1. Liaison report from 802 Architecture Group
Month Year
doc.: IEEE yy/xxxxr0
March 2005
Liaison report from 802 Architecture Group
Date:
Authors:
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
John Doe, Some Company

2. March 2005
need to get ready for the next meeting of the 802 Architecture SC
Situation
An 802 Standing Committee has been created to improve alignment between WG projects & the 802 architecture
The 802 Architecture SC is currently trolling (slowly) for “architectural issues” related to each WG
Complication
Despite being “allocated” issues by the other WGs, they might not be our issues
Key line
need to develop a list to be ready for the next meeting of the 802 Architecture SC
Andrew Myles, Cisco

3. March 2005
An SEC SC has been created to improve alignment between WG projects & the 802 architecture
What does the SC do?
Identifies issues & potential solutions to maintain the existing 802 architecture
Identifies potential refinements or changes to the existing 802 architecture
What are the SC outputs?
It does not generate detailed documents
It does aim to raise consciousness for feeding back to WGs
It may document thoughts in slideware
How does the SC operate?
Meets on Sunday before each plenary session
Consists of appointees from each WG; in case of the reps are;
Andrew Myles
Roger Durand
Where is info on the SC kept?
A website is maintained at
You can join the exploder at
Andrew Myles, Cisco

4. March 2005
The SC is currently trolling (slowly) for architectural “issues” related to each WG
At previous meetings reps of each WG generated a list of “issues”, which have been refined by some WGs in the meantime
There were no reps at the time and so we were “allocated” issues by the other WGs
Before the Atlanta meeting the reps made a request for issues from the WG via the reflector with little response
The Atlanta meeting made an attempt to review the lists but much work is still required
Only to lists were reviewed in Atlanta
Many of the “issues” turned out not to be issues
The issues generally need far more description
Andrew Myles, Cisco

5. March 2005
Despite being “allocated” issues by the other WGs, they might not be our issues
Other group allocated some issues
“QoS/class of service”
How do you map QoS between different networks?
“Protocol definition vs scope”
What is the scope of the protocol definition?
“Security”
“Bridging compatibility – handling of multicasts”
“LLC – acts as a block to passing additional (e.g., QoS) parameters”
How do you set up QoS connection across multiple links?
“Mesh”
“What is the (future) .11 architecture”
“Power/channel management”
These “allocated” issues might not be ’s issues
At least some of the issues are not really issues for the 802 architecture group
eg security
It is not clear what some of the “issues” actually are
Although we can all speculate
Andrew Myles, Cisco

6. March 2005
need to develop a list to be ready for the next meeting of the 802 Architecture SC in San Francisco
Why?
The current list is almost useless
There is no “ownership” of the current list
The issues are not sufficiently described
The issues are almost certainly incorrect/incomplete
There is value in talking to the other groups
Many in complain that we did not ask for help architecting the AP
How?
Members of actually think about the problem between now and Cairns
The “thinkers” summarise their ideas in some form and send the reflector
The reps to the SC will pull together a summary and lead a discussion in Cairns
Probably in WNG
The reps to the SC will feed the results into the SC in San Francisco
Andrew Myles, Cisco