May 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0453r1 May 2005 802 ExCom should reject the proposed 802.1AM PAR and 5 criteria 2005-05-18 Notice: This document has been prepared to assist IEEE 802.11. It is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein. Release: The contributor grants a free, irrevocable license to the IEEE to incorporate material contained in this contribution, and any modifications thereof, in the creation of an IEEE Standards publication; to copyright in the IEEE’s name any IEEE Standards publication even though it may include portions of this contribution; and at the IEEE’s sole discretion to permit others to reproduce in whole or in part the resulting IEEE Standards publication. The contributor also acknowledges and accepts that this contribution may be made public by IEEE 802.11. Patent Policy and Procedures: The contributor is familiar with the IEEE 802 Patent Policy and Procedures <http:// ieee802.org/guides/bylaws/sb-bylaws.pdf>, including the statement "IEEE standards may include the known use of patent(s), including patent applications, provided the IEEE receives assurance from the patent holder or applicant with respect to patents essential for compliance with both mandatory and optional portions of the standard." Early disclosure to the Working Group of patent information that might be relevant to the standard is essential to reduce the possibility for delays in the development process and increase the likelihood that the draft publication will be approved for publication. Please notify the Chair <stuart.kerry@philips.com> as early as possible, in written or electronic form, if patented technology (or technology under patent application) might be incorporated into a draft standard being developed within the IEEE 802.11 Working Group. If you have questions, contact the IEEE Patent Committee Administrator at <patcom@ieee.org>. Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

May 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0453r1 May 2005 ExCom should reject the 802.1AM proposal, instead promoting manageability of all wireless standards 802.1 are proposing a PAR for common RF management 802.1 are proposing that 802.1AM develop media independent RF management protocols The 802.1AM proposal was inspired by a Backes & Montemurro tutorial in San Antonio in Nov 04 All 802 WG’s have an opportunity to comment on the 802.1AM PAR & 5 criteria before ExCom in July What should 802 ExCom do? 802.11 should ask 802 ExCom to reject the 802.1AM PAR & 5 criteria 802 should encourage the wireless WG’s to ensure wireless networks are manageable Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

May 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0453r1 May 2005 ExCom should reject the 802.1AM proposal, instead promoting manageability of all wireless standards What did the Architecture ad hoc “decide” on 17 May? Reject the 802.1AM PAR Wireless cooperation is required to develop a “common language” Establish a new wireless SG to consider these problems What should 802.11 do next? Discuss the issue with other wireless WGs Process started last night Create a detailed set of comments for 802.1AM in July Andrew Myles volunteers to create Needs to be approved by 802.11 on the Monday in San Francisco Develop an outline for a new wireless SG Ask the 802.11 Chair to vote against the .1AM PAR in ExCom Does the Chair want to be “directed”? Update on 18 May Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

May 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0453r1 May 2005 802.1 are proposing that 802.1AM develop media independent RF management protocols The PAR proposes a purpose There is currently no defined, common method for RF management or statistics reporting across IEEE 802 wireless MACs Each working group has created separate definitions for receive signal quality, transmit power, channel numbers, etc This effort provides enhancements for a consistent management service interface across all 802 wireless standards The PAR proposes a reason There is a market need for RF management, given the widespread use of incompatible wireless 802 networks operating in the same frequencies The ability to control channel selection and adjust transmit power, or view RF characteristics in a consistent way does not exist today Common management and configuration algorithms are essential to the long term viability of a heterogeneous LAN Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

May 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0453r1 May 2005 The 802.1AM proposal was inspired by the Backes & Montemurro tutorial in San Antonio in Nov 04 The claimed problem The tutorial claims interoperable wireless network management is currently impossible A quote from tutorial states, “The lack of a standard RF management interface for different implementations of a given MAC as well as different wireless MACs prohibits multi vendor, interoperable wireless network management” The claimed solution The tutorial claims common management and common configuration algorithms are necessary A quote from tutorial states, “Common management and common configuration algorithms are essential to the long term viability of heterogeneous LAN” Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

May 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0453r1 May 2005 All 802 WG’s have an opportunity to comment on the 802.1AM PAR & 5 criteria before ExCom in July Nov 04 Jan - Mar 05 May 05 July 05 San Antonio Monterey - Atlanta Cairns San Francisco Tutorial presented by: Floyd Backes (Propagate) Michael Montemurro (Chantry) 802.1 developed and approved: PAR 5 criteria Other 802 WGs have an opportunity to comment Other 802 WGs have an opportunity to comment PAR & 5 criteria submitted to ExCom for approval We are here! Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

802.11 should ask 802 ExCom to reject the 802.1AM PAR & 5 criteria May 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0453r1 May 2005 802.11 should ask 802 ExCom to reject the 802.1AM PAR & 5 criteria A common management interface is not necessary for interoperable wireless management A common management interface is likely to lack useful functionality or constrain other standards The claim that there is wide interest in the 802.1AM approach is misleading 802.19 often provides a better approach to heterogeneous WLAN management than 802.1AM 802.1 did not discuss this PAR with the wireless WG’s 802.1 does not have the appropriate expertise to execute this proposal successfully Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

