Project: IEEE 802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [WG-802.11n Liaison Report, March09] Date Submitted: 12March09 Source: [John Barr] Company [Motorola] Address [21939 Old Farm Road, Deer Park, IL 60010] Voice:[+1 847 962-5407], FAX: [], E-Mail:[barr@ieee.org] Re: [] Abstract: [802.11n Report to 802.15/11 WG] Purpose: [802.11n report to WG on actions relateing to 802.15.] Notice: This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE 802.15. 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 acknowledges and accepts that this contribution becomes the property of IEEE and may be made publicly available by 802.15. March 2009 doc.: IEEE 802.15-09/0232r0 Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola

802.11n Sponsor Ballot Results 1st Recirculation Ballot: Feb. 19 – March 6 277 Eligible people are in the ballot group 169 affirmative 42 negative 17 abstain 232 votes recorded 80.1% affirmative Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola

SB Recirc #1 – Comments (77 Total) Bruce Kraemer, Marvell March 2009

Primary Vancouver Meeting Documents March 2009 doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0219r7 March 2009 Primary Vancouver Meeting Documents SB #1 Comment Composite 11-09- 0024 r5 TGn SG Editor Comments 11-09- 0025 r2 Meeting Report 11-09- 0219 r10 Editors Report 11-09- 0251 r1 Closing Report 11-09- 0291 r0 Coex March Report 11-09- 0298 r0 Meeting Minutes 11-09- 0326 rx SB1 coex 20-24 resolutions 11-09- 0342 r1 More Coex CIDS 11-09- 0387 r0 40MHz/BT Coex Clarifications 11-09- 0498 r0 TGn Draft 8.0 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

March 2009 40MHz in 2.4 GHz Comments All negative comments regarding 40MHz operation in 2.4GHz were rejected based on document 11-09/387r0-more-coex-cids.doc Refutes evidence provided in 11-09/281r0 submitted by John Barr noting discrepancies in statements used in 11-09/242r2 to reject all comments from initial SB Continues to use 11-09/242r2 as basis for rejecting any comment claiming that 40MHz channels in 2.4 GHz do not adequately address coexistence with other radios operating in 2.4 GHz. Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

Response to 11-09/281r0 Comments March 2009 Response to 11-09/281r0 Comments Resolution: Disagree – As indicated by the resolution in 09/224r2, the TGn Comment Resolution Committee believes that coexistence has been properly addressed. Furthermore, 11-09/224r2 does not include inaccurate statements and conclusions. In response to 09/281r0: 1) The commenter is comparing the behaviour of implementations on the 802.15.1 side with the requirements of the protocol on the 802.11 side. While Bluetooth implementations may use energy detect, and may reevaluate channels periodically, there is no requirement in the Bluetooth specification that they do so. Likewise it is perfectly reasonable that 802.11n implementations perform adequate detection of Bluetooth devices, but that there be no requirement in the 802.11n specification that they do so.  It follows that the resolution in 11-09/0224r2 that states there is no requirement for Bluetooth devices to perform energy detect is correct. 2) Regarding the live Bluetooth-WLAN demonstration a) the AFH masking of channels was adaptive, not locked down b) class 2 Bluetooth device was used, up to 4 dBm transmit power c) Bluetooth master device was an evaluation board, with a production chip and a low gain standard whip antenna d) off-the-shelf stereo headset was used as a slave device  Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

Response to 11-09/281r0 Comments March 2009 Response to 11-09/281r0 Comments 3) Regarding the item of the measurements in 08/992 and the claim that “However, no one as proven that the measurements documented in 11-08/992 do not accurately represent the impact of 40 MHz 802.11n channels on the operation of Bluetooth devices.” The test set up in 08/992 did not include any 802.11 compliant devices. 4) All the issues raised in “letter from Mike Foley of the Bluetooth SIG” were already addressed by 11-09/224r2. Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

Solicitation for Help from 802.11n March 2009 Solicitation for Help from 802.11n During TGn discussion on this topic it became apparent that some of the text needs clarification and/or elaboration: Standardized features of Bluetooth and .11n systems: optional and mandatory Descriptions of experiments that were conducted Results achieved Interpretation of results: effects on Bluetooth and WLAN devices Conclusions Asking for help on creating such a document If any volunteers please contact Vinko Erceg verceg@broadcom.com (858) 521 5885 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

Joint Coexistence Agreement March 2009 Joint Coexistence Agreement One of the closing thoughts from 802.11n comment resolution was a joint approach to resolving no votes: 802.15.1 (Bluetooth) does not have mandatory detection language 802.11n recommends not using 40MHz channels when other IEEE 802 devices are within range, but won’t make anything mandatory It may be possible to jointly agree to add mandatory detection language to 802.15.1 (Bluetooth) and mandatory detection of 802.15.1 and 802.15.4 devices by 802.11n at some point in the future. Until those features are completed, 802.11n may agree to assert Forty MHz Intolerant Bit, preventing use of 40 MHz channels. Once features are completed, 40 MHz channels would be allowed when operation of other IEEE 802 devices are not detected. Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

802.11n Schedule Comment Resolution for SB1 Completed March 2009 802.11n Schedule Comment Resolution for SB1 Completed Draft 9.0 will be created for 15-day SB2 Expectations are that they may be able to have two recirculation ballots prior to May interim. Be ready to respond quickly….. Bruce Kraemer, Marvell