1. Coex Ad Hoc March Orlando Agenda and Report
July 2007
doc.: IEEE /2090r0
March 2008
Coex Ad Hoc March Orlando Agenda and Report
Date:
Authors:
Eldad Perahia (Intel)
Eldad Perahia (Intel)

2. July 2007
doc.: IEEE /2090r0
March 2008
Abstract
Coex Ad Hoc in March Orlando agenda and report regarding comment resolution of LB115 (802.11n), including straw polls
Eldad Perahia (Intel)
Eldad Perahia (Intel)

3. July 2007
doc.: IEEE /2090r0
March 2008
Highlights of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards
Participants have a duty to tell the IEEE if they know (based on personal awareness) of potentially Essential Patent Claims they or their employer own
Participants are encouraged to tell the IEEE if they know of potentially Essential Patent Claims owned by others
This encouragement is particularly strong as the third party may not be a participant in the standards process
Working Group required to request assurance
Early assurance is encouraged
Terms of assurance shall be either:
Reasonable and nondiscriminatory, with or without monetary compensation; or,
A statement of non-assertion of patent rights
Assurances
Shall be provided on the IEEE-SA Standards Board approved LOA form
May optionally include not-to-exceed rates, terms, and conditions
Shall not be circumvented through sale or transfer of patents
Shall be brought to the attention of any future assignees or transferees
Shall apply to Affiliates unless explicitly excluded
Are irrevocable once submitted and accepted
Shall be supplemented if Submitter becomes aware of other potential Essential Patent Claims
A “Blanket Letter of Assurance” may be provided at the option of the patent holder
A patent holder has no duty to perform a patent search
Full policy available at 1
Eldad Perahia (Intel)
Eldad Perahia (Intel)

4. IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards
July 2007
doc.: IEEE /2090r0
March 2008
IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards
6.2 Policy
IEEE standards may be drafted in terms that include the use of Essential Patent Claims. If the IEEE receives notice that a [Proposed] IEEE Standard may require the use of a potential Essential Patent Claim, the IEEE shall request licensing assurance, on the IEEE Standards Board approved Letter of Assurance form, from the patent holder or patent applicant. The IEEE shall request this assurance without coercion.
The Submitter of the Letter of Assurance may, after Reasonable and Good Faith Inquiry, indicate it is not aware of any Patent Claims that the Submitter may own, control, or have the ability to license that might be or become Essential Patent Claims. If the patent holder or patent applicant provides an assurance, it should do so as soon as reasonably feasible in the standards development process. This assurance shall be provided prior to the Standards Board’s approval of the standard. This assurance shall be provided prior to a reaffirmation if the IEEE receives notice of a potential Essential Patent Claim after the standard’s approval or a prior reaffirmation. An asserted potential Essential Patent Claim for which an assurance cannot be obtained (e.g., a Letter of Assurance is not provided or the Letter of Assurance indicates that assurance is not being provided) shall be referred to the Patent Committee.
A Letter of Assurance shall be either:
a) A general disclaimer to the effect that the Submitter without conditions will not enforce any present or future Essential Patent Claims against any person or entity making, using, selling, offering to sell, importing, distributing, or implementing a compliant implementation of the standard; or
b) A statement that a license for a compliant implementation of the standard will be made available to an unrestricted number of applicants on a worldwide basis without compensation or under reasonable rates, with reasonable terms and conditions that are demonstrably free of any unfair discrimination. At its sole option, the Submitter may provide with its assurance any of the following: (i) a not-to-exceed license fee or rate commitment, (ii) a sample license agreement, or (iii) one or more material licensing terms. 2
Eldad Perahia (Intel)
Eldad Perahia (Intel)

5. IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards
July 2007
doc.: IEEE /2090r0
March 2008
IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards
Copies of an Accepted LOA may be provided to the working group, but shall not be discussed, at any standards working group meeting.
The Submitter and all Affiliates (other than those Affiliates excluded in a Letter of Assurance) shall not assign or otherwise transfer any rights in any Essential Patent Claims that are the subject of such Letter of Assurance that they hold, control, or have the ability to license with the intent of circumventing or negating any of the representations and commitments made in such Letter of Assurance.
The Submitter of a Letter of Assurance shall agree (a) to provide notice of a Letter of Assurance either through a Statement of Encumbrance or by binding any assignee or transferee to the terms of such Letter of Assurance; and (b) to require its assignee or transferee to (i) agree to similarly provide such notice and (ii) to bind its assignees or transferees to agree to provide such notice as described in (a) and (b).
This assurance shall apply to the Submitter and its Affiliates except those Affiliates the Submitter specifically excludes on the relevant Letter of Assurance.
If, after providing a Letter of Assurance to the IEEE, the Submitter becomes aware of additional Patent Claim(s) not already covered by an existing Letter of Assurance that are owned, controlled, or licensable by the Submitter that may be or become Essential Patent Claim(s) for the same IEEE Standard but are not the subject of an existing Letter of Assurance, then such Submitter shall submit a Letter of Assurance stating its position regarding enforcement or licensing of such Patent Claims. For the purposes of this commitment, the Submitter is deemed to be aware if any of the following individuals who are from, employed by, or otherwise represent the Submitter have personal knowledge of additional potential Essential Patent Claims, owned or controlled by the Submitter, related to a [Proposed] IEEE Standard and not already the subject of a previously submitted Letter of Assurance: (a) past or present participants in the development of the [Proposed] IEEE Standard, or (b) the individual executing the previously submitted Letter of Assurance. 3
Eldad Perahia (Intel)
Eldad Perahia (Intel)

6. IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards
July 2007
doc.: IEEE /2090r0
March 2008
IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards
The assurance is irrevocable once submitted and accepted and shall apply, at a minimum, from the date of the standard's approval to the date of the standard's withdrawal.
The IEEE is not responsible for identifying Essential Patent Claims for which a license may be required, for conducting inquiries into the legal validity or scope of those Patent Claims, or for determining whether any licensing terms or conditions are reasonable or non-discriminatory.
Nothing in this policy shall be interpreted as giving rise to a duty to conduct a patent search. No license is implied by the submission of a Letter of Assurance.
In order for IEEE’s patent policy to function efficiently, individuals participating in the standards development process: (a) shall inform the IEEE (or cause the IEEE to be informed) of the holder of any potential Essential Patent Claims of which they are personally aware and that are not already the subject of an existing Letter of Assurance, owned or controlled by the participant or the entity the participant is from, employed by, or otherwise represents; and (b) should inform the IEEE (or cause the IEEE to be informed) of any other holders of such potential Essential Patent Claims that are not already the subject of an existing Letter of Assurance. 4
Eldad Perahia (Intel)
Eldad Perahia (Intel)

7. Other Guidelines for IEEE WG Meetings
July 2007
doc.: IEEE /2090r0
March 2008
Other Guidelines for IEEE WG Meetings
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 fixing product prices, allocation of customers, or dividing 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.
If you have questions, contact the IEEE-SA Standards Board Patent Committee Administrator at or visit
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 5
Eldad Perahia (Intel)
Eldad Perahia (Intel)

8. Further Information March 2008 July 2007 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/2090r0
IEEE Code of Ethics
IEEE-SA Affiliation FAQ
IEEE-SA Antitrust & Competition Policy
IEEE-SA LETTER OF ASSURANCE (LOA) FORM
IEEE-SA STANDARDS BOARD PATENT COMMITTEE (PATCOM) INFORMATION
IEEE-SA PATENT FAQ
IEEE 802 LAN / MAN STANDARDS COMMITTEE (LMSC) POLICIES & PROCEDURES
IEEE WLANS WORKING GROUP POLICIES & PROCEDURES
Eldad Perahia (Intel)
Eldad Perahia (Intel)

9. Overview Latest versions of spreadsheet
July 2007
doc.: IEEE /2090r0
March 2008
Overview
Latest versions of spreadsheet
07/2693r11
Two changes from r10: CID 5099 withdrawn by commenter and CID 5099 recycled
07/2693r12
speculative resolutions for Coex subgroup of CIDs that had no objection in Coex Ad Hoc
Total number of unique unresolved comments: 128
Goals:
Resolve all remaining CIDs!
Eldad Perahia (Intel)
Eldad Perahia (Intel)

10. Coex Ad Hoc Rules / Procedure
July 2007
doc.: IEEE /2090r0
March 2008
Coex Ad Hoc Rules / Procedure
As a general rule, we will NOT be reviewing CIDs on a one by one basis
Resolution of comments will in most cases be based on submissions
Coex Ad Hoc chair will bring resolutions which passed by 75% or more for motion in TGn, with affirmation of Ad Hoc
Votes between 50% - 75% may be brought to TGn for further discussion and votes to break deadlock
Eldad Perahia (Intel)
Eldad Perahia (Intel)

11. Subgroups (1/2) March 2008 Coex 20-40 Coex reorg PCO L-SIG TXOP
July 2007
doc.: IEEE /2090r0
March 2008
Subgroups (1/2)
Coex 20-40
102 comments
Clause 7, , , , , , , 11.17, S.4.2
Assignee: Matt F.
07/2742 in progress
100 CIDs have resolutions which were reviewed with no objection in January
Coex reorg
8 comments
Clause 11.9, ,
Assignee: Matt, as part of Coex 20-40
Resolutions included in 07/2742
All 8 CIDs have resolutions with no objection in January
PCO
complete
L-SIG TXOP
Eldad Perahia (Intel)
Eldad Perahia (Intel)

12. Subgroups (2/2) March 2008 Coex cca Coex protection mechanisms Coex GF
July 2007
doc.: IEEE /2090r0
March 2008
Subgroups (2/2)
Coex cca
12 comments
Primarily clauses ,
08/0035r1
Assignee: Eldad
Coex protection mechanisms
1 comment
Clauses , , ,
Assignee: Bjorn
08/0239 in progress
Coex GF
3 comments
Clause
Assignee: Doug Chan
08/0111 presented in February 20th conference call
Recycled
CID 5099
Eldad Perahia (Intel)
Eldad Perahia (Intel)

13. Submissions Related to Comment Resolution
July 2007
doc.: IEEE /2090r0
March 2008
Submissions Related to Comment Resolution
Matt F.
n-lb115-cid5279-coex doc
n-lb115-cid5123-coex-gf.doc (+)
Bjorn
n-LB115-coex-comment-resolution-CID-5534.doc
Eldad
n-coex-cca.doc
Doug
n-voip-traffic-by-draft-n-greenfield-devices-causes-false-radar-detection-on-dfs-channels.ppt (+)
n-text-for-preventing-detrimental-greenfield-effects-on-dfs-channels.doc (+)
(+) indicates submission
was discussed
Red indicates completed
submissions
Eldad Perahia (Intel)
Eldad Perahia (Intel)

14. Agenda for Wednesday March 12
July 2007
doc.: IEEE /2090r0
March 2008
Agenda for Wednesday March 12
n-lb115-cid5279-coex doc
n-coex-cca.doc
n-LB115-coex-comment-resolution-CID-5534.doc
Recycled comment
Eldad Perahia (Intel)
Eldad Perahia (Intel)

15. Minutes for Wednesday March 12
July 2007
doc.: IEEE /2090r0
March 2008
Minutes for Wednesday March 12
07/2742r11
Reviewed updates from r8 to r9 to r10 to r11
Strawpoll
Remove CID 5077 and CID 5827 from 07/2742r11 and create 07/2742r13 and bring all remaining CIDs in 07/2742r13 to motion in TGn full
No objections (9 participants)
Will be brought to motion on Tues AM2
Discuss 5077 tomorrow
Discuss 5827 in TGn full on Tues AM2
n-coex-cca.doc
Modified reason for rejection for 5377, 5493, 5066, 5351, which becomes 08/0035r2
Bring 08/0035r2 to motion in TGn full
Eldad Perahia (Intel)
Eldad Perahia (Intel)

16. July 2007
doc.: IEEE /2090r0
March 2008
08/0239r0
CID 5534
Bruce: in sentence “NOTE – the rules stated above allow an HT AP to select HT non-HT mixed mode at any time according to implementation-defined criteria.” what does “according to implementation-defined criteria” add?
Delete “according to implementation-defined criteria”
08/0239r1 includes above modification
Strawpoll
Bring 08/0239r1 to motion in TGn full
No objections (9 participants)
Eldad Perahia (Intel)
Eldad Perahia (Intel)

17. CID 5099 Created the following resolution
July 2007
doc.: IEEE /2090r0
March 2008
CID 5099
Created the following resolution
Counter - Refer to CID 5357, which calls for removal of 11n extensions to the MP including
No objection to resolution and bringing to TGn full for motion (9 participants)
Eldad Perahia (Intel)
Eldad Perahia (Intel)

18. Agenda for Thursday March 13
July 2007
doc.: IEEE /2090r0
March 2008
Agenda for Thursday March 13
EMR CID 5849
Greenfield
Eldad Perahia (Intel)
Eldad Perahia (Intel)

19. Minutes for Thursday March 13
July 2007
doc.: IEEE /2090r0
March 2008
Minutes for Thursday March 13
CID 5849
Modified edits in 2742r13 to match D3.05 for this CID, creating 2742r14
No objections to 2742r14 and bringing to motion in TGn full (10 participants)
Eldad Perahia (Intel)
Eldad Perahia (Intel)

20. July 2007
doc.: IEEE /2090r0
March 2008
Greenfield
08/0301r0
Joe: was any other traffic type beyond ping added to VoIP traffic?
Doug: no, but multiple VoIP streams was also tried also resulting in radar detects
Guido: were any tests outside screen room?
Doug: no. But false detects occurred immediately after GF traffic started
When was ping traffic started?
Doug: one test had regular GF pings in background, then GF VoIP was start
Tushar: all but G.711 packet sizes have much smaller pulse sizes that “bin 5” test
Tushar: this is beyond a corner case
Allert: sounds like a poor radar detect, should be improved to differentiate between GF and chirp
John: when in the screen room, was Tx power reduced? Will you get lots of reflections and desensitize receivers?
Doug: no
Dave: are there enough members that perceive that this is a problem?
Eldad Perahia (Intel)
Eldad Perahia (Intel)

21. July 2007
doc.: IEEE /2090r0
March 2008
08/0302r0
Eldad: currently in (& 11nD3), behavior limit set 4 (DFS) is not required in US
Allert: FCC only required bin 5 since July 2007
Eldad: then “legacy 11a” does not apply to US 11a devices certified prior July This issue only applies to new 11a devices in the US
Adrian: Do we have a statement that OBSS Non-HT STAs Present field of the HT Information element to 1 in IBSS?
Doug: reserved for IBSS
Adrian: then current definition of this field is incompatible
Tushar: is active scan permitted in DFS bands?
Differing answers among the group
Adrian: there is an issue that there are three states of a station, but we have only defined two states in capability bit. STA is only GF until the first HT capability element is transmitted
Eldad: “Before an HT STA changes the HT…” forces non-AP STA to scan
Eldad Perahia (Intel)
Eldad Perahia (Intel)

22. 08/0302r0 continued Bruce: IBSS should have to keep scanning for radar
July 2007
doc.: IEEE /2090r0
March 2008
08/0302r0 continued
Bruce: IBSS should have to keep scanning for radar
Joe: as soon as HT-greenfield subfield of HT Capability element is set to 0, then the AP is not GF device and can ignore the timer rules
Joe: after time hits zero, should AP rescan?
Adrian: In “A GF AP shall not transmit a PPDU with the FORMAT parameter of the TXVECTOR set to HT_GF if its OBSS Non-HT STAs Present field of its last transmitted HT Information element is set to 0. A GF non-AP STA shall not transmit a PPDU with the FORMAT parameter of the TXVECTOR set to HT_GF if the last frame received from its AP containing an HT Information element has the OBSS Non-HT STAs Present field set to 0.” both 0’s need to be changed to 1
Eldad Perahia (Intel)
Eldad Perahia (Intel)

23. 08/0302r0 continued Strawpoll Do you support the concept in 08/0302r0?
July 2007
doc.: IEEE /2090r0
March 2008
08/0302r0 continued
Strawpoll
Do you support the concept in 08/0302r0?
Y:1; N:4; Abs:6
Do you believe that restricting GF transmissions on the DFS channels is required to protect 11a?
Y:1; N:7: Abs:3
Eldad Perahia (Intel)
Eldad Perahia (Intel)

24. July 2007
doc.: IEEE /2090r0
March 2008
08/0273r0
Strawpoll
Do you support the resolution and proposed resolution text in 08/273r0 for CIDs 5123, 5363?
Y:4; N:2; Abs: 5
Do you support rejecting CIDs 5123, 5363 with the resolution text “The problem of false detections in legacy devices is not limited to GF receptions”
Y:7; N:1; Abs:3
Do you support changing in “When non-HT devices are detected, the STA may enable protection of its HT greenfield format” to “When non-HT devices are detected, the STA shall enable protection of its HT greenfield format”?
Y:4; N:4; Abs:2
Eldad Perahia (Intel)
Eldad Perahia (Intel)

25. July 2007
doc.: IEEE /2090r0
March 2008
Strawpoll
Do you support for CID 5124 the resolution “Reject: n thresholds are -82dBm for GF capable STAs, and -72dBm for non-GF capable STAs. It is not necessary to lower the threshold further. Lowering the thresholds for a/b/g is out of scope. The invocation of the protection mechanisms for GF transmissions found within 9.13 are based on the bits found in the HT Information element, which provide sufficient signaling of information to cover all of the cases when GF protection is expected to be useful.”
Y:7; N:1; Abs:2
Eldad Perahia (Intel)
Eldad Perahia (Intel)

26. July 2007
doc.: IEEE /2090r0
March 2008
Strawpoll
Do you support for CID 5827 the resolution “Reject – The group has repeatedly voted to permit 40MHz operation in 2.4 GHz. The group further believes that the mechanism is warranted to enable 40MHz operation in 2.4 GHz.”
No objection
Eldad Perahia (Intel)
Eldad Perahia (Intel)

27. July 2007
doc.: IEEE /2090r0
March 2008
Strawpoll
Do you support for CID 5077 the resolution “Reject – the group consensus is that there are many other parameters that can affect the best choice of a set of channels for 20/40 MHz BSS operation, including, but not limited to: traffic load, channel state of other channels, power limitations of channels, relative separation between overlapping BSSs – a change to shall as indicated disallows the consideration of a complete set of parameters. Since destructive overlap affects both BSSs, implementers will strive to create algorithms that select channel operating conditions that maximize throughput for all BSSs involved.”
No object
Eldad Perahia (Intel)
Eldad Perahia (Intel)

28. Summary of Pre-meeting
July 2007
doc.: IEEE /2090r0
March 2008
Summary of Pre-meeting
All CIDs resolved and approved to be brought to motion in TGn full
Coex CCA sub-group
12 CIDs resolved by 08/0035r2; all by reject; passed by no objection
Refer to “coex pending motion set 1” in document 11-07/2693r13
Coex protection mechanisms sub-group & Recycled CID
1 protection mechanism CID resolved by 08/0239r1 and recycled CID 5099 both resolved with counter; passed by no objection
Refer to “coex pending motion set 2” in document 11-07/2693r13
20-40 & re-org sub-group
108 CIDs in 07/2742r14 with As, Cs, and Rs; all passed by no objection
CIDs 5827 and 5077 resolved by reject; passed by no objection
Refer to “coex pending motion set 3” in document 11-07/2693r13
Greenfield sub-group
Resolves CIDs 5123, 5124, 5363 all by reject
CIDs 5123 and 5363 passed in the Coex Ad Hoc with a vote of Y:7; N:1; Abs:3
CIDs 5124 passed in the Coex Ad Hoc with a vote of Y:7; N:1; Abs:2
Refer to “coex pending motion set 4” in document 11-07/2693r13
Eldad Perahia (Intel)
Eldad Perahia (Intel)

29. Approved Motions March 2008 July 2007 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/2090r0
Eldad Perahia (Intel)
Eldad Perahia (Intel)

30. July 2007
doc.: IEEE /2090r0
March 2008
Motion # 299
Moved: Approve resolution of comments found on the tab labelled “coex pending motion set 1” in document 11-07/2693r13.
Based on resolutions in the following submission:
08/0035r2 (Coex CCA sub-group)
Resolves 12 comments with Rs
All passed by no objection
TGn vote: no objection
Eldad Perahia (Intel)
Eldad Perahia (Intel)

31. July 2007
doc.: IEEE /2090r0
March 2008
Motion # 300
Moved: Approve resolution of comments found on the tab labelled “coex pending motion set 2” in document 11-07/2693r13.
Based on resolutions in the following submission:
08/0239r1 (Coex protection mechanisms sub-group)
Recycled CID 5099
Resolves 2 comments with Cs
All passed by no objection
TGn vote: no objection
Eldad Perahia (Intel)
Eldad Perahia (Intel)

32. July 2007
doc.: IEEE /2090r0
March 2008
Motion # 301
Moved: Approve resolution of comments found on the tab labelled “coex pending motion set 3” in document 11-07/2693r13.
Based on resolutions in the following submission:
07/2742r14 (Coex & re-org sub-group)
CIDs 5827 and 5077 (Coex sub-group)
Resolves 110 comments with As, Cs, and Rs
All passed by no objection
TGn vote: no objection
Eldad Perahia (Intel)
Eldad Perahia (Intel)

33. July 2007
doc.: IEEE /2090r0
March 2008
Motion # 313
Moved: Approve resolution of CID 5124 found on the tab labelled “coex pending motion set 4” in document 11-07/2693r14.
Resolves CIDs 5124 with R (Coex greenfield sub-group)
CIDs 5124 passed in the Coex Ad Hoc with a vote of Y:7; N:1; Abs:2
TGn vote: no objection
Eldad Perahia (Intel)
Eldad Perahia (Intel)

34. July 2007
doc.: IEEE /2090r0
March 2008
Motion #314
Moved in TGn full by individual to resolve CIDs 5123 and 5363 with “Reject - The problem of false detections in legacy devices is not limited to GF receptions”
TGn vote: passed
Eldad Perahia (Intel)
Eldad Perahia (Intel)

35. Failed Motions March 2008 July 2007 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/2090r0
Eldad Perahia (Intel)
Eldad Perahia (Intel)

36. July 2007
doc.: IEEE /2090r0
March 2008
Motion # 302
Moved: Approve resolution of comments found on the tab labelled “coex pending motion set 4” in document 11-07/2693r13.
Resolves CIDs 5123, 5124, 5363 with Rs (Coex greenfield sub-group)
CIDs 5123 and 5363 passed in the Coex Ad Hoc with a vote of Y:7; N:1; Abs:3
CIDs 5124 passed in the Coex Ad Hoc with a vote of Y:7; N:1; Abs:2
TGn vote: , motion fails
Eldad Perahia (Intel)
Eldad Perahia (Intel)