1. May 2005
doc.: IEEE /0453r1
May 2005
802 ExCom should reject the proposed 802.1AM PAR and 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 < ieee802.org/guides/bylaws/sb-bylaws.pdf>, 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
Andrew Myles, Cisco
Andrew Myles, Cisco

2. May 2005
doc.: IEEE /0453r1
May 2005
ExCom should reject the 802.1AM proposal, instead promoting manageability of all wireless standards
802.1 are proposing a PAR for common RF management
802.1 are proposing that 802.1AM develop media independent RF management protocols
The 802.1AM proposal was inspired by a Backes & Montemurro tutorial in San Antonio in Nov 04
All 802 WG’s have an opportunity to comment on the 802.1AM PAR & 5 criteria before ExCom in July
What should 802 ExCom do?
should ask 802 ExCom to reject the 802.1AM PAR & 5 criteria
802 should encourage the wireless WG’s to ensure wireless networks are manageable
Andrew Myles, Cisco
Andrew Myles, Cisco

3. May 2005
doc.: IEEE /0453r1
May 2005
ExCom should reject the 802.1AM proposal, instead promoting manageability of all wireless standards
What did the Architecture ad hoc “decide” on 17 May?
Reject the 802.1AM PAR
Wireless cooperation is required to develop a “common language”
Establish a new wireless SG to consider these problems
What should do next?
Discuss the issue with other wireless WGs
Process started last night
Create a detailed set of comments for 802.1AM in July
Andrew Myles volunteers to create
Needs to be approved by on the Monday in San Francisco
Develop an outline for a new wireless SG
Ask the Chair to vote against the .1AM PAR in ExCom
Does the Chair want to be “directed”?
Update on 18 May
Andrew Myles, Cisco
Andrew Myles, Cisco

4. May 2005
doc.: IEEE /0453r1
May 2005
802.1 are proposing that 802.1AM develop media independent RF management protocols
The PAR proposes a purpose
There is currently no defined, common method for RF management or statistics reporting across IEEE 802 wireless MACs
Each working group has created separate definitions for receive signal quality, transmit power, channel numbers, etc
This effort provides enhancements for a consistent management service interface across all 802 wireless standards
The PAR proposes a reason
There is a market need for RF management, given the widespread use of incompatible wireless 802 networks operating in the same frequencies
The ability to control channel selection and adjust transmit power, or view RF characteristics in a consistent way does not exist today
Common management and configuration algorithms are essential to the long term viability of a heterogeneous LAN
Andrew Myles, Cisco
Andrew Myles, Cisco

5. May 2005
doc.: IEEE /0453r1
May 2005
The 802.1AM proposal was inspired by the Backes & Montemurro tutorial in San Antonio in Nov 04
The claimed problem
The tutorial claims interoperable wireless network management is currently impossible
A quote from tutorial states, “The lack of a standard RF management interface for different implementations of a given MAC as well as different wireless MACs prohibits multi vendor, interoperable wireless network management”
The claimed solution
The tutorial claims common management and common configuration algorithms are necessary
A quote from tutorial states, “Common management and common configuration algorithms are essential to the long term viability of heterogeneous LAN”
Andrew Myles, Cisco
Andrew Myles, Cisco

6. May 2005
doc.: IEEE /0453r1
May 2005
All 802 WG’s have an opportunity to comment on the 802.1AM PAR & 5 criteria before ExCom in July
Nov 04
Jan - Mar 05
May 05
July 05
San Antonio
Monterey - Atlanta
Cairns
San Francisco
Tutorial presented by:
Floyd Backes (Propagate)
Michael Montemurro (Chantry)
802.1 developed and approved:
PAR
5 criteria
Other 802 WGs have an opportunity to comment
Other 802 WGs have an opportunity to comment
PAR & 5 criteria submitted to ExCom for approval
We are here!
Andrew Myles, Cisco
Andrew Myles, Cisco

7. 802.11 should ask 802 ExCom to reject the 802.1AM PAR & 5 criteria
May 2005
doc.: IEEE /0453r1
May 2005
should ask 802 ExCom to reject the 802.1AM PAR & 5 criteria
A common management interface is not necessary for interoperable wireless management
A common management interface is likely to lack useful functionality or constrain other standards
The claim that there is wide interest in the 802.1AM approach is misleading
often provides a better approach to heterogeneous WLAN management than 802.1AM
802.1 did not discuss this PAR with the wireless WG’s
802.1 does not have the appropriate expertise to execute this proposal successfully
Andrew Myles, Cisco
Andrew Myles, Cisco

8. May 2005
doc.: IEEE /0453r1
May 2005
A common management interface is not necessary for interoperable wireless management
The PAR & tutorial claim
The tutorial claims the lack of a standard (& common) RF management interface prohibits multi vendor, interoperable wireless network management
The rebuttal
An interoperable management system could easily be constructed using a system that understood and leverages the unique management interfaces to each of , , etc
Andrew Myles, Cisco
Andrew Myles, Cisco

9. Simple but less functional manager Complex but more functional manager
May 2005
doc.: IEEE /0453r1
May 2005
A common management interface is not necessary for interoperable wireless management
802.1AM
approach
Simple but less functional manager
Common
management
interfaces
.1AM
.1AM
.1AM
.1AM
802.1AM
agent
802.1AM
agent
802.1AM
agent
802.1AM
agent
802.11
802.15
802.16
802.20
802.11
agent
802.15
agent
802.16
agent
802.20
agent
Dedicated
management
interfaces
.11
.15
.16
.20
Alternate
approach
Complex but more functional manager
Andrew Myles, Cisco
Andrew Myles, Cisco

10. May 2005
doc.: IEEE /0453r1
May 2005
A common management interface is likely to lack useful functionality or constrain other standards
The PAR claim
The PAR claims that a standard (& common) RF management interface is a “good thing”
The rebuttal
Many people at the tutorial believed this work would likely result in relatively useless a “lowest common denominator” system that does not account for the unique properties of each of the wireless standards
A more useful system (probably a superset of existing management mechanisms) would require changes to current standards and thus impose unacceptable constraints on the development of these standards
Andrew Myles, Cisco
Andrew Myles, Cisco

11. May 2005
doc.: IEEE /0453r1
May 2005
The claim that there is wide interest in the 802.1AM approach is misleading
The 5 criteria claim
The 5 criteria claims, “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”
The rebuttal
It is probably true that vendors and users have expressed interest in a common interface because it an “nice ideal”
However, given a “lowest common denominator” system or a system requiring changes to multiple standards, the proposal is far less attractive
It is also worth noting that the audience at the tutorial in San Antonio voted against this concept in a straw poll
Andrew Myles, Cisco
Andrew Myles, Cisco

12. May 2005
doc.: IEEE /0453r1
May 2005
often provides a better approach to heterogeneous WLAN management than 802.1AM
The PAR claim
The PAR claims common management & configuration algorithms are essential to the long term viability of a heterogeneous LAN
The rebuttal
The most interesting problems will often occur in unlicensed spectrum
In this environment a system will often not have the administrative control required to manage heterogeneous WLANs in the way envisaged by 802.1AM
A better approach might to rely on to encourage coexistence, which can often be achieved without the need for explicit management messages
Andrew Myles, Cisco
Andrew Myles, Cisco

13. 802.1 did not discuss this PAR with the wireless WG’s
May 2005
doc.: IEEE /0453r1
May 2005
802.1 did not discuss this PAR with the wireless WG’s
The situation
The PAR was inspired by a tutorial in Nov 04
At this time a straw poll indicated broad lack of interest
Many people assumed the proposal was “dead”
The problem
The group started developing a PAR in relative “secrecy”
Certainly there was no request for close cooperation to the various wireless WG’s, who are clearly important stakeholders
Most wireless WG members only became aware of the PAR in recent weeks once the PAR was complete
Andrew Myles, Cisco
Andrew Myles, Cisco

14. May 2005
doc.: IEEE /0453r1
May 2005
802.1 does not have the appropriate expertise to execute this proposal successfully
The tutorial claim
The tutorial claims is the logical place to work on management applications because it has the most:
protocol expertise
management expertise
The rebuttal
It is arguable whether or not has the most protocol expertise
However, while does have significant management expertise, it has virtually no wireless expertise
Very detailed knowledge of , , , etc will be required to execute this project, and it is unlikely to be available to from other WG’s
Andrew Myles, Cisco
Andrew Myles, Cisco

15. May 2005
doc.: IEEE /0453r1
May 2005
802 should encourage the wireless WG’s to ensure wireless networks are manageable
The 802.1AM proposal is not useful, except as a low functionality “lowest common denominator” solution
However, it is important to ensure wireless networks are manageable when appropriate and possible
802 ExCom should continue to encourage the 802 wireless WG’s to ensure their systems are manageable
is already taking the first steps down this road with:
802.11d (Regulatory management)
802.11h (Spectrum management
802.11k (Radio measurement)
802.11v (Wireless management) …
After and the other wireless WG’s have “learnt to walk” they should (eventually) refine the interfaces for the use of external managers
Andrew Myles, Cisco
Andrew Myles, Cisco

16. The Architecture ad hoc on 17 May “suggested” some next steps …
doc.: IEEE /0453r1
May 2005
The Architecture ad hoc on 17 May “suggested” some next steps …
Ad hoc rejected the .1AM PAR
The ad hoc voted overwhelmingly to not support the 802.1AM PAR
3/20/13
Ad hoc want something done
The ad hoc voted that something needs to be done by the wireless groups to define a “common language”
Don’t recall exact words or vote
Ad hoc suggested a new SG
The joint wireless systems SG would address common 802 wireless issues
Should focus on cooperation between wireless groups
Might lead to formation of a TAG or WG or SC or TGs
Should support coexistence of handoff efforts, not duplicating
Consider developing a common language for communicating operational characteristics and status if dissimilar wireless systems
Andrew Myles, Cisco
Andrew Myles, Cisco