1. Agenda for PDED Ad Hoc meeting in San Antonio in September 2016
July 2010
doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0
Agenda for PDED Ad Hoc meeting in San Antonio in September 2016
10 Nov 2016
Authors:
Name
Company
Phone
Andrew Myles
Cisco
Andrew Myles, Cisco
Andrew Myles, Cisco

2. Welcome to the first (last. ) F2F meeting of the IEEE 802
Welcome to the first (last?) F2F meeting of the IEEE PDED Ad Hoc
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
We may be meeting twice this week
Tuesday AM2
Thursday PM1 (may be cancelled if complete work on Tuesday)
Andrew Myles, Cisco

3. 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 session …
… and thanks to Thomas Derham & Dick Roy for volunteering during the teleconferences
The rewards for the Secretary are numerous
Power over the ad hoc
Respect from your peers
… and a beverage from the Chair
Andrew Myles, Cisco

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. The PDED ad hoc will consider a proposed agenda
Bureaucratic stuff
Done!
Why was the PDED ad hoc formed?
Quick summary
What happened at the teleconferences?
What is happening this week?
Presentations (at least one)
What are the next steps?
Possible proposal to Wednesday or Friday plenary
Other business
One item from WG Chair
Any objections to this agenda?
Andrew Myles, Cisco

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

10. The formation of the ad hoc was based on a LS from 3GPP RAN1 and documents presented to 802.19/11
Original liaison from 3GPP RAN1
IEEE 802 liaison to 3GPP RAN
Made original request
IEEE 802 documents pre-ad hoc
by Andrew Myles
Described issue and a variety of possible responses in IEEE WG
by Andrew Myles
Summarised issue for IEEE WG; led to ad hoc
Andrew Myles, Cisco

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. It was noted at the 1st teleconference that EN 301 893 is another reason to consider the ED question
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

17. What happened at the teleconferences?
Andrew Myles, Cisco

18. There have been a series of teleconferences before this plenary meeting in San Antonio
The PDED ad hoc held teleconferences
Tuesday, 27 2pm PT
Tuesday, 4 2pm PT (cancelled; lack of submissions)
Tuesday, 11 2pm PT
Tuesday, 18 2pm PT (cancelled; clashed with WFA meeting)
Tuesday, 25 2pm PT
Tuesday, 1 2pm PT (cancelled; to allow prep for San Antonio)
Andrew Myles, Cisco

19. The first teleconference introduced the group and proposed at least one path forward
First teleconference (27 Sept 2016) details
Agenda
Minutes (any objections to the minutes?)
First teleconference summary
Chair introduced aims of group
Chair summarised the 3GPP RAN1 request for ED of -72dBm
Chair noted that ETSI BRAN activities suggests IEEE is going to have to deal with this issue at some point
Chair suggested an evaluation mechanism based on testing/simulation
Chair made call for submissions/ideas
Andrew Myles, Cisco

20. The third teleconference introduced the group and proposed at least one path forward
Third teleconference (11 Oct 2016) details
Agenda
Minutes (any objections to the minutes?)
Third teleconference summary
Chair introduced aims of group
Brainstorming
PD is important for legacy , and likely for frequency re-use in ax
LAA does not use PD despite previous suggestions from
ETSI not relevant to question about whether PD should be used
Agreed that the RAN1 request for -72dBm is shorthand
Chair made a request for future submissions
Andrew Myles, Cisco

21. The fifth teleconference introduced the group and proposed at least one path forward
Fifth teleconference (25 Oct 2016) details
Agenda
Minutes (any objections to the minutes?)
Fifth teleconference summary
Thomas Derham (Broadcom) presented proposing a response
IEEE 802 should respond to 3GPP stating the request is noted
IEEE 802 should reiterate its position that LAA adopting PD and reservation signaling (e.g. CTS-to-self) is the best solution for coexistence in the 5 GHz band
IEEE 802 and 3GPP may continue to study, communicate and collaborate towards optimizing coexistence between their respective technologies in the 5 GHz band
Thomas agreed to write the first draft of a response
Andrew Myles, Cisco

22. What is happening this week?
Andrew Myles, Cisco

23. What is happening this week? The ad hoc will hear various presentations
“Simulations on the effects of changing the ED threshold from a system performance perspective”
Yuichi Morioka (Sony)
Conclusion of above presentation is
In this contribution, we proposed to reject 3GPP RAN1’s request to change ’s ED threshold from -62dBm to -72dBm
As it is not realistic to change legacy STAs behavior, we analyzed case B) “some STA uses ED of -72dBm”, where ax STAs use the new threshold”
In this coexistence scenario, performance of ax STAs significantly degrade, hence the request to change all new STAs to adopt the new threshold should be rejected
Andrew Myles, Cisco

24. What are the next steps?
Andrew Myles, Cisco

25. What are the next steps? The ad hoc will discuss a variety of approaches
Send short LS now (given lack of additional technical data)
Close ad hoc now
Approach 2
Send longer technical LS later based on additional information
Close ad hoc later
Approach 3
Do nothing now (given lack of additional technical data)
Send longer technical LS later based on additional information
Close ad hoc later
Approach 4
Do nothing now
Close ad hoc
Others?
Andrew Myles, Cisco

26. What are the next steps? The ad hoc will discuss a draft LS to 3GPP RAN1
A draft response to 3GPP RAN1has been developed by Thomas Derham (Broadcom) that is aligned with
See
This approach is also aligned with option 1 or option 2
Thomas Derham is not here this week but the draft will be presented by a colleague from Broadcom
Andrew Myles, Cisco

27. What are the next steps? The ad hoc may consider a motion recommending the draft
The IEEE PDED ad hoc recommends to the IEEE WG that be sent to 3GPP RAN1 in response to their request that IEEE adopt an ED of -72dBm. The Chair of the IEEE PDED ad hoc has editorial license.
Moved:
Seconded:
Result:
Note: anyone in room may vote
Andrew Myles, Cisco

28. Update: the LS to 3GPP RAN1 was approved by the IEEE 802.11 WG
The IEEE WG considered and approved the LS to the 3GPP RAN1 ( after editorial changes)
At the time, the IEEE 802 WG Chair expressed a preference that the LS be sent by the IEEE WG Chair
He has given authority to make the change
Subsequently the IEEE 802 EC Chair expressed a preference the the LS be sent by the IEEE 802 EC Chair
On basis the original LS from 3GPP RAN1 was sent to IEEE 802
The IEEE 802 EC will be considering approval of the LS on Friday
If it is not approved then the LS will be sent by the IEEE WG Chair
Andrew Myles, Cisco

29. What are the next steps? The ad hoc may consider closing down
Assuming the ad hoc recommends sending a short LS …
… what should it do next?
Wait to respond to any 3GPP RAN1 reply
Aim to provide a more detailed response as more information becomes available?
eg simulations
Continue considering the same issue in the context of the next revision of EN , for which an ED of -72dBm (scaled for transmit power) will be considered
The next version requires ED of -72dBm but has an exception for a/n/ac
That exception may not be available for ax unless we make an alternate case
Shut down?
Andrew Myles, Cisco

30. What are the next steps? The ad hoc may consider a motion recommending continuation
The IEEE PDED ad hoc recommends to the IEEE WG that the ad hoc continue its work, with the goals of:
Sending another LS based on more evidence (if it becomes available)
Considering ED/PD in the context of the next revision of EN
Moved:
Seconded:
Result:
Note: anyone in room may vote
Andrew Myles, Cisco

31. What are the next steps? The ad hoc may consider a motion recommending shut down
The IEEE PDED ad hoc recommends to the IEEE WG that the ad hoc shut down
Moved:
Seconded:
Result:
Note: anyone in room may vote
Andrew Myles, Cisco

32. Update: the ad hoc needs a plan if we decide to continue
The ad hoc will need to decide when and how many teleconferences are held
Suggest one or two; maybe one before Christmas and/or one after Christmas
The ad hoc will need to decide when and how many sessions are held in Atlanta
Suggest two; Tuesday and Wednesday
The key to any decision is what work we need to do, which will be driven by whether:
A reply LS is received from 3GPP RAN1
This is up to 3GPP RAN; when is their next meeting?
Further simulation work is submitted
Does Yuichi Morioka (Sony) have plans?
Someone provides a summary of the EN situation
Andrew Myles (Cisco) volunteers!
Andrew Myles, Cisco

33. Other business?
Andrew Myles, Cisco

34. The IEEE 802.11 Chair has asked the ad hoc for a recommendation on recent 3GPP RAN LS
The IEEE Chair has asked the IEEE 802 PDED ad hoc to consider a response to 3GPP RAN1’s LS
This is the LS in which 3GPP RAN1 told us they do not yet have an answer to IEEE 802’s original LS on open LAA technical issues
The PDED ad hoc Chair’s intuition is either we should:
Do nothing (beyond asking the WG Chair to send an acknowledging receipt)
Send a response highlighting the important of closing these issues before Rel 13 is completed and encouraging 3GPP RAN1 to send us proposals for closing the issues ASAP
Other views are invited, as are proposals for resolution
Andrew Myles, Cisco

35. Other business? The ad hoc may consider a motion relating to 3GPP RAN1’s LS 16-11-1343
The IEEE PDED ad hoc recommends to the IEEE WG not to respond to 3GPP RAN1’s LS at this time
Moved:
Seconded:
Result:
Note: anyone in room may vote
Andrew Myles, Cisco

36. The PDED ad hoc meeting is adjourned!
Andrew Myles, Cisco