May 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0453r1 May 2005 A common management interface is not necessary for interoperable wireless management The PAR & tutorial claim The tutorial claims the lack of a standard (& common) RF management interface prohibits multi vendor, interoperable wireless network management The rebuttal An interoperable management system could easily be constructed using a system that understood and leverages the unique management interfaces to each of 802.11, 802.15, etc Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

Simple but less functional manager Complex but more functional manager May 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0453r1 May 2005 A common management interface is not necessary for interoperable wireless management 802.1AM approach Simple but less functional manager Common management interfaces .1AM .1AM .1AM .1AM 802.1AM agent 802.1AM agent 802.1AM agent 802.1AM agent 802.11 802.15 802.16 802.20 802.11 agent 802.15 agent 802.16 agent 802.20 agent Dedicated management interfaces .11 .15 .16 .20 Alternate approach Complex but more functional manager Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

May 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0453r1 May 2005 A common management interface is likely to lack useful functionality or constrain other standards The PAR claim The PAR claims that a standard (& common) RF management interface is a “good thing” The rebuttal Many people at the tutorial believed this work would likely result in relatively useless a “lowest common denominator” system that does not account for the unique properties of each of the wireless standards A more useful system (probably a superset of existing management mechanisms) would require changes to current standards and thus impose unacceptable constraints on the development of these standards Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

May 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0453r1 May 2005 The claim that there is wide interest in the 802.1AM approach is misleading The 5 criteria claim The 5 criteria claims, “Many vendors and users that participate in wireless 802 working groups have expressed interest in having a consistent management service interface applicable to all 802 wireless standards” The rebuttal It is probably true that vendors and users have expressed interest in a common interface because it an “nice ideal” However, given a “lowest common denominator” system or a system requiring changes to multiple standards, the proposal is far less attractive It is also worth noting that the audience at the tutorial in San Antonio voted against this concept in a straw poll Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

May 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0453r1 May 2005 802.19 often provides a better approach to heterogeneous WLAN management than 802.1AM The PAR claim The PAR claims common management & configuration algorithms are essential to the long term viability of a heterogeneous LAN The rebuttal The most interesting problems will often occur in unlicensed spectrum In this environment a system will often not have the administrative control required to manage heterogeneous WLANs in the way envisaged by 802.1AM A better approach might to rely on 802.19 to encourage coexistence, which can often be achieved without the need for explicit management messages Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

802.1 did not discuss this PAR with the wireless WG’s May 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0453r1 May 2005 802.1 did not discuss this PAR with the wireless WG’s The situation The PAR was inspired by a tutorial in Nov 04 At this time a straw poll indicated broad lack of interest Many people assumed the proposal was “dead” The problem The 802.1 group started developing a PAR in relative “secrecy” Certainly there was no request for close cooperation to the various wireless WG’s, who are clearly important stakeholders Most wireless WG members only became aware of the PAR in recent weeks once the PAR was complete Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

May 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0453r1 May 2005 802.1 does not have the appropriate expertise to execute this proposal successfully The tutorial claim The tutorial claims 802.1 is the logical place to work on management applications because it has the most: protocol expertise management expertise The rebuttal It is arguable whether or not 802.1 has the most protocol expertise However, while 802.1 does have significant management expertise, it has virtually no wireless expertise Very detailed knowledge of 802.11, 802.15, 802.16, etc will be required to execute this project, and it is unlikely to be available to 802.1 from other WG’s Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

May 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0453r1 May 2005 802 should encourage the wireless WG’s to ensure wireless networks are manageable The 802.1AM proposal is not useful, except as a low functionality “lowest common denominator” solution However, it is important to ensure wireless networks are manageable when appropriate and possible 802 ExCom should continue to encourage the 802 wireless WG’s to ensure their systems are manageable 802.11 is already taking the first steps down this road with: 802.11d (Regulatory management) 802.11h (Spectrum management 802.11k (Radio measurement) 802.11v (Wireless management) … After 802.11 and the other wireless WG’s have “learnt to walk” they should (eventually) refine the interfaces for the use of external managers Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

The Architecture ad hoc on 17 May “suggested” some next steps … doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0453r1 May 2005 The Architecture ad hoc on 17 May “suggested” some next steps … Ad hoc rejected the .1AM PAR The ad hoc voted overwhelmingly to not support the 802.1AM PAR 3/20/13 Ad hoc want something done The ad hoc voted that something needs to be done by the wireless groups to define a “common language” Don’t recall exact words or vote Ad hoc suggested a new SG The joint wireless systems SG would address common 802 wireless issues Should focus on cooperation between wireless groups Might lead to formation of a TAG or WG or SC or TGs Should support coexistence of handoff efforts, not duplicating Consider developing a common language for communicating operational characteristics and status if dissimilar wireless systems Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco