ARC-SC-agenda-Jan-2019 Date: 2019-01-16 Authors: July 2009 doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0840r0 ARC-SC-agenda-Jan-2019 Date: 2019-01-16 Authors: David Bagby, Calypso Ventures, Inc.

Agenda for: ARC SC, January 2019, St. Louis, Missouri, USA doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/1455r0 Abstract Agenda for: ARC SC, January 2019, St. Louis, Missouri, USA David Bagby, Calypso Ventures, Inc.

IEEE 802.11 Architecture Standing Committee July 2009 doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0840r0 IEEE 802.11 Architecture Standing Committee Agenda January 2019 session Chair: Mark Hamilton (Ruckus/ARRIS) Vice Chair: Joe Levy (InterDigital) David Bagby, Calypso Ventures, Inc.

Tuesday, January 15th, PM2

Attendance, etc. Reminders to attendees: July 2009 doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0840r0 Attendance, etc. Reminders to attendees: Sign in for .11 attendance credit Noises off No recordings David Bagby, Calypso Ventures, Inc.

Participants, Patents, and Duty to Inform July 2009 doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0840r0 Participants, Patents, and Duty to Inform All participants in this meeting have certain obligations under the IEEE-SA Patent Policy. Participants [Note: Quoted text excerpted from IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws subclause 6.2]: “Shall inform the IEEE (or cause the IEEE to be informed)” of the identity of each “holder of any potential Essential Patent Claims of which they are personally aware” if the claims are owned or controlled by the participant or the entity the participant is from, employed by, or otherwise represents “Should inform the IEEE (or cause the IEEE to be informed)” of the identity of “any other holders of potential Essential Patent Claims” (that is, third parties that are not affiliated with the participant, with the participant’s employer, or with anyone else that the participant is from or otherwise represents) The above does not apply if the patent claim is already the subject of an Accepted Letter of Assurance that applies to the proposed standard(s) under consideration by this group Early identification of holders of potential Essential Patent Claims is strongly encouraged No duty to perform a patent search David Bagby, Calypso Ventures, Inc.

July 2009 doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0840r0 Patent Related Links All participants should be familiar with their obligations under the IEEE-SA Policies & Procedures for standards development. Patent Policy is stated in these sources: IEEE-SA Standards Boards Bylaws http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/bylaws/sect6-7.html#6 IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/opman/sect6.html#6.3 Material about the patent policy is available at http://standards.ieee.org/about/sasb/patcom/materials.html If you have questions, contact the IEEE-SA Standards Board Patent Committee Administrator at patcom@ieee.org or visit http://standards.ieee.org/about/sasb/patcom/index.html This slide set is available at https://development.standards.ieee.org/myproject/Public/mytools/mob/slideset.ppt David Bagby, Calypso Ventures, Inc.

Call for Potentially Essential Patents July 2009 doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0840r0 Call for Potentially Essential Patents If anyone in this meeting is personally aware of the holder of any patent claims that are potentially essential to implementation of the proposed standard(s) under consideration by this group and that are not already the subject of an Accepted Letter of Assurance: Either speak up now or Provide the chair of this group with the identity of the holder(s) of any and all such claims as soon as possible or Cause an LOA to be submitted David Bagby, Calypso Ventures, Inc.

Participation in IEEE 802 Meetings November 2016 doc.: ec-16-0149-00-00EC Participation in IEEE 802 Meetings Participation in any IEEE 802 meeting (Sponsor, Sponsor subgroup, Working Group, Working Group subgroup, etc.) is on an individual basis •     Participants in the IEEE standards development individual process shall act based on their qualifications and experience. (https://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/bylaws/sb_bylaws.pdf section 5.2.1) •    IEEE 802 Working Group membership is by individual; “Working Group members shall participate in the consensus process in a manner consistent with their professional expert opinion as individuals, and not as organizational representatives”. (subclause 4.2.1 “Establishment”, of the IEEE 802 LMSC Working Group Policies and Procedures) •    Participants have an obligation to act and vote as an individual and not under the direction of any other individual or group. A Participant’s obligation to act and vote as an individual applies in all cases, regardless of any external commitments, agreements, contracts, or orders. •    Participants shall not direct the actions or votes of any other member of an IEEE 802 Working Group or retaliate against any other member for their actions or votes within IEEE 802 Working Group meetings, see https://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/bylaws/sb_bylaws.pdf section 5.2.1.3 and the IEEE 802 LMSC Working Group Policies and Procedures, subclause 3.4.1 “Chair”, list item x. By participating in IEEE 802 meetings, you accept these requirements. If you do not agree to these policies then you shall not participate. (Latest revision of IEEE 802 LMSC Working Group Policies and Procedures: http://www.ieee802.org/devdocs.shtml) Dorothy Stanley, HP Enterprise

Other Guidelines for IEEE WG Meetings 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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.

ARC Agenda – January 2019 (1 of 2) doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/1455r0 ARC Agenda – January 2019 (1 of 2) Tuesday, January 15, PM2 Administrative: Minutes IEEE 1588 mapping to IEEE 802.11/802.1ASrev and use of FTM WBA liaison on MAC randomization – follow-ups for 802.11? 802 (and 802.1) activities: 802.11aq, 802.1CQ and LAAP: 11-18/1934r0 Local Administrator Advertisements: 11-18/2022r0 Proxy IPv6 Neighbor Discovery: 11-18/1920r2 Wednesday, January 16, AM1 TGba (WUR) continued discussion: 11-18/1017r0, 11-18/1020r5, 11-18/1494r2, 11-18/1641r0, 11-19/0081r1, 11-19/0173r0 MAC randomization: 11-19/0179r0 Continue the other items (previous slide), as needed David Bagby, Calypso Ventures, Inc.

ARC Agenda – September 2018 (2 of 2) Jan 2009 doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/1455r0 ARC Agenda – September 2018 (2 of 2) Thursday, January 17, AM2 Future sessions / SC activities IETF/802 coordination Consider IETF DetNet/time-sensitive networking input (potential relationship to RTA TIG?) Multiple MAC Addresses (and IPv6), “Multiple radios” System architecture views for common use scenarios (any contributions?) “What is an ESS?”: 11-18/1051r3 New topic (from REVmd)?: “What is a STA?” (See: 11-19/0106r0) AP/DS/Portal architecture and 802 and GLK concepts - 11-17/0136r2, 11-16/1512r0, 11-16/0720r0, 11-15/0454r0, 11-14/1213r1 (slides 9-11) MLME-RESET, versus MLME-JOIN and MLME-START (and MLME-SCAN?) Does TGba discussion lead into other “split” PHYs (LC, 28 GHz (Phazr))? Continue the other items (above/previous slide), as needed David Bagby, Calypso Ventures, Inc.

Prior ARC Minutes November face-to-face minutes: Jan 2009 doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/1455r0 Prior ARC Minutes November face-to-face minutes: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/18/11-18-1725-03-0arc-arc-sc-agenda-nov-2018.pptx David Bagby, Calypso Ventures, Inc.

IEEE 1588 mapping to IEEE 802.11/ 802.1ASrev use of FTM update Update (Ganesh Venkatesan) IEEE 1588/802.1AS Results from first Sponsor Ballot of IEEE 1588 revision, Sept 17 – Oct 28? 802.1ASrev use of 802.11 FTM: Results of D7.4 WG recirculation, Nov 30 – Dec 15

WBA liaison on MAC Address randomization Incoming liaison is here: 11-18/1579r1 802.11 response: 11-18/1988r2 Any updates/response? Follow-up actions recommended for 802.11 (from our response)?

IEEE 802 activities directly related to IEEE 802.11 ARC 802.11aq, 802.1CQ and LAAP: 11-18/1934r0 Clear(er) problem statement from 802.1? Local Administrator Advertisements: 11-18/2022r0 Any follow-up from 802.1, yet? Proxy IPv6 Neighbor Discovery: 11-18/1920r2 Updates?

Wednesday, January 16th, AM1

TGba architecture topics Investigation of TGba (WUR) architecture topics May lead into discussion of other “split” PHYs (LC, 28 GHz (Phazr)) - Thursday Updates as of this week Review of “just a capability” direction and current 11ba draft status: 11-19/0081r1 Continued review of status and further questions/considerations: 11-19/0173r0 Background Presentations: State machine view: 11-18/1020r5 Power Saving overview (WUR experts): 11-18/1494r4 Nomenclature proposal: 11-18/1641r0 Architecture: 11-18/1017r1 “802.11BA topics related to ARC” (Ganesh Venkatesan) 11-18/0533r2 “11BA Arch Discussion” (Mark Hamilton) 11-17/1025r0 Review of “802.11ba Architecture discussion” (Ganesh Venkatesan) 11-18/0884r1 Review of “Definition of WUR Mode” (11-17-0972r2) Review of Specification Framework (11-17/0575r11) Review of inputs from ARC teleconferences: 11-18/1016r0, Also see following slides

TGba architecture comments/answers to questions in 11-17/1025 (from July 10, 2017 TGba) Background Yes, fully independent PHY Probably independent MAC? Always co-located with AP or non-AP STA – a “companion” radio No MAC Address (?) WUR MAC (assuming it is independent) does need to coordinate with the main MAC. Main MAC negotiates a WUR ID on WUR’s behalf, for example. And, power on/off needs to be coordinated between them – might be through higher layer entity, though (?) WUR does not associate to the BSS (it doesn’t have a MAC Address) WUR only runs in 2.4/5 GHz. But, can work with all PHYs (maybe?) Mesh, IBSS, OCB uses are TBD in the future, not now

TGba architecture new questions (from July 12, 2017 ARC) Does every WUR stack have an individual “ID” (“WUR address”)? Or, could a given WUR stack be only addressed using a “group ID” in some scenarios? How are WUR ID’s made globally unique, or are they? What about overlapping WUR coverage? Prevented using the same solution as security protections? Prevented through selection of different sub-carriers? How does the WUR stack become aware of ongoing NAV protections? RX doesn’t need to know. What about the TXr? For protection – how much of a legacy frame header is sent? Just PHY header? Some MAC header (addresses? NAV? Etc) Is there any sharing (necessarily, as part of the design, not implementation choice) of RF front-end? What happens when the Main stack wakes up? Does it still have an association? Is it in some power save state (which)? “Yes, fully independent PHY” – is that for the RX side, or the TX side? What about error recovery? STA goes out of range? What if the AP changes (DFS, ITS, etc)? Background

TGba architecture potential assumptions (from July 12, 2017 ARC) How does the WUR stack become aware of ongoing NAV protections? RX doesn’t need to know. The master’s Main stack runs the usual medium access, and wait until it has a TXop, then triggers the WUR to TX. On the RXr, only one stack (WUR or Main) are active at a given point in time. When the Main stack wakes up, it still has an association and is in a power save state (a new “WUR” power save state). The Main stack TXs, which is the indication that the wakeup was successful and completed. There are RX–only WURs, at the sleeping node. There are TX-only WURs on the master node, and these are therefore (likely) different architecturally. The WUR “wakeup” frame does not NAV protect to cover the sleeping device’s Main radio waking up and TXing. Review 11-17/972 to confirm/before proceeding on the above Background

MAC Address randomization Follow-up contribution: 11-19/0179r0

Thursday, January 17th, AM2

ARC Future Activities & sessions ARC SC meets when a specific focused task is requested of the SC for which the is sufficient volunteer interest. Continue work on architectural models, and liaison with TGs in development of their architecture as appropriate Investigation of WUR architecture topics; may lead into “split” PHYs (LC, 28 GHz (Phazr)) Investigation of 802.11 as part of a Deterministic Network Multiple MAC Address discussion (IPv6) – perhaps “multiple radios” too System architecture(s) for common use scenarios Will also follow 802.1/802.11 activities on links, bridging, and MAC Service definition – “What is an ESS?”, for example MLME-RESET, versus MLME-JOIN and MLME-START (and MLME-SCAN?) Monitor/report on IETF/802 activities, as needed Monitor/report on IEEE 1588 activities and 802.1ASrev use of FTM, as needed If you have ANY other topic that you would like ARC SC to consider, contact the SC chair.

Planning for January 2019 Plan for three individual meeting slots Usual slot on Wed AM1 Another 2 slots for standalone ARC work (Monday/Tuesday?) Plus Joint sessions: Another with TGba? Individuals interested in ARC work are encouraged to also attend AANI SC sessions Teleconferences: None planned.

IETF/802 coordination Peter Yee present topics of interest:

DetNet and other time-sensitive networking, (IETF, RTA TIG, etc.) IETF TSN paper declares 802.11 inappropriate for deterministic networking. But, 802.15.4 TSCH appears to be appropriate. Can 802.11 be used? If not, can/should 802.11 be “improved” so that it can be used? Does 11ax scheduling fit into this? What are the requirements coming from the RTA TIG, and do those change the above?

What is an ESS? See 11-18/1051r3 Related, new topic from REVmd, “What is a STA?” See: 11-19/0106r0

AP/DS/Portal architecture and 802 concepts Presentations on architectural description(s) https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/17/11-17-0136-02-0arc-bridging-architecture-considerations.docx Reference presentations (previously reviewed, current status of thinking): https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/14/11-14-1213-01-0arc-ap-arch-concepts-and-distribution-system-access.pptx https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/13/11-13-0115-15-0arc-considerations-on-ap-architectural-models.doc https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/14/11-14-0497-03-0arc-802-11-portal-and-802-1ac-convergence-function.pptx https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/14/11-14-0562-05-00ak-802-11ak-and-802-1ac-convergence-function.pptx https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/15/11-15-0454-00-0arc-some-more-ds-architecture-concepts.pptx https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/16/11-16-0720-00-0arc-stacked-architecture-discussion.pptx

MLME-RESET, versus MLME-JOIN and MLME-START Topic out of REVmd: No apparent requirement for an “initial” MLME-RESET, in 802.11. So, what is the initial state? Many MIB attributes describe taking effect at next MLME-JOIN or MLME-START. MLME-JOIN occurs at each BSS transition MLME-START occurs at less well-defined points, seems to require an MLME-RESET first Do these attributes really take effect at these points, or at the MLME-RESET? How about other state information, such as security association, block ack agreements, etc., etc.?