1. Agenda for IEEE 802.11 PDED ad hoc meeting in Vancouver in March 2017
July 2010
doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0
Agenda for IEEE PDED ad hoc meeting in Vancouver in March 2017
24 Feb 2017
Authors:
Name
Company
Phone
Andrew Myles
Cisco
Andrew Myles, Cisco
Andrew Myles, Cisco

2. Welcome to the third F2F meeting of the IEEE 802
Welcome to the third F2F meeting of the IEEE PDED ad hoc in Vancouver
PDED stands for Preamble Detect Energy Detect
PDED is an attempt to encapsulate the goal of the group …
… which is to discuss issues related to the 3GPP RAN1 request to IEEE WG to adopt an ED of -72dBm
The IEEE PDED ad hoc was formed in September 2016 at the Warsaw interim meeting
Andrew Myles was appointed as Chair
It met in San Antonio (Nov 2016) and Atlanta (Jan 2017)
We will be meeting twice this week in Vancouver (Mar 2017)
Tuesday AM2
Wednesday PM1
Andrew Myles, Cisco

3. The first task for the PDED ad hoc today is to appoint a secretary
It is important to keep proper minutes of all PDED meetings
However, it is generally not practical to Chair a meeting and take minutes at the same time
Especially without a recording 
Therefore we need a volunteer for a Secretary
At least for this session …
… and thanks to Thomas Derham, Dick Roy, Graham Smith & Guido Hiertz for volunteering previously
The rewards for the Secretary are numerous
Power over the ad hoc
Respect from your peers
… and a cold beverage from the Chair
Andrew Myles, Cisco

4. The PDED ad hoc will review the official IEEE-SA patent material for pre-PAR groups
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 or engage in the fixing of product prices, allocation of customers, or division of 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.
Andrew Myles, Cisco

5. The PDED ad hoc will review the official IEEE-SA patent material for pre-PAR groups
If you have questions:
Contact the IEEE-SA Standards Board Patent Committee Administrator at
Visit standards.ieee.org/about/sasb/patcom/index.html
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:
development.standards.ieee.org/myproject/Public/mytools/mob/slideset.ppt
Andrew Myles, Cisco

6. Links are available to a variety of other useful resources
July 2010
doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0
Links are available to a variety of other useful resources
Link to IEEE Disclosure of Affiliation
Links to IEEE Antitrust Guidelines
Link to IEEE Code of Ethics
Link to IEEE Patent Policy
Andrew Myles, Cisco
Andrew Myles, Cisco

7. July 2010
doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0
The PDED ad hoc will operate using accepted principles of meeting etiquette
IEEE 802 is a world-wide professional technical organization
Meetings shall be conducted in an orderly and professional manner in accordance with the policies and procedures governed by the organization
Individuals shall address the “technical” content of the subject under consideration and refrain from making “personal” comments to or about others
Andrew Myles, Cisco
Andrew Myles, Cisco

8. The PDED ad hoc will consider a proposed agenda
Bureaucratic stuff, including approving minutes
Why was the PDED ad hoc formed … and why is it continuing?
What is happening this week? (in no particular order)
Review activities in 3GPP RAN4 related to testing
Review what has happened so far on the PDED issue
Develop a response to 3GPP RAN1 on the PDED issue
Consider further data (based on simulation and testing?) for future LS’s
Review any relevant comments on the question of ED threshold in EN
What are the next steps?
Other business
Any objections to this agenda?
Andrew Myles, Cisco

9. The PDED ad hoc will consider approval of the notes of Atlanta meeting as the minutes
Guido Hiertz (Ericsson) kindly took notes for the PDED ad hoc at the Atlanta meeting in Jan 2017
The notes are available on Mentor:
: Minutes of the Tuesday PDED ad hoc meeting
: Minutes of the Wednesday PDED ad hoc meeting
Are there any objections to approval of these notes as the minutes of the meeting by consent?
Andrew Myles, Cisco

10. Why was the PDED ad hoc formed … … and why is it continuing?
Andrew Myles, Cisco

11. The PDED ad hoc was formed based on several presentations to 802
The PDED ad hoc was formed based on several presentations to WG and WG
Formation documents from Sept 2016
described the PDED issue for IEEE WG and a variety of possible responses
summarised the PDED issue for the IEEE WG and this directly led to the PDED ad hoc formation
Andrew Myles, Cisco

12. The PDED ad hoc was formed to respond to 3GPP RAN1 in relation to the PDED issue
A number of liaisons between IEEE 802 and 3GPP left the PDED issue open as of September 2016
Mar 2016: IEEE 802 requested ( ) that 3GPP RAN1 make LAA more sensitive to transmissions, using either PD/ED similar to IEEE ac or ED of -77dBm
Jun 2016: 3GPP RAN1 rejected (R ) IEEE 802’s request on the basis that they had considerable debate and decided there was not a problem with an ED of -72dBm; they also requested that IEEE ax adopt the same
Aug 2016: IEEE 802 noted (IEEE 802 liaison to 3GPP RAN) 3GPP RAN1’s simulations (issue 3) were based on invalid assumptions & asked them to use more realistic assumptions; but did not respond to request that ax adopt an ED of -72dBm
The PDED ad hoc was formed in September 2016 primarily to respond to the 3GPP RAN1 request that ax adopt an ED of -72dBm
Andrew Myles, Cisco

13. The PDED ad hoc has determined there is a need for ongoing work
In Nov 2016, after sending a response explaining why the 3GPP RAN1 request that ax adopt ED = -72dBm does not make sense
… it was agreed to continue PDED ad hoc in the short term, with the following goals:
Address any future reply from 3GPP RAN1
Develop further data (based on simulation and testing?) for future LS’s
Address the question of ED threshold in EN that applies to ax
In Jan 2017, these goals were confirmed by the PDED ad hoc
Note: a reply had been received from 3GPP RAN1 at this time
The IEEE WG Chair agreed in Nov 2016 to authorise the continuation of the PDED ad hoc until we “cancelled too many sessions”
Andrew Myles, Cisco

14. What is happening this week
What is happening this week? Review activities in 3GPP RAN4 related to testing
Andrew Myles, Cisco

15. The PDED ad hoc will hear a summary of discussions at the recent 3GPP RAN4 meeting
3GPP RAN4 is undertaking important work to validate the 3GPP RAN1 assertions about LAA coexistence with
3GPP RAN1 noted in a liaison in Nov 2016 that 3GPP RAN4 as decided on the development of a set of coexistence test cases including multi-node tests to verify the coexistence between LAA and IEEE devices in various scenarios including testing above and below an ED threshold of -72dBm for LAA devices
A number of IEEE 802 participants attended the 3GPP RAN4 meeting in Athens the week of 13 February
A participant has provided the following slides as a report in the conclusions (none!) of the discussions and next steps (unclear!)
The report will provide context for the PDED ad hoc discussion on how to respond to 3GPP RAN1’s liaison to IEEE 802 in Nov 2016
Andrew Myles, Cisco

16. The PDED ad hoc will hear a summary of discussions at the recent 3GPP RAN4 meeting
<insert report – waiting for input >
Andrew Myles, Cisco

17. What is happening this week
What is happening this week? Review what has happened so far on the PDED issue
Andrew Myles, Cisco

18. IEEE 802 responded to 3GPP RAN1 in Nov 2016, rejecting its ED request & making a PD request
IEEE 802’s liaison in November 2016 (developed by the PDED ad hoc) explained why the 3GPP RAN1 request that ax adopt ED = -72dBm does not make sense
In particular, IEEE 802’s liaison noted such a change would cause ax devices to have a channel access disadvantage relative to:
Deployed a/n/ac devices using ED = -62dBm
LAA devices not using PD = -82dBm
The IEEE 802 liaison concluded by requesting that 3GPP RAN1
Consider explicitly defining support for PD-based channel access in a future release of LAA specification
The IEEE 802 liaison also asked 3GPP RAN1 to
Indicate its interest in a continued dialog towards a future framework for efficient sharing of the 5 GHz band
Andrew Myles, Cisco

19. 3GPP RAN1 replied to IEEE 802 in Nov 2016, rejecting the IEEE 802 request that LAA use PD in the future
After the IEEE 802’s meeting in Nov 2016, 3GPP RAN1 provided a response (see issues 13 & 14) to PDED ad hoc’s liaison that:
Rejected the request to consider use of PD in LAA in the future
Deferred the request to continue a dialog on coexistence issues
3GPP RAN1 did not respond to the material in the IEEE 802 liaison explaining why the use of ED of -72dBm would cause IEEE ax devices to have a channel access disadvantage relative to:
Deployed a/n/ac devices
Future LAA devices
Andrew Myles, Cisco

20. In parallel to the PDED discussion, in July 2016 IEEE 802 expressed a concern about LAA simulation validity
Summary of IEEE 802 liaision (issue 3) to 3GPP RAN1 in Jul 2016
IEEE 802 noted their March 2016 suggestion that the LAA either detect networks with a similar level of sensitivity to that with which devices can detect each other or use an ED of -77dBm or lower
IEEE 802 noted that 3GPP RAN1 responded in June 2016 to the March 2016 LS by asserting simulations showed that ED of -72dBm will ensure fair coexistence between LAA and Wi-Fi
IEEE 802 expressed a concern in their July 2016 that the assertion relied upon simulations are not realistic because they used median RSSIs higher than typically found in actual indoor deployments
IEEE 802 went on to request that 3GPP RAN1 reconsider its assertion about fair coexistence between LAA and Wi-Fi in a configuration that has a larger percentage of weak links than what is currently assumed in the 3GPP indoor model
Andrew Myles, Cisco

21. In Nov 2017, 3GPP RAN1 reiterated their confidence in the use of ED using a threshold of -72 dBm
Summary of 3GPP RAN1 response 3 liaised to IEEE 802 in Nov 2016
3GPP RAN1 reiterated that ED based coexistence using a level of -72 dBm was agreed in 3GPP after considerable debate and with wide participation of stakeholders of both LAA and IEEE technologies
3GPP RAN1 noted that the use of PD was considered
Note: … and rejected
3GPP RAN1 asserted that discussions considered both indoor and outdoor scenarios
Note: … in simulations
3GPP RAN1 noted while default ED in LAA is -72dBm (UE with max tx power of 23dBm), a mechanism has been defined to allow the eNB to configure a different value in UE, and appropriate values will be studied in RAN4 …
Andrew Myles, Cisco

22. In Nov 2017, 3GPP RAN1 reiterated their confidence in the use of ED using a threshold of -72 dBm
Summary of 3GPP RAN1 response 3 liaised to IEEE 802 in Nov 2016 …
3GPP RAN1 noted that ETSI BRAN had agreed on the same ED threshold of -72dBm in the draft of EN
Aside: this is only max value for regulatory purposes, not necessarily the “right” value
3GPP RAN1 that it was undesirable to widen the asymmetry between the ED threshold of LAA (-72dBm) and (-62dBm)
Andrew Myles, Cisco

23. In Nov 2017, 3GPP RAN1 reiterated their confidence in the use of ED using a threshold of -72 dBm
Summary of 3GPP RAN1 response 3 liaised to IEEE 802 in Nov 2016 …
3GPP RAN1 noted that 3GPP RAN4 has decided on the development of a set of coexistence test cases including multi-node tests to verify the coexistence between LAA and IEEE devices in various scenarios including testing above and below an ED threshold of -72dBm for LAA devices
3GPP RAN1 noted LAA device may use mechanisms in addition to ED
Note: it is rumoured at least one vendor is implementing PD
3GPP RAN1 noted equipment would be tested to ensure fair coexistence between LAA and systems
Note: it is not clear who will do the testing, or if it will be mandatory
Andrew Myles, Cisco

24. The PDED ad hoc discussed a possible response to 3GPP RAN1 on the PDED issue in Jan 2017
In Jan 2017, the PDED ad hoc reviewed 3GPP RAN1’s response to both issue 3 and issue13 and three options were discussed for next steps
Continue disagreeing via “liaison ping pong”
Ignore the response and don’t send anything
Agree to disagree in a final note
Some argued for option 2 …
“We should stop this. We should focus on improving our technology. We are wasting time for things that we could spend improving ” (from minutes)
… while others argued for option 3
Ignoring may suggest we accept all aspects of the response
It is important to document the disagreement for possible future use in other forums
Andrew Myles, Cisco

25. The PDED ad hoc agreed in Jan 2017 to consider a “agree to disagree” response to RAN1 in Mar 2017
A straw poll narrowly gave a preference to option 3 (“agree to disagree”)
Straw poll result: 0/6/7
The Chair volunteered to draft a possible liaison based on a very rough draft shown in Jan 2017
Acknowledge that 3GPP RAN1 are committed to coexistence based on LAA using an ED threshold of -72dBm
Reiterate that IEEE 802 intend to base coexistence on an ED threshold of -62dBm and a PD threshold of -82dBm, based on current practice
Note that while IEEE 802 would prefer LAA used a similar mechanism, IEEE 802 will at this time accept 3GPP RAN1 assertions in multiple LS’s that fair coexistence can be achieved with LAA & Wi-Fi using differing mechanisms
Note that IEEE 802 will interpret 3GPP RANs lack of objection to the reasons Wi-Fi can’t use an ED of -72dBm as acceptance of IEEE 802’s position
Andrew Myles, Cisco

26. What is happening this week
What is happening this week? Develop a response to 3GPP RAN1 on the PDED issue
Andrew Myles, Cisco

27. The PDED ad hoc will review a proposed “agree to disagree” liaison to 3GPP RAN1
<insert material and references here to proposed liaison
Note: currently text in separate Word file
See >
<the material will explain goals:
Agree to disagree on key issues in past liaisons
Express positive view on the commitment to test in RAN4
Express concern about the backward steps in RAN4
Request 3GPP RAN4 to confirm previous commitments to test with Wi-Fi links under the ED threshold
Raise possibility of extending WFA tests for LTE-U to LAA>
<the proposed liaison covers issues 3 and 13; the ad hoc should tell that they do not need to cover these issues in any response from them>
Andrew Myles, Cisco

28. What is happening this week
What is happening this week? Consider further data (based on simulation & testing?) for future LS’s
Andrew Myles, Cisco

29. Simulations provided one basis of the IEEE 802
Simulations provided one basis of the IEEE PDED ad hoc recommendation in Nov 2016
During the teleconferences in late 2016 it was suggested that IEEE PDED should undertake its own simulations
Yuichi Morioka (Sony) responded to this suggestion at the San Antonio meeting in Nov 2016 by simulating the case of ax using an ED of -72dBm and legacy using an ED of -62dBm
Title: “Simulations on the effects of changing the ED threshold from a system performance perspective”
Yuichi proposed to reject 3GPP RAN1’s request to change ’s ED threshold from -62dBm to -72dBm
As it is not realistic to change legacy STAs behaviour, we analysed case B) “some STA uses ED of -72dBm”, where ax STAs use the new threshold”
In this coexistence scenario, performance of ax STAs significantly degrade, hence the request to change all new STAs to adopt the new threshold should be rejected
Andrew Myles, Cisco

30. The PDED ad hoc considered another simulation presentation in Jan 2017 from the same authors
In a presentation in Jan 2017, Kosuke Aio (Sony) asked “What happens if both LAA and Wi-Fi operate at ED of -72dBm but with no PD communication?”
See
He concluded in relation to the 3GPP RAN1 request for ax to adopt ED of -72dBm that “From these simulation results, it can be observed that meeting 3GPP request is not a way to provide fair coexistence between LAA and WLAN especially in heavy networks”
The presentation proposed that dynamic TX power & ED threshold control is the best solution to provide fairness
However, discussion in Atlanta in January 2017 suggested some participants had concerns about various aspects of the simulations and thus the conclusions
Andrew Myles, Cisco

31. The PDED ad hoc will consider a refinement of the work presented in Atlanta in Jan 2017
Kosuke Aio agreed in Atlanta to refine the work for this meeting
The refined presentation is xxxx-yy
Note: Kosuke Aio needs to upload material ASAP
Andrew Myles, Cisco

32. What is happening this week
What is happening this week? Address the question of ED threshold in EN that applies to ax
Andrew Myles, Cisco

33. In Atlanta, the PDED ad hoc discussed a proposal to maintain the 802
In Atlanta, the PDED ad hoc discussed a proposal to maintain the exception in EN
In Jan 2017, the PDED ad hoc discussed the possibility of advocating that the next revision of EN maintain the “ exception”
The exception allows any device to use ED of -62dBnm and a PD of -82 dBm, instead of an ED of -72dBm
While the PD mechanism is defined in IEEE a/n/ac amendments, it is available for use by any technology
Note: the next revision refers to the version beyond the version that just completed ENAP ballot
This option was justified during discussion on the basis that the “ exception”:
Enhanced “fair use” of the 5GHz spectrum
Was more “technology neutral” than a mechanism relying solely on ED
There was no consensus on the proposal, with strong comments made both for and against
Andrew Myles, Cisco

34. In Vancouver, the PDED ad hoc will consider comments relevant to the PDED issues in the ENAP ballot
The issue of an “ exception” in the next revision will need to be considered again soon …
… because it might be a key factor in the success or otherwise of ax in Europe (and anywhere using European regulations)
However, there is no proposal to discuss the exception this week …
… at least partially because the revision of EN has not started
It is proposed that the PDED ad hoc instead consider any comments relevant to the PDED issues in the ENAP ballot just completed
Comments became available on the 27 February
ETSI BRAN met 6-10 March in France
Andrew Myles, Cisco

35. The PDED ad hoc will consider any comments relevant to the PDED issues in the ENAP ballot
<insert material on comments here when it becomes available, ie ~27 Feb 2017>
<depending on the comments, this may be where we discuss the rumoured concerns of:
NATO about ED of -72dB raising the noise floor compared to the status quo, which mostly of relevance in DFS channels
EC that ED is a backward technology step compared to PD/ED>
Andrew Myles, Cisco

36. What are the next steps?
Andrew Myles, Cisco

37. Should the PDED ad hoc continue?
At the Jan 2017 meeting it was decided to continue with tasks to:
Address the reply from 3GPP RAN1
Develop further data (based on simulation and testing?) for future LS’s
Address the question of ED threshold in EN that applies to ax
For May 2017:
Does anyone have any additional tasks?
Does anyone want to volunteer to drive aspects of existing tasks?
Should we request the IEEE WG Chair to authorise the continuation of the ad hoc?
Andrew Myles, Cisco

38. Other business?
Andrew Myles, Cisco

39. Any other business?
Andrew Myles, Cisco

40. The IEEE 802 .11 PDED ad hoc meeting is adjourned!
Andrew Myles, Cisco