1. New WG PARs that WG11 must consider in March 2009
doc.: IEEE /0356r0
March 2009
New WG PARs that WG11 must consider in March 2009
Date:
Authors:
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

2. March 2009
doc.: IEEE /0356r0
March 2009
Abstract
This document contains the comment responses received from members of WG. The WG has requested that this submission be used as the WG response to the new 802 PARs that were under consideration for March 2009.
The responses from the different WGs are captured starting in Slide 16.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

3. From Monday Agenda 4.1.5 New WG PARs that WG11 must consider in March
doc.: IEEE /0356r0
March 2009
From Monday Agenda New WG PARs that WG11 must consider in March
WG : Support for Emergency Services
The PAR and 5C can be found at:
WG : Multi-Radio Power Management
WG : TV WhiteSpace PAR Amendment to add mobile and portable device functionality
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

4. From Monday Agenda 4.1.5 New WG PARs that WG11 must consider in March
802.3ad PAR for Priority-based Flow Control MAC Control Frame
This proposed PAR is to add a MAC Control Frame to IEEE to support 802.1Qbb Priority-based Flow Control. Note that the Working Group will be responsible for this PAR. As usual when doing a cross group PAR, voters who request it will be added to the Working Group voting pool on this project.
The PAR is at:
Since this PAR is to support the 802.1Qbb PAR, the same 5 criteria applies to it:
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

5. From Monday Agenda item 4.1.6 March 2009 - Tutorials
doc.: IEEE /0356r0
March 2009
From Monday Agenda item March Tutorials
Monday, March 9, 2009
Tutorial #1 (6:30 pm): Multi-radio Power Conservation Management sponsored by Vivek Gupta
Dennis Edwards - CoCo Communications
Junghoon Jee - ETRI
H Anthony Chan - Huawei Technology
Call for interest (8:00 pm): IEEE Support for IEEE 802.1AS Time and Synchronization
Steve Carlson - High Speed Design
David Law - IEEE WG Chair
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Tutorial #2 (6:30 pm): White Space Tutorial
Matthew Sherman - BAE Systems
Tutorial #3 (9:00 pm): IEEE-SA Patent Pool Collaboration with Via Licensing
Edward Rashba - IEEE Standards Association
Torey Bruno - Via Licensing
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

6. Feedback to 802.1/802.3 No comment feedback received. March 2009
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

7. 802.21 PAR Feedback (1) 802.21 WG : Multi-Radio Power Management
March 2009
PAR Feedback (1)
WG : Multi-Radio Power Management
General comment:
If you are managing Watts, then measure Watts.
Power consumption is not generally available from Radio interfaces, so it is not meaningful to manage power control using measurements that are not available. (802.2 LLC does not expose power consumption).
Multiple Radio Power Management does not belong in
Handover control is not the same as Power management.
Power management in a client is truly an implementation issue not a standardization issue
The 5C provide insufficient justification for starting this project.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

8. 802.21 PAR Feedback (2) 802.21 WG : Support for Emergency Services
March 2009
PAR Feedback (2)
WG : Support for Emergency Services
General comments:
Emergency Services (E-911, PSAP, etc) are important services that may benefit from standardization. This needs to start soon, but we do not believe that is not the proper place.
We suggest that a separate 802 WG be considered to allow the autonomy and focus necessary to create a standard in a timely manner. This WG would also need to ensure cooperation and coexistence with the other 802 WGs.
The PAR should be broken up into 3 separate destinct PARS
1-- Client to Authority (E-911)
2 – Authority to client (emergency warning broadcast – Amber alert)
3 – Authority to Authority (network prioritization and control)
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

9. 802.21 PAR Feedback (3) 802.21 WG : Support for Emergency Services
March 2009
PAR Feedback (3)
WG : Support for Emergency Services
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

10. 802.22a PAR Feedback Comments (1)
March 2009
802.22a PAR Feedback Comments (1)
General comment: is described as a Regional Area Network that is reusing the TV Bands. All PARs from this WG should reflect this in their scope and purpose.
5.1 – The Number of people claimed in the PAR does not match current voter list numbers or attendees of recent meetings of Please explain the number of Attendees used.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

11. 802.22a PAR Feedback Comments (2)
March 2009
802.22a PAR Feedback Comments (2)
5.2 – Information indicating the restricted network area that is envisioned should be added. Suggested change “…Operation is limited to operation in regional area networks utilizing the TV bands between….”
5.3 – The PAR claims that work needs to start now so that changes to the current draft can be identified prior to completion of the base draft; however, this suggests that the PAR for the base standard should be revised. Suggest that a PAR revision be considered prior to requesting This new PAR.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

12. 802.22a PAR Feedback Comments (3)
March 2009
802.22a PAR Feedback Comments (3)
5C: Broad Market Potential
The first three paragraphs address the fixed standard, not the topic of this 5C. It is very unclear that there is a broad market for fixed in United States under the FCC rules. Nothing here addresses whether the fixed vendors will also vend mobile and portable user terminals, and nothing addresses the cost benefits of volume production (see Technical Feasibility). While and vendors are in volume production, vendors are not. Nothing addresses whether silicon vendors who already have PAN, LAN and MAN circuits in their products would add another LAN or PAN for this band, when the others could be used.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

13. 802.22a PAR Feedback Comments (4)
March 2009
802.22a PAR Feedback Comments (4)
5C: Compatibility
This paragraph addresses the fixed standard, not the topic of this 5C.
5C: Distinct Identity
Distinct Identify has not been established.
For example, provides means to operate in bands with fixed and mobile licensed devices (see Technical Feasibility) y provides the control means for a database to allow operation on white space channels at a location, and to control power level and other operational characteristics. It is clear that a mobile and personal devices will use shorter symbol times than fixed devices, and it is not clear how they differ from h mobile and portable devices.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

14. 802.22a PAR Feedback Comments (5)
March 2009
802.22a PAR Feedback Comments (5)
5C: Technical Feasibility:
VHF is not allowed for personal/portable operation, only TV channels in lower UHF.
.16/.22 type protocols which are optimized for licensed bands, and yet are being applied to unlicensed bands. For Example, the sharing of the overlap RF coverage areas will degrade faster with a .16/.22 type protocol than a .11 protocol.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

15. March 2009
References
11-09/0286r3 r0 r0
r0 and 0030r1
802.3 and docs:
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

16. March 2009
Responses for 802.3bd MAC Control Frame for Priority-based Flow Control
We received the following comments on the PAR from 802.3: 5.6 Why isn't listed as a stakeholder? IEEE is the registration authority for allocation of MAC Control Opcodes Please add the following text: "Although the project is being done in 802.1, controls the registry for code space in this area. Code points are not assigned until Sponsor Ballot. When the draft goes to Sponsor ballot, IEEE will allocate a value for the Opcode." We accepted the comments. The updated PAR is at: There were no changes to the 5 Criteria. Pat Thaler
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

17. March 2009
Response from
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gerald Chouinard"
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, :27 PM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Feedback on PARs from
Thank you for the comments from   You will find the responses from inserted in blue in the attached version of your Powerpoint document. Gerald
Note that the response is included here as slide
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

18. 802.22a PAR Feedback Comments (1)
March 2009
802.22a PAR Feedback Comments (1)
General comment: is described as a Regional Area Network that is reusing the TV Bands. All PARs from this WG should reflect this in their scope and purpose.
Agreed. Modifications can be made accordingly.
5.1 – The Number of people claimed in the PAR does not match current voter list numbers or attendees of recent meetings of Please explain the number of Attendees used.
The number stated reflects maximum attendance reached over the 4 years of the WG. It has decreased lately but is expected to pick up when mobile and portable applications are considered.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

19. 802.22a PAR Feedback Comments (2)
March 2009
802.22a PAR Feedback Comments (2)
5.2 – Information indicating the restricted network area that is envisioned should be added. Suggested change “…Operation is limited to operation in regional area networks utilizing the TV bands between….”
Counter proposal: “ …operation in TV bands where spectrum is available between…” Actual operation would not be limited geographically but spectrally.
5.3 – The PAR claims that work needs to start now so that changes to the current draft can be identified prior to completion of the base draft; however, this suggests that the PAR for the base standard should be revised. Suggest that a PAR revision be considered prior to requesting This new PAR.
Fair comment. This could be done if this is the wish of the EC.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

20. 802.22a PAR Feedback Comments (3)
March 2009
802.22a PAR Feedback Comments (3)
5C: Broad Market Potential
The first three paragraphs address the fixed standard, not the topic of this 5C. It is very unclear that there is a broad market for fixed in United States under the FCC rules. Channels 2 to 20 will be available for fixed operation only, likely for bringing broadband access to underserved rural areas. Is IEEE 802 limited to financial viability aspects or can societal aspects come into play?
Nothing here addresses whether the fixed vendors will also vend mobile and portable user terminals, and nothing addresses the cost benefits of volume production (see Technical Feasibility). While and vendors are in volume production, vendors are not. Nothing addresses whether silicon vendors who already have PAN, LAN and MAN circuits in their products would add another LAN or PAN for this band, when the others could be used.
Physics is such that the optimum technical parameters are different in the use of lower frequencies such as VHF and low-UHF as compared to 2.4 GHz and higher (Doppler, antenna directivity, multipath, coverage). Use of current PAN, LAN and MAN circuits would be sub-optimum for appropriate operation in these lower frequency bands.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

21. 802.22a PAR Feedback Comments (4)
March 2009
802.22a PAR Feedback Comments (4)
5C: Compatibility
This paragraph addresses the fixed standard, not the topic of this 5C.
Same advantage as for the fixed operation will apply to the mobile and portable applications. Intent is to comply with
5C: Distinct Identity
Distinct Identify has not been established.
For example, provides means to operate in bands with fixed and mobile licensed devices (see Technical Feasibility) y provides the control means for a database to allow operation on white space channels at a location, and to control power level and other operational characteristics. It is clear that a mobile and personal devices will use shorter symbol times than fixed devices, and it is not clear how they differ from h mobile and portable devices.
802.22a expect to use the same symbol time as to be fully compatible and the lower frequencies allow sufficient speed for vehicular application.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

22. 802.22a PAR Feedback Comments (5)
March 2009
802.22a PAR Feedback Comments (5)
5C: Technical Feasibility:
VHF is not allowed for personal/portable operation, only TV channels in lower UHF.
Correct. Not clear what is the point.
.16/.22 type protocols which are optimized for licensed bands, and yet are being applied to unlicensed bands.
includes the necessary capabilities for sensing incumbents (database and sensing management control, synchronization of sufficiently large quiet periods and inter-cell exchange of information.
For Example, the sharing of the overlap RF coverage areas will degrade faster with a .16/.22 type protocol than a .11 protocol.
Coexistence schemes are being developed in to improve the situation and they will be applied to a.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

23. 802.21 Emergency Services March 2009 ----- Original Message -----
From: "Gupta, Vivek G"
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, :15 PM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] PAR on Emergency Services for March 2009 (Vancouver)
Dear EC Members,
Emergency Services Study Group has addressed all the received comments. Please find the updated PAR and 5C at: And the responses to comments at:
Best Regards Vivek
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

24. March 2009
Response from received :16pm
thanks and for their comments on the Emergency Services draft PAR and 5 Criteria. Point by point responses to the inputs are on the following slides, and the modified PAR and 5C files resulting from all comments can be found on the document server as:
es Emergency Services PAR and 5C
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

25. 802.11 response on PAR and 5C Comments
March 2009
response on PAR and 5C Comments
General comments:
Emergency Services (E-911, PSAP, etc) are important services that may benefit from standardization. This needs to start soon, but we do not believe that is not the proper place.
We suggest that a separate 802 WG be considered to allow the autonomy and focus necessary to create a standard in a timely manner. This WG would also need to ensure cooperation and coexistence with the other 802 WGs.
This is an EC decision/action.
The PAR should be broken up into 3 separate destinct PARS
1-- Client to Authority (E-911)
2 – Authority to client (emergency warning broadcast – Amber alert)
3 – Authority to Authority (network prioritization and control)
The PAR and 5C have been amended to cover only the first category, Citizen to Authority or emergency call
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

26. 802.21 Multi-Radio Power Management
March 2009
Multi-Radio Power Management
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gupta, Vivek G“
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, :15 PM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] PAR on Multi-Radio Power Management for March 2009 (Vancouver)
Dear EC Members, The MRPM group has addressed all the received comments. Please find the updated PAR and 5C at: And the response to received comments at: Best Regards
-Vivek
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

27. 802.21 Response to 802.11 Comments (1/4)
March 2009
doc.: IEEE /0356r0
March 2009
Response to Comments (1/4)
General comment:
If you are managing Watts, then measure Watts.
Power consumption is not generally available from Radio interfaces, so it is not meaningful to manage power control using measurements that are not available. (802.2 LLC does not expose power consumption).
Each technology defines its own power saving mechanisms to reduce its own power consumption. MRPM will not change the power saving mechanisms defined by that technology. Therefore, MRPM’s approach is based on existing power saving modes and does not need to measure Watts. MRPM will provide the mechanism to manage and coordinate multi-radios in the device and their networks to save power.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

28. 802.21 Response to 802.11 Comments (2/4)
March 2009
doc.: IEEE /0356r0
March 2009
Response to Comments (2/4)
Multiple Radio Power Management does not belong in
Handover control is not the same as Power management.
We think that ’s comments, “Our suggestion is the following: “IEEE Media Independent Handover and Multi-Radio Services. We believe that this title would provide for additional future amendments” are excellent and as a matter of fact, there will be more services which can be built above beyond handover such as multi-radio power management.
802 EC agreed to create this study group with the objective to create PAR and 5C in
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

29. 802.21 Response to 802.11 Comments (3/4)
March 2009
doc.: IEEE /0356r0
March 2009
Response to Comments (3/4)
Power management in a client is truly an implementation issue not a standardization issue
We do not eliminate the ability of the client to manage power. MRPM extends this ability through network support of additional power saving options.
Current standards have defined various power saving modes for power management. Without such standards, the network and the device from different vendors cannot achieve today’s talk time and standby time. MRPM is built above these power saving modes in their respective standards to coordinate and manage multi-radio power.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
Jon Rosdahl, CSR

30. 802.21 Response to 802.11 Comments (4/4)
March 2009
doc.: IEEE /0356r0
March 2009
Response to Comments (4/4)
The 5C provide insufficient justification for starting this project.
We have added the following to section a Multiple vendors and numerous users in the revised 5C: “Multi-radio devices have already experienced battery life problems.”
In addition, the need for the project is in Section 5.5 of the PAR.
Jon Rosdahl, CSR
Jon Rosdahl, CSR