Submission Page 1 October 2001 doc.: IEEE /542r0 Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems A discussion of h scope for the TGh teleconference on 10 October 2001 Andrew Myles (Cisco Systems) 9 October 2001

Submission Page 2 October 2001 doc.: IEEE /542r0 Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems This presentation explores issues, questions, answers and outcomes relating to the scope of TGhs PAR Some voters believe: –all elements of D1.0 exceeding the PARs scope should be removed –all elements of D1.0 exceeding the PARs scope should at least be identified –the PAR should be revisited and, possibly, the whole selection process restarted The issue of scope raised by the voters suggests a series of questions The aim of this presentation is to explore the answers to these questions, leading to an outcome, which could include some combination of: –Continue comment resolution and proceed to next LB –Remove functionality exceeding the PAR –Rewrite the PAR –Restart the selection process The author will avoid expressing a personal view until the last two slides Executive summary

Submission Page 3 October 2001 doc.: IEEE /542r0 Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems Some voters believe all elements of D1.0 exceeding the PARs scope should be removed VoterComment summaryRecommended change summary David BagbyThe PAR limits scope to satisfying European regulations Various elements of D1.0 exceed the PARs scope Spirit of goodness argument is flawed Remove all functionality not related to the PAR Jon RosdahlVarious elements of D1.0 exceed the PARs scope Remove all functionality not related to the PAR Andrew MylesVarious elements of D1.0 exceed the PARs scope Replace D1.0 with revised draft (provided) focused on the PAR requirements Robert Miller, Harry Worstell, David Skellern Hidden station reporting in D1.0 exceeds the PARs scope Remove hidden station reporting Amar Ghori, Bobby Jose Various elements of D1.0 have an impact on work in e Liase with e; OR Remove all functionality not related to the PAR Note: author apologises for any misinterpretation of LB comments Voter comments

Submission Page 4 October 2001 doc.: IEEE /542r0 Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems Some voters believe all elements of D1.0 exceeding the PARs scope should at least be identified G SrikantarVarious elements of D1.0 not related to ERCIdentify functionality not related to ERC M VenkatramanAim of D1.0 is to gain European regulatory approval Identify functionality related to aim VoterComment summaryRecommended change summary Note: author apologises for any misinterpretation of LB comments Voter comments

Submission Page 5 October 2001 doc.: IEEE /542r0 Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems Some voters believe the PAR should be revisited and, possibly, the whole selection process restarted John KowalskiIn favour of hidden station detection, but it is not clear hidden station detection is required by PARs scope. Modify the scope to allow hidden station detection. Baruch AltmanVarious elements of D1.0 exceed the PARs scope Group (or chair) should formally determine whether D1.0 and/or the original proposal exceed the PARs scope Fix process, possibly change PAR, remove functionality not related to the PAR and possibly restart process VoterComment summaryRecommended change summary Note: author apologises for any misinterpretation of LB comments Voter comments

Submission Page 6 October 2001 doc.: IEEE /542r0 Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems The issue of scope raised by the voters suggests a series of questions and outcomes What is the scope of the TGh PAR? Does D1.0 meet the PAR? Is D1.0 allowed to exceed the PAR? Should we remove functionality exceeding the PAR? Continue comment resolution and proceed to next LB Restart the selection process Remove functionality exceeding the PAR Agreed scope No, list of functionality exceeding scope No Yes Should we rewrite the PAR? No Yes Questions & outcomes Rewrite the PAR

Submission Page 7 October 2001 doc.: IEEE /542r0 Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems What is the scope of the TGh PAR? Does D1.0 meet the PAR? Is D1.0 allowed to exceed the PAR? Should we remove functionality exceeding the PAR? Continue comment resolution and proceed to next LB Restart the selection process Remove functionality exceeding the PAR Agreed scope No, list of functionality exceeding scope No Yes Should we rewrite the PAR? No Yes What is the scope of the TGh PAR? Rewrite the PAR

Submission Page 8 October 2001 doc.: IEEE /542r0 Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems The WG established a PAR for TGh; but should the PAR be interpreted narrowly or broadly? Is a narrow interpretation correct? A strict reading of TGhs PAR suggests TPC and DFS facilities with limited functionality are all that are required or allowed Debate at the time the TGhs PAR was approved suggests a narrow interpretation was intended The purpose section of the PAR cannot be used to justify a broad interpretation Acceptance of the original proposals in Orlando by 90% and the LB by 60% cannot be used to justify a broad interpretation Is a broad interpretation correct? A broad reading of TGhs PAR suggests TPC and DFS facilities with wide functionality are possible WG established a PAR for TGh related to TPC and DFS extensions for the 5GHz band in Europe What is the scope of the TGh PAR?

Submission Page 9 October 2001 doc.: IEEE /542r0 Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems WG established a PAR for TGh related to TPC and DFS extensions for the 5GHz band in Europe Project scope (what?)Project purpose (why?) Enhance the Medium Access Control (MAC) standard and a High Speed Physical Layer (PHY) in the 5GHz Band supplement to the standard; –To add indoor and outdoor channel selection for 5GHz license exempt bands in Europe. –And to enhance channel energy measurement and reporting mechanisms to improve spectrum and transmit power management (per CEPT and subsequent EU committee or body ruling incorporating CEPT Recommendation ERC 99/23). To enhance the current MAC and a PHY with network management and control extensions for spectrum and transmit power management in 5GHz license exempt bands, enabling regulatory acceptance of GHz products. Provide improvements in channel energy measurement and reporting, channel coverage in many regulatory domains, and provide Dynamic Channel Selection and Transmit Power Control mechanisms. Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) specifications, for Spectrum and Transmit Power Management extensions in the 5 GHz band in Europe Project title What is the scope of the TGh PAR? – TGh PAR Source: 0301r38w-SMa SG-Draft-PAR.doc

Submission Page 10 October 2001 doc.: IEEE /542r0 Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems A strict reading of TGhs PAR suggests TPC and DFS facilities with limited functionality are all that are required and allowed The scope section of the TGh PAR implies specific goals Applies only to the 5GHz license exempt band Applies only to Europe (CEPT countries) DFS and TPC facilities are only required to satisfy the needs of ERC 99/23 and any subsequent revisions ERC 99/23 implies simple requirements for TPC and DFS TPC must define a maximum transmit power by channel TPC must define an average transmit power mitigation (currently 3dB) DFS must avoid licensed users in all channels DFS must provide channel spreading over defined number of channels (330MHz) DFS must disallow outdoor use in certain channels What is the scope of the TGh PAR? – Narrow - Scope

Submission Page 11 October 2001 doc.: IEEE /542r0 Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems Debate at the time the TGhs PAR was approved suggests a narrow interpretation was intended David Bagby recalls that debate explicitly limited hs scope to TPC and DFS facilities required to obtain European regulatory approval: –As a key participant in the debate leading up to the approval of the TGH PAR, and (if memory serves) the maker of several motions in Plenary that modified the proposed PAR to explicitly limit the scope of TGH to exactly TPC and DFS as they are required by European regulatory requirements, I conclude that the TGH draft does exceed the TGH PAR authorization. It certainly exceeds the intention of the restrictions adopted when the PAR was proposed and later approved., source: LB29, comment no. 3 The approved version of the PAR excluded wide geographical applicability, which was present in an an earlier version: –IEEE P will correspond with regulatory bodies worldwide in order to try to assure that the proposed extension will be applicable geographically as widely as possible., source: 0301r18W-SMa SG-Draft-PAR.doc What is the scope of the TGh PAR? – Narrow - Debate

Submission Page 12 October 2001 doc.: IEEE /542r0 Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems Acceptance of the original proposals in Orlando by 90% and the LB by 60% cannot be used to justify a broad interpretation Claims have been made that the current broad approach can be justified by its wide acceptance in two votes –The original proposal achieved a yes vote of >90% –D1.0 achieved a yes vote in the LB of >60% However, there are alternative and more compelling explanations for these overwhelming yes votes –People voted overwhelming yes on one original proposal to get the TGh process moving forward; a positive step to get a into Europe –People voted yes on the LB to maintain voting rights, because they simply did not care or because they did not have time; indeed, given that D1.0 is missing essential information, it is hard to explain any yes vote in the LB What is the scope of the TGh PAR? – Narrow - Voting

Submission Page 13 October 2001 doc.: IEEE /542r0 Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems The purpose section of the PAR cannot be used to justify a broad interpretation The purpose section of the TGh PAR implies broad goals … Gain regulatory acceptance in many domains (in 5GHz band) Provide general channel measurement and reporting Provide effective channel coverage (is this sophisticated channel planning based on TPC and DFS?) … but the scope section tells us what should be in the standard The purpose is why you believe that this standard needs to exist The scope is what you are trying to cover in the standard Source: es/companion/part2.html#structure What is the scope of the TGh PAR? – Narrow - Purpose

Submission Page 14 October 2001 doc.: IEEE /542r0 Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems A broad reading of the TGh PAR suggests TPC and DFS facilities with wide functionality are possible The scope section of the TGh PAR implies broad goals: The scope is open ended in that h needs to satisfy future regulations that are currently unknown The only way to satisfy unknown goals with reasonable confidence is to include facilities with wide functionality What is the scope of the TGh PAR? – Broad - Scope

Submission Page 15 October 2001 doc.: IEEE /542r0 Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems Can we agree on a narrow scope for the TGh PAR with some expandability to cater for future regulatory changes? Proposed interpretation of scope: Applies only to the 5GHz license exempt band Applies only to Europe (CEPT countries) DFS and TPC facilities are only required to satisfy the needs of ERC 99/23 and any subsequent revisions Assumed needs of ERC 99/23 TPC must define a maximum transmit power by channel TPC must define an average transmit power mitigation DFS must avoid licensed users in all channels DFS must provide channel spreading over defined number of channels DFS must disallow outdoor use in certain channels Assumed needs of revisions TPC and DFS must be expandable to meet likely future regulatory requirements only What is the scope of the TGh PAR? – Agreement?

Submission Page 16 October 2001 doc.: IEEE /542r0 Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems Does the original proposal and D1.0 meet the PAR? What is the scope of the TGh PAR? Does D1.0 meet the PAR? Is D1.0 allowed to exceed the PAR? Should we remove functionality exceeding the PAR? Continue comment resolution and proceed to next LB Restart the selection process Remove functionality exceeding the PAR Agreed scope No, list of functionality exceeding scope No Yes Should we rewrite the PAR? No Yes Does D1.0 meet the PAR? Rewrite the PAR

Submission Page 17 October 2001 doc.: IEEE /542r0 Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems Aspects of both TPC and DFS in D1.0 exceed the scope of the PAR; the extent of the problem in DFS is unclear Does D1.0 meet the PAR? Protocols related to dynamic TPC and power capability in D1.0 exceed the scope of the PAR Protocols related to at least some measurement requests and reports in DFS in D1.0 exceed the scope of the PAR D1.0 exceeds the scope of the TGh PAR It is difficult to evaluate parts of DFS in D1.0 against the scope of the PAR

Submission Page 18 October 2001 doc.: IEEE /542r0 Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems Protocols related to dynamic TPC and power capability in D1.0 exceed the scope of the PAR Within scope of PAR Use of Country elements to define the maximum transmit power by channel Use of Power Constraint elements to define mitigation requirements by channel (by channel provides for the future) Outside scope of PAR Use of support mechanisms for dynamic TPC including: –Transmit power in Service field –Hidden station reporting Use of Power Capability elements to assist range control procedures Status (relative to scope of PAR) subject to debate Use of Country and Power Constraint elements for range control Does D1.0 meet the PAR? - TPC

Submission Page 19 October 2001 doc.: IEEE /542r0 Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems It is difficult to evaluate parts of DFS in D1.0 against the scope of the PAR At least some voters believe the DFS description in D1.0 cannot be properly evaluated in its current state –DFS is incompletely, unclearly and ambiguously specified. There is insufficient clear consistent detail to allow equipment to be designed to the letter of the language contained in the draft text, source: Carlos Rios in a LB comment –The author of this document made a similar LB comment The motivation and usage of many DFS facilities are not included in either the protocol description or accompanying notes, e.g. –BSS bit, QBSS bit, ToDS bit, FromDS bit –Power Level Adjustment, Own Beacon RSSI fields –Total/Unknown RSSRI histogram It is not clear that some DFS facilities will actually assist in detecting licensed users, as required by the regulators, e.g. –Periodicity bit –CCA Busy Fraction/Duration/Interval Does D1.0 meet the PAR? – DFS evaluation

Submission Page 20 October 2001 doc.: IEEE /542r0 Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems Protocols related to at least some measurement requests and reports in DFS in D1.0 exceed the scope of the PAR Within scope of PAR Channel switch announcements Specification of requirement for channel spreading Some of the DFS measurement request and report components Outside scope of PAR Some of the DFS measurement request and report components including: –Extended BSS Reports Status (relative to scope of PAR) subject to debate Supported channel announcements Many of the DFS measurement request and report components –QBSS –ToDs/FromDS –Foreign PLCP Header –Periodicity –Extended CCA Report –Power Level Adjustment –Own Beacon RSSI –Total RSSI histogram Does D1.0 meet the PAR? - DFS

Submission Page 21 October 2001 doc.: IEEE /542r0 Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems Is D1.0 allowed to exceed the PAR? What is the scope of the TGh PAR? Does D1.0 meet the PAR? Is D1.0 allowed to exceed the PAR? Should we remove functionality exceeding the PAR? Continue comment resolution and proceed to next LB Restart the selection process Remove functionality exceeding the PAR Agreed scope No, list of functionality exceeding scope No Yes Should we rewrite the PAR? No Yes Is D1.0 allowed to exceed the PAR? Rewrite the PAR

Submission Page 22 October 2001 doc.: IEEE /542r0 Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems D1.0 should probably not significantly exceed the scope set by the PAR The IEEE standards guide emphasises the importance of the PAR as a legal description of the work of TGh –The PAR is a legal document, signed by the working group chair and the sponsor. It is the means by which the working group gains the umbrella of indemnification from the IEEE. As such, it should never be forgotten –Source: Bob OHara (parliamentarian) believes there is only limited flexibility to exceed the scope of the PAR –To a degree I think that going beyond the strict interpretation of the PAR is OK. However, adding functionality that is not even hinted by the PAR is probably going a bit too far –Source: private , with permission Is D1.0 allowed to exceed the PAR?

Submission Page 23 October 2001 doc.: IEEE /542r0 Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems Should we remove functionality exceeding the PAR? What is the scope of the TGh PAR? Does D1.0 meet the PAR? Is D1.0 allowed to exceed the PAR? Should we remove functionality exceeding the PAR? Continue comment resolution and proceed to next LB Restart the selection process Remove functionality exceeding the PAR Agreed scope No, list of functionality exceeding scope No Yes Should we rewrite the PAR? No Yes Should we remove functionality exceeding the PAR? Rewrite the PAR

Submission Page 24 October 2001 doc.: IEEE /542r0 Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems Removing functionality from D1.0 that exceeds the PAR is a strategic decision with advantages, disadvantages and risks Advantages Simplifies draft considerably, which: –should shorten the definition and approval process –will increase the probability of a correct standard Avoids need to rewrite PAR, and potentially restart entire selection process, which would cause a long delay Risks Could be forced to restart selection process anyway because the original proposals also exceeded the PAR Disadvantages Will lose some useful functionality, potentially forever Another TG will need to be formed to redefine removed useful functionality, thus causing a long delay until this functionality is available The work of any new TG may be constrained by design decisions made by TGh, thus reducing overall system effectiveness Should we remove functionality exceeding the PAR?

Submission Page 25 October 2001 doc.: IEEE /542r0 Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems Should we rewrite the PAR? What is the scope of the TGh PAR? Does D1.0 meet the PAR? Is D1.0 allowed to exceed the PAR? Should we remove functionality exceeding the PAR? Continue comment resolution and proceed to next LB Restart the selection process Remove functionality exceeding the PAR Agreed scope No, list of functionality exceeding scope No Yes Should we rewrite the PAR? No Yes Should we rewrite the PAR? Rewrite the PAR

Submission Page 26 October 2001 doc.: IEEE /542r0 Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems Rewriting the PAR is a strategic decision with advantages, disadvantages Advantages Allows functionality beyond current PAR to be efficiently integrated Avoids need for another TG to define the functionality beyond current PAR, potentially reducing time until all functionality available Disadvantages Increases complexity of draft, which: –will lengthen the definition and approval process, thus delaying a entry into Europe –will decrease the probability of a correct standard Will require the entire selection process to be restarted, which would cause a long delay Should we rewrite the PAR?

Submission Page 27 October 2001 doc.: IEEE /542r0 Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems The author has a personal view of the answers to the posed questions; what do other members of TGh think? What is the scope of the TGh PAR? Does D1.0 meet the PAR? Is D1.0 allowed to exceed the PAR? Should we remove functionality exceeding the PAR? Continue comment resolution and proceed to next LB Restart the selection process Remove functionality exceeding the PAR Agreed scope No, list of functionality exceeding scope No Yes Should we rewrite the PAR? No Yes Personal and group views? Adoption of the authors proposed revision ( r0) OR an equivalent alternative provides the shortest path to enabling a in Europe Rewrite the PAR

Submission Page 28 October 2001 doc.: IEEE /542r0 Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems Adoption of the authors proposed revision or an equivalent alternative provides the shortest path to enabling a in Europe The authors revision ( r0) addresses most issues raised in LB29 … Removes features exceeding PAR –Removes tx power in Service field –Removes hidden station reporting –Removes extended BSS reports Adds features required to satisfy PAR –Adds simple version of DFS in an IBSS –Adds flexibility providing for future changes to the regulations in both DFS and TPC Corrects various protocol errors Improves text description using style and layout compatible with traditions Includes templates for unwritten sections … and yet remains broadly compatible with the original proposals Advantages of adopting authors proposed revision or an equivalent alternative Provides opportunity of moving forward quickly to a standard meeting the PAR –The revision is simple –The revision exists Does not break the development process –the revision is mostly a superset of the original proposal, except where the original proposal exceeded the PAR Avoids changing the PAR, thus reducing risk of having to restart selection process Disadvantages of adopting authors proposed revision or an equivalent alternative Some people feel that the revision or an alternative cannot be adopted without a major delay …? Personal and group views?