1. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 1 Coex Ad Hoc January Taipei Agenda and Report Date: 2008-01-10 Authors:

2. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 2 Abstract Coex Ad Hoc in January Taipei agenda and report regarding comment resolution of LB115 (802.11n), including straw polls

3. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 3 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 http://standards.ieee.org/guides/bylaws/sect6-7.html#6 1

4. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 4 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. IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards 2

5. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 5 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. IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards 3

6. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 6 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. IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards 4

7. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 7 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 patcom@ieee.org or visit http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/index.html See IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, clause 5.3.10 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 http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.ppt 5

8. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 8 Further Information IEEE Code of Ethics –http://www.ieee.org/web/membership/ethics/code_ethics.htmlhttp://www.ieee.org/web/membership/ethics/code_ethics.html IEEE-SA Affiliation FAQ –http://standards.ieee.org/faqs/affiliationFAQ.htmlhttp://standards.ieee.org/faqs/affiliationFAQ.html IEEE-SA Antitrust & Competition Policy –http://standards.ieee.org/resources/antitrust-guidelines.pdfhttp://standards.ieee.org/resources/antitrust-guidelines.pdf IEEE-SA LETTER OF ASSURANCE (LOA) FORM –http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/loa.pdf IEEE-SA STANDARDS BOARD PATENT COMMITTEE (PATCOM) INFORMATION –http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/index.html IEEE-SA PATENT FAQ –http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/faq.pdf IEEE 802 LAN / MAN STANDARDS COMMITTEE (LMSC) POLICIES & PROCEDURES –http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/policies-and-procedures.pdf IEEE 802.11 WