1. Project: IEEE 802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)
Submission Title: [WG n Liaison Report, March09]
Date Submitted: 12March09
Source: [John Barr] Company [Motorola]
Address [21939 Old Farm Road, Deer Park, IL 60010]
Voice:[ ], FAX: [],
Re: []
Abstract: [802.11n Report to /11 WG]
Purpose: [802.11n report to WG on actions relateing to ]
Notice: This document has been prepared to assist the 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 acknowledges and accepts that this contribution becomes the property of IEEE and may be made publicly available by
March 2009
doc.: IEEE /0232r0
Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola
Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola

2. 802.11n Sponsor Ballot Results
1st Recirculation Ballot: Feb. 19 – March 6
277 Eligible people are in the ballot group
169 affirmative
42 negative
17 abstain
232 votes recorded
80.1% affirmative
Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola

3. SB Recirc #1 – Comments (77 Total)
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell
March 2009

4. Primary Vancouver Meeting Documents
March 2009
doc.: IEEE /0219r7
March 2009
Primary Vancouver Meeting Documents
SB #1 Comment Composite r5
TGn SG Editor Comments r2
Meeting Report r10
Editors Report r1
Closing Report r0
Coex March Report r0
Meeting Minutes rx
SB1 coex resolutions r1
More Coex CIDS r0
40MHz/BT Coex Clarifications r0
TGn Draft 8.0
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

5. March 2009
40MHz in 2.4 GHz Comments
All negative comments regarding 40MHz operation in 2.4GHz were rejected based on document 11-09/387r0-more-coex-cids.doc
Refutes evidence provided in 11-09/281r0 submitted by John Barr noting discrepancies in statements used in 11-09/242r2 to reject all comments from initial SB
Continues to use 11-09/242r2 as basis for rejecting any comment claiming that 40MHz channels in 2.4 GHz do not adequately address coexistence with other radios operating in 2.4 GHz.
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

6. Response to 11-09/281r0 Comments
March 2009
Response to 11-09/281r0 Comments
Resolution: Disagree – As indicated by the resolution in 09/224r2, the TGn Comment Resolution Committee believes that coexistence has been properly addressed. Furthermore, 11-09/224r2 does not include inaccurate statements and conclusions. In response to 09/281r0:
1) The commenter is comparing the behaviour of implementations on the side with the requirements of the protocol on the side.
While Bluetooth implementations may use energy detect, and may reevaluate channels periodically, there is no requirement in the Bluetooth specification that they do so.
Likewise it is perfectly reasonable that n implementations perform adequate detection of Bluetooth devices, but that there be no requirement in the n specification that they do so. 
It follows that the resolution in 11-09/0224r2 that states there is no requirement for Bluetooth devices to perform energy detect is correct.
2) Regarding the live Bluetooth-WLAN demonstration
a) the AFH masking of channels was adaptive, not locked down
b) class 2 Bluetooth device was used, up to 4 dBm transmit power
c) Bluetooth master device was an evaluation board, with a production chip and a low gain standard whip antenna
d) off-the-shelf stereo headset was used as a slave device 
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

7. Response to 11-09/281r0 Comments
March 2009
Response to 11-09/281r0 Comments
3) Regarding the item of the measurements in 08/992 and the claim that “However, no one as proven that the measurements documented in 11-08/992 do not accurately represent the impact of 40 MHz n channels on the operation of Bluetooth devices.” The test set up in 08/992 did not include any compliant devices.
4) All the issues raised in “letter from Mike Foley of the Bluetooth SIG” were already addressed by 11-09/224r2.
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

8. Solicitation for Help from 802.11n
March 2009
Solicitation for Help from n
During TGn discussion on this topic it became apparent that some of the text needs clarification and/or elaboration:
Standardized features of Bluetooth and .11n systems: optional and mandatory
Descriptions of experiments that were conducted
Results achieved
Interpretation of results: effects on Bluetooth and WLAN devices
Conclusions
Asking for help on creating such a document
If any volunteers please contact Vinko Erceg
(858)
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

9. Joint Coexistence Agreement
March 2009
Joint Coexistence Agreement
One of the closing thoughts from n comment resolution was a joint approach to resolving no votes:
(Bluetooth) does not have mandatory detection language
802.11n recommends not using 40MHz channels when other IEEE 802 devices are within range, but won’t make anything mandatory
It may be possible to jointly agree to add mandatory detection language to (Bluetooth) and mandatory detection of and devices by n at some point in the future.
Until those features are completed, n may agree to assert Forty MHz Intolerant Bit, preventing use of 40 MHz channels.
Once features are completed, 40 MHz channels would be allowed when operation of other IEEE 802 devices are not detected.
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

10. 802.11n Schedule Comment Resolution for SB1 Completed
March 2009
802.11n Schedule
Comment Resolution for SB1 Completed
Draft 9.0 will be created for 15-day SB2
Expectations are that they may be able to have two recirculation ballots prior to May interim.
Be ready to respond quickly…..
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell