non-conforming format 802.16-13-0172-01 Cooperative Transmission Schemes of Base station assisted D2D Communications in Cellular Networks Li Rejected as out of scope 802.16-13-0171-00 Schemes in D2D Group Communications in Cellular Networks 802.16-13-0165-01 Resource Sharing of Multiple Underlaying D2D links and Uplink Cellular Communications 802.16-13-0167-00 Relay Assisted Device-to-Device Multicast Algorithm Tian

Summary of PPC Output Documents SG REF TITLE SOURCE ACTION 802.16.13-0184-01 Comments of P802.16 Working Group on P802.22 PAR Revision BIMS Sent to EC Reflector 802.16-13-0183-00 Comments of IEEE 802.16 Working Group on P802 PAR Extension MARKS

P802.22 Response to PPC PAR Comments IEEE Document 22-13-0168-00-0000, entitled “802-22 Response to the Comments on the 802.22 Revision PAR” + ACCEPT – Removed the term Point-to-Point from the Scope + The PAR document with the words “allow” was circulated as a correction via e-mail that was sent out on October 11th [22-13-0138Rev2]. However, we are okay with changing the word “that Allow Spectrum Sharing” to “that Allow Spectrum Sharing between Primary Services and Opportunistic Communication Devices” The fundamental assumption behind the operation of IEEE 802.22 systems is that spectrum is shared with primary users. Hence the shared spectrum may or may not be available at all times and at all the locations. The radio will have to automatically change its characteristics and behavior to operate in appropriate alternate spectrum as directed by the cognitive sharing mechanism (e. g. database, sensing or beaconing). Hence 802.22 is highly applicable for use in bands that allow or require spectrum sharing such as the radar bands between 2700 MHz to 3650 MHz in the United States.

P802 Response to PPC PAR Comments IEEE Document 16-13-0189-00-Gdoc, entitled “P802 PAR Extension Comments Response” We are aware that the current PAR Scope does not exactly match the document's Scope subclause; however, as the document does not exceed the PAR scope, then this is not a problem for the progression of the project. Also, changing the PAR at this stage, when the document is under Sponsor ballot, is problematic, because it would require us to re-form the Sponsor ballot group, and in turn, that would require cancelling the existing ballot and starting a new Sponsor ballot. There is absolutely no point in doing that, so we don't intend to change the PAR wording. In any event, as this is a PAR extension request, not a PAR modification request, there is no opportunity to make changes to the rest of the PAR detail as part of this process; the extension request can only request changes to the end date, so actually this is not an "opportunity to align the PAR scope with the draft scope" at all.