1. Agenda for PDED Ad Hoc teleconference on 27 September 2016
July 2010
doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0
Agenda for PDED Ad Hoc teleconference on 27 September 2016
21 Sep 2016
Authors:
Name
Company
Phone
Andrew Myles
Cisco
Andrew Myles, Cisco
Andrew Myles, Cisco

2. Welcome to the first teleconference of the IEEE 802.11 PDED Ad Hoc
This group is the IEEE PDED Ad Hoc and not the IEEE EDPD Ad Hoc which is used in the calling the teleconference
PDED stands for Preamble Detect Energy Detect
PDED is an attempt to encapsulate the goal of the group …
… which is to discuss issues related to the 3GPP RAN1 request to IEEE WG to adopt an ED of -72dBm
The IEEE PDED Ad Hoc was formed in September 2016 at the Warsaw interim meeting
Andrew Myles was appointed as Chair
Andrew Myles, Cisco

3. There will be weekly teleconferences as necessary and two sessions at the plenary in San Antonio
The PDED ad hoc Chair has given notice of weekly teleconferences
Tuesday, 27 2pm PT
Tuesday, 4 2pm PT
Tuesday, 11 2pm PT
Tuesday, 18 2pm PT (cancelled; clashes with WFA meeting in Madrid)
Tuesday, 25 2pm PT
Tuesday, 1 2pm PT
The PDED ad hoc Chair has requested two session slots in San Antonio
Tuesday AM2
Thursday PM1
Teleconferences and sessions will be cancelled if there is insufficient material
Andrew Myles, Cisco

4. There will be no recording of any PDED ad hoc teleconference or meeting
The providing the Webex details of this teleconference included the following text
Please note that this WebEx service allows audio and other information sent during the session to be recorded, which may be discoverable in a legal matter. By joining this session, you automatically consent to such recordings. If you do not consent to being recorded, discuss your concerns with the host or do not join the session
It has been noted by the IEEE WG Chair that such recordings are not allowed under WG rules
All PDED ad hoc participants can be assured that there will be no recording of this teleconference
The text above was auto-generated, and accidently not deleted
Andrew Myles, Cisco

5. The first task for the PDED ad hoc today is to appoint a secretary
It is important to keep proper minutes of all PDED meetings
However, it is generally not practical to Chair a meeting and take minutes at the same time
Especially without a recording 
Therefore we need a volunteer for a Secretary
At least for this teleconference …
… although a longer term secretary is even better
The rewards for the Secretary are numerous
Power over the ad hoc
Respect from your peers
… and a beverage from the Chair in San Antonio
Andrew Myles, Cisco

6. For attendance recording purposes please send an e-mail to the Chair
It would be useful to know who & how many are in attendance on this call
Please send an “I am attending PDED ad hoc” to:
<secretaries >
Andrew Myles, Cisco

7. The PDED ad hoc will review the official IEEE-SA patent material for pre-PAR groups
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.
Andrew Myles, Cisco

8. The PDED ad hoc will review the official IEEE-SA patent material for pre-PAR groups
If you have questions:
Contact the IEEE-SA Standards Board Patent Committee Administrator at
Visit standards.ieee.org/about/sasb/patcom/index.html
See IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, clause and “Promoting Competition and Innovation: What You Need to Know about the IEEE Standards Association's Antitrust and Competition Policy” for more details.
This slide set is available at:
development.standards.ieee.org/myproject/Public/mytools/mob/slideset.ppt
Andrew Myles, Cisco

9. Links are available to a variety of other useful resources
July 2010
doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0
Links are available to a variety of other useful resources
Link to IEEE Disclosure of Affiliation
Links to IEEE Antitrust Guidelines
Link to IEEE Code of Ethics
Link to IEEE Patent Policy
Andrew Myles, Cisco
Andrew Myles, Cisco

10. July 2010
doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0
The PDED ad hoc will operate using accepted principles of meeting etiquette
IEEE 802 is a world-wide professional technical organization
Meetings shall be conducted in an orderly and professional manner in accordance with the policies and procedures governed by the organization
Individuals shall address the “technical” content of the subject under consideration and refrain from making “personal” comments to or about others
Andrew Myles, Cisco
Andrew Myles, Cisco

11. The PDED ad hoc will consider a proposed agenda
Bureaucratic stuff – done!
Why was the PDED ad hoc formed?
What is one possible path for the PDED ad hoc?
Are they any other submissions today?
Will participants be willing to make future submissions?
Any objections to this agenda?
Andrew Myles, Cisco

12. Why was the PDED ad hoc formed?
Andrew Myles, Cisco

13. 3GPP RAN1 & IEEE 802 are having an ongoing discussion related to LAA’s ED threshold
From
The IEEE 802 review of LAA Rel. 13 resulted in IEEE 802 requesting 3GPP RAN1 to make LAA more sensitive to transmissions:
See Comment 3 in for details (March 2016)
3GPP RAN1 rejected the request on the basis that they have had considerable debate and have agreed there is not a problem, but without responding to the particular issues raised by IEEE 802
See Response 3 in R (June 2016)
IEEE 802 responded by noting that 3GPP RAN1’s assertions are based on invalid assumptions about common deployments and asking 3GPP RAN1 to rerun their simulations with more realistic assumptions
See IEEE 802 liaison to 3GPP RAN (August 2016)
The issue is currently still open and unresolved …
Andrew Myles, Cisco

14. 3GPP RAN1 are now requesting that 802
3GPP RAN1 are now requesting that also adopt a lowered ED threshold of -72dBm
From
In R (June 2016), 3GPP RAN1 further suggested that be redefined to also use an ED of -72dBm in the future ...
… rather than the currently defined ED of -62dBm (and PD of -82dBm)
Such a change would mean that would defer to LAA (and ) at the same ED threshold that LAA currently defers to
RAN1 respectfully requests future IEEE technologies to align the energy detection threshold used with other technologies operating in the same unlicensed band, e.g., -72 dBm.
An energy detection threshold of -72 dBm has been chosen by 3GPP for Rel-13 LAA also with an interest in aligning with other technologies in the future.
Andrew Myles, Cisco

15. IEEE 802 have not yet responded to 3GPP RAN1’s request for 802
IEEE 802 have not yet responded to 3GPP RAN1’s request for to use ED threshold of -72dBm
From
In July 2016, IEEE WG focused on responding to 3GPP RAN1’s responses on the twelve open issues in IEEE 802’s March 2016 liaison
It did not respond to 3GPP RAN1’s request for ED = -72dBm
In Sept 2016, a thought piece was presented to IEEE WG that discussed some possible responses to 3GPP RAN1’s request
See (by Andrew Myles, the author of this summary)
After discussion in the IEEE WG, there was consensus that the request really needs to be considered by IEEE WG
It is probably of particular interest to IEEE TGax from a technical perspective
A timely response probably requires IEEE 802 to develop a response out of the Nov 2016 plenary
Although it was suggested by an participant that IEEE 802 could simply ignore the request
Andrew Myles, Cisco

16. There are many related issues that need to be addressed before responding to 3GPP RAN1
From
Some potential related (mostly technical) issues
What is the effect of ED = -72dBm on billions of legacy devices?
Does an ED = -72 dBm make sense when ax is focusing on improved frequency reuse?
Should IEEE 802 continue recommending that LAA should be more sensitive to transmissions?
Should IEEE 802 recommend that LAA adopt ED/PD levels?
Should IEEE 802 recommend that LAA use preambles (or CTS-to-self wrappers) to make it easier for to detect LAA?
How should IEEE 802 deal with related proposals in ETSI BRAN that the next revision of EN specify an ED = -72dBm? …
Andrew Myles, Cisco

17. How should IEEE 802.11 WG consider the issues related to 3GPP RAN1’s request for a new 802.11 ED?
From
Some options for IEEE WG action (out of Nov plenary?)
Do nothing - few
Leave it to IEEE WG - none
Ask IEEE TGax to consider the request - some
And associated issues
Establish an IEEE WG ad hoc to consider the request - many
… others?
Votes for different option during straw poll during Wednesday plenary in Warsaw (from memory)
Andrew Myles, Cisco

18. EN 301 893 is another reason to consider the question of an ED of -72dBm now
The next version of EN is likely to require an ED of -72dBm, but has an exception to allow ED of -62dBm for IEEE ac
EN documents requirements for Europe and other parts of the world
The following version of EN may require an ED of -72dBm, with no exception for any version if IEEE ax
This is subject to an evaluation at the time
The blanket rule is in the interests of “technology neutrality”
This suggests it might be a good idea to evaluate the pro’s and con’s of an ED of -72dBm now
It will inform development efforts for IEEE 802.1ax in general but particularly in the context of frequency reuse
It will inform the ETSI BRAN evaluation of the next EN revision …
Andrew Myles, Cisco

19. One anonymous stakeholder (not Cisco) has provided some potential answers already
Will an ED = -72dBm cause any issues with plans for IEEE ax?
There will be issues with the Spatial Reuse features being developed in 11ax which uses variable thresholds for spatial reuse gains (it would result in diminished gains).
 Should IEEE 802 respond to the 3GPP RAN request?
 Yes, IEEE should respond to 3GPP
While based devices will need to meet relevant requirements in regulatory domains, it is undesirable for specification to adopt a lower ED threshold because it already incorporates a preamble detection mechanism that is highly sensitive (10x more sensitive than -72 dBm ED would be) and supported by billions of devices already in active use
Per above, IEEE notes that this simple mechanism can be reused by LAA devices to achieve equal and equitable sharing of the channel between all LAA and devices, including both 11ax and legacy.
Andrew Myles, Cisco

20. What is one possible path for the PDED ad hoc? Andrew Myles (Cisco)

21. Questions need to be answered, possibly using simulation and testing
A variety of questions must be resolved before 3GPP RAN1’s request can be accepted (or rejected)
Investigation of the effect of ED of -72dBm could be undertaken using devices
At least three experiments (by simulation and/or testing) are suggested to provide a basis to respond to the 3GPP RAN1 request
What happens if all Wi-Fi uses ED of -72dBm
What happens if some Wi-Fi uses ED of -72dBm
What happens if both LAA and Wi-Fi operate at ED of -72dBm but with no PD communication
Control: ED/PD using today’s thresholds
This investigation approach will require support from volunteers with good simulation or test setups
Andrew Myles, Cisco

22. A variety of questions must be resolved before 3GPP RAN1’s request can be accepted (or rejected)
Suppose we accepted the 3GPP RAN1 request for …
… future IEEE technologies to align the energy detection threshold used with other technologies operating in the same unlicensed band, e.g., -72 dBm
This would effectively mean new versions of would
Defer to preambles above -82dBm (using frame lengths)
Defer to any energy above -72dBm when a preamble is not detected
This raises a whole range of questions, including
What is the effect of this change on billions legacy devices?
Does the performance of new devices suffer significantly?
For both questions above the answer would probably need to be “not much” for the 3GPP RAN1 request to be accepted by the WG and by the greater community
Assuming legacy devices matter!
Andrew Myles, Cisco

23. Investigation of the effect of ED of -72dBm could be undertaken using 802.11 devices
One possibility to investigate the affect of an ED of -72dBm is to run a simulations (OK) or experiments (better) using:
“Legacy” devices implementing ED/PD of -62dBm/-82dBm
“New” devices implementing ED/PD of -72dBm/-82dBm
LAA devices implementing ED -72dBm only (no LAA PD?)
Some problems with this approach include:
LAA devices do not yet exist
Proven/credible/reviewed LAA simulations do not yet exist
The use of LAA devices adds another dimension of complexity without necessarily providing additional insight
These problems suggest an approach whereby the request from 3GPP RAN1 is investigated and insight obtained using devices only
With appropriate modifications
With some modified devices acting as proxies for LAA devices
Andrew Myles, Cisco

24. At least three experiments are suggested to provide a basis to respond to the 3GPP RAN1 request
There are at least three questions that could be investigated by real or simulation experiment:
Will ED of -72dBm make performance in a “new” only scenario worse in the future than is the case today?
Will ED of -72dBm make performance in a mixed scenario (some using -72dBm and others using -62dBm) worse in the future than is the case today?
Will ED of -72dBm make performance in an “new” /“proxy” LAA scenario worse in the future than is the case today?
If the answer to any of these questions (in a reasonable, typical deployment configuration) is “yes” then WG should probably reject 3GPP RAN1’s request
If the answer to the last question is “yes” then WG should probably ask 3GPP RAN1 to adopt preamble detection (and transmission)
Andrew Myles, Cisco

25. Will ED of -72dBm make performance in a “new” 802
Will ED of -72dBm make performance in a “new” only scenario worse in the future?
Experiment 1 (simulation or real)
All devices use ED/PD = -72dBm/-82dBm
This is equivalent to a “new” device only scenario
The control is where all devices use ED/PD = -62dBm/-82dBm
This is equivalent to a “legacy” device only scenario
Question for investigation
Is there any reasonable common deployment scenario where the “new” devices have significantly less performance than the “legacy” devices?
Andrew Myles, Cisco

26. Will ED of -72dBm make performance in a mixed 802
Will ED of -72dBm make performance in a mixed scenario worse in the future?
Experiment 2 (simulation or real)
A proportion of devices use ED/PD = -72dBm/-82dBm, while the rest use ED/PD = -62dBm/-82dBm
This is equivalent to a mixed device scenario of legacy and “new” devices
Different experiments could be run using a variety of proportions
The control is where all devices use ED/PD = -62dBm/-82dBm
Question for investigation
Is there any reasonable common deployment scenario where the devices in the mixed environment have significantly less performance than the control environment?
Andrew Myles, Cisco

27. Will ED of -72dBm make performance in an “new” 802
Will ED of -72dBm make performance in an “new” /“proxy” LAA scenario worse in the future?
Experiment 3 (simulation or real)
Two groups of devices use ED/PD = -72dBm/-82dBm, but arranged so devices only recognise PD from their group
This is equivalent to a “new” /”proxy” LAA device scenario
The simulation should account for uncertain edges when only using ED to capture the potential for ALOHA like access (rather than slotted ALOHA)
Different experiments could be run using a variety of proportions for the two groups
The control is where all devices use ED/PD = -62dBm/-82dBm
Question for investigation
Is there any reasonable common deployment scenario where the devices in the “new” /”proxy” LAA environment have significantly less performance than the control environment?
Andrew Myles, Cisco

28. This investigation approach will require support from volunteers with good simulation or test setups
The experiments in the previous pages are just a suggested starting point – they could be modified or extended …
… are there any comments/suggestions/extensions?
Regardless of the final set of agreed experiments, someone needs to run them with real equipment or with simulations
The author of these slides is looking for volunteers to run these experiments and/or simulations …
… are there any volunteers with appropriately sophisticated simulation or test setups?
Andrew Myles, Cisco

29. Are they any other submissions today?
Andrew Myles, Cisco

30. Are they any other submissions today?
None known as this time
Andrew Myles, Cisco

31. Are participants planning to make future submissions?
Andrew Myles, Cisco

32. Are participants planning to make future submissions?
Please request time on the next agenda as soon as possible
If no submissions are available by CoB on Monday the next call will be cancelled
Andrew Myles, Cisco

33. The PDED ad hoc teleconference is adjourned!
Reminder: please send an “I am attending PDED ad hoc” to:
<secretaries >
Andrew Myles, Cisco