doc.: IEEE /0635r0 Submission July 2005 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 1 Wireless WG response to proposed 802.1AM PAR & 5 criteria Notice: This document has been prepared to assist IEEE 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 Patent Policy and Procedures: The contributor is familiar with the IEEE 802 Patent Policy and Procedures, 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 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 Working Group. If you have questions, contact the IEEE Patent Committee Administrator at.

doc.: IEEE /0635r0 Submission July 2005 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 2 Proposal only until approved by wireless WG’s The 802.1AM PAR should be rejected and the subject matter reconsidered by a new wireless forum Background of 802.1AM PAR Wireless position on 802.1AM PAR Wireless position on next steps A variety of technical and practical issues suggest 802 ExCom should reject the 802.1AM proposal 802 ExCom has been asked by to approve the 802.1AM PAR 802 ExCom should encourage and the wireless WG’s to discuss issues related to managing wireless networks in some new wireless forum Summary Also see 05/453r1

doc.: IEEE /0635r0 Submission July 2005 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 3 A variety of technical and practical issues suggest 802 ExCom should reject the 802.1AM proposal Technical issues A common interface is not essential, or even desirable, for effective RF management A common interface is of limited use managing wireless networks in different administrative domains Practical issues The 802.1AM PAR was developed without the cooperation of the wireless groups There is limited interest in the proposed 802.1AM PAR from the wireless groups may not have the appropriate expertise to execute this the 802.1AM PAR successfully Issues

doc.: IEEE /0635r0 Submission July 2005 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 4 A common interface is not essential, or even desirable, for RF management PAR asserts a “common interface” is essential The propose 802.1AM PAR asserts, “Common management and configuration algorithms are essential to the long term viability of a heterogeneous LAN” It is likely that a “dedicated interface” is more desirable The claim that a common interface is “essential” for RF management is not supported by any evidence in the 802.1AM PAR or 5 criteria At least one alternative system using “dedicated interfaces” unique to each wireless network could also be used to perform RF management A case can be made that the use of “dedicated interfaces” represents a better compromise than common interfaces for RF management Issues – Essential

doc.: IEEE /0635r0 Submission July 2005 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 5 An alternate system using dedicated interfaces could be used to perform RF management AM agent 802.1AM agent 802.1AM agent 802.1AM agent Uniform interface but less functional manager agent agent agent agent Diverse interface but more functional manager Common management interfaces Dedicated management interfaces.1AM AM proposal Alternate approach Issues – Essential - Alternate “Common 802.1AM agent” Interface specific agents that are being developed today

doc.: IEEE /0635r0 Submission July 2005 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 6 A case can be made that “dedicated interfaces” are a better compromise than “common interfaces” “Common interface”“Dedicated interface” Common interface enables simpler & more consistent RF management (as described by the PAR) Dedicated interface approach allows each wireless network to optimise RF management without definition of new 802.1AM-like standard Dedicated interfaces enable an RF manager to understand and leverage the unique characteristics of each wireless network Common interface requires an 802.1AM standard to be defined The PAR defines a “lowest common denominator” solution Alternatively, the PAR requires changes to multiple standards and will constrain future developments Dedicated interface requires RF manager to deal with different interfaces to each wireless network (as described by the PAR) Each of the wireless groups need to improve their dedicated management interfaces, i.e. work is required Pro’s Con’s Issues – Essential - Compromise

doc.: IEEE /0635r0 Submission July 2005 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 7 The 802.1AM PAR defines a non optimal “lowest common denominator” solution “common” often means non optimal “lowest common denominator” Many in the audience at the RF management tutorial in San Antonio noted “common” management often means “lowest common denominator” management Such systems typically cannot leverage, or even understand, the properties unique to different wireless networks (unlike a system based on dedicated interfaces) Such systems are unlikely to provide sufficient common parameters for “optimal” RF management 802.1AM PAR defines a “lowest common denominator” The PAR only identifies transmit power & channel selection as candidates for common management When questioned, the presenters of the RF management tutorial in San Antonio could not identify additional common parameters Issues – Essential – Compromise – LCD

doc.: IEEE /0635r0 Submission July 2005 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 8 A useful common interface implies unpalatable changes to existing standards & constrains future standards A useful common interface definition is possible using a “superset” It might be possible to define a useful “common interface” by specifying some modified superset of management interfaces used by the existing wireless network standards This requires unacceptable changes to existing & future standards This approach is impractical because it would require: –agreements across multiple wireless groups –changes to multiple existing wireless network standards It would also impose unacceptable constraints on future developments of each wireless standard because they would need to remain compatible with 802.1AM Issues – Essential – Compromise – Standards

doc.: IEEE /0635r0 Submission July 2005 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 9 A common interface is of limited use managing wireless networks in different administrative domains PAR asserts it is required to enable heterogeneous LAN management The PAR states that it is common today for different 802 wireless networks to operate in the same spectrum The PAR states a “common interface” is required to enable different wireless networks operating in same spectrum It is not clear there is a problem or that 802.1AM provides a solution It is unclear that different 802 wireless networks frequently operate in the same spectrum Even if they do, any management interface is often unhelpful because different 802 wireless networks usually operate in different administrative domains This is particularly the case for 802 wireless networks operating in unlicensed spectrum, which is where there are more likely to be heterogeneous 802 wireless systems Issues – Administrative domains

doc.: IEEE /0635r0 Submission July 2005 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 10 The 802.1AM PAR was developed without the cooperation of the wireless groups Most assumed the proposal for “common interface” was dead The 802.1AM PAR was inspired by a tutorial in November 2004 in San Antonio A straw poll at the end of the tutorial indicated a broad lack of interest for further development Most people assumed the proposal for a common interface for RF management was “dead” Unfortunately, the PAR was developed in relative isolation The group developed the PAR in relative isolation There was no request for close cooperation directed to the wireless groups, despite their clearly interest in any such activity Most wireless WG members only became aware of the PAR after it was completed and sent to ExCom Issues – Knowledge

doc.: IEEE /0635r0 Submission July 2005 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 11 There is limited interest in the proposed 802.1AM PAR from the wireless groups The proposed 5 criteria claims broad support for a “common interface” The 5 criteria asserts, “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” Indications from the wireless WG’s suggest the PAR should be rejected The audience at the tutorial on RF management in San Antonio voted overwhelmingly against the 802.1AM common management concept in a straw poll A wireless ad hoc in Cairns also voted 2/20/13 in a straw poll that the 802.1AM PAR should be rejected –The question was “Do you favor approval of the 802.1AM PAR?” Issues – Interest

doc.: IEEE /0635r0 Submission July 2005 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide may not have the appropriate wireless expertise to execute the 802.1AM PAR successfully are focusing on the “management” aspects clearly believe they have the expertise to succeed in executing the proposed PAR by the fact they submitted it without coordinating with the wireless groups The RF management tutorial explicitly claimed is the logical place to work on management applications because it has the most protocol and management expertise 802.1’s lack of wireless expertise suggests success is unlikely It is true that does have significant management expertise However, it has little explicit wireless expertise Very detailed knowledge regulatory, wireless standards knowledge and cooperation from the wireless groups will be required to execute this project successfully: This expertise is unlikely to be available from the wireless groups given the apparent lack of support for the 802.1AM PAR Issues – Expertise

doc.: IEEE /0635r0 Submission July 2005 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide should encourage the wireless WG’s to ensure wireless networks are manageable It is important to ensure wireless networks are manageable as appropriate and possible Various TG’s are beginning to learn how to make manageable, eg –802.11d (Regulatory management) –802.11h (Spectrum management –802.11k (Radio measurement) –802.11v (Wireless management) Other wireless groups are undertaking similar activities The wireless ad hoc in Cairns voted positively (23/1/15) that “…a common language needed for wireless for communicating operational characteristics and status of dissimilar wireless systems” As and the other wireless WG’s “learn to walk” there is clearly interest in making wireless management as easy as possible 802 ExCom should continue to encourage the 802 wireless groups to work towards defining useful dedicated interfaces based on a common language where possible The work could occur in a new wireless architecture forum … Next steps

doc.: IEEE /0635r0 Submission July 2005 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 14 Some explicit questions for relating to the proposed 802.1AM PAR

doc.: IEEE /0635r0 Submission July 2005 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 15 The 802.1AM PAR inspires a variety of technical questions Why is a common RF management interface “essential”? Why is a “common interface” more desirable than a “dedicated interface”? Why wouldn’t a “dedicated interface”, which requires no standardisation, be more desirable? Why wouldn’t a “common interface” be a “lowest common denominator interface”? Is there a detailed list of parameters that would be manageable using the “common interface”? What regulatory issues are applicable to the proposed work? How is the necessary communication between dissimilar systems to take place? Would 802.1AM require any changes to any of the , , , … standards? Questions – Technical

doc.: IEEE /0635r0 Submission July 2005 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 16 The 802.1AM PAR inspires a variety of technical questions How would 802.1AM constrain future development of , , …? How would a “common interface” approach leverage the unique characteristics of each network? How often do different 802 networks operate in the same spectrum and geography? How is any RF management interface useful when systems exist under different administrative controls? How is the necessary communication between systems authenticated and protected from attacks? Questions – Technical

doc.: IEEE /0635r0 Submission July 2005 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 17 The 802.1AM PAR inspires a variety of practical questions Why was the 802.1AM PAR developed without coordination with the wireless WG’s? How is the view expressed by the negative straw poll vote at the RF management tutorial reflected by the proposed 802.1AM PAR? How would ensure appropriate wireless expertise (from , , , …) was available to execute the proposed work? Would be willing to withdraw the 802.1AM PAR, on the understanding that the subject matter could be discussed in a forum including all the wireless WG’s? Questions – Practical

doc.: IEEE /0635r0 Submission July 2005 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 18 Proposed motions & straw polls for July 2005

doc.: IEEE /0635r0 Submission July 2005 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 19 Proposed straw poll at morning session of the wireless ad hoc on 18 July 2005 Straw poll “The wireless ad hoc recommends to the wireless WG’s that 05/0635ry be forwarded to as the view of the wireless WG’s in relation to the proposed 802.1AM PAR” Proposer: Andrew Myles Result Yes: No: Abstain: Motion – wireless ad hoc

doc.: IEEE /0635r0 Submission July 2005 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 20 Proposed motion at the plenary session of the WG on 18 July 2005 Motion The Chair of shall forward 05/0635ry to as the view of the WG in relation to the proposed 802.1AM PAR Proposer: Andrew Myles Seconder: Result Yes: No: Abstain: Motions –

doc.: IEEE /0635r0 Submission July 2005 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 21 Possible motion at the plenary session of the WG on 22 July 2005 Motion The Chair of is directed to vote against the 802.1AM PAR at the 802 ExCom meeting Proposer: Andrew Myles Seconder: Result (75% required) Yes: No: Abstain: Motions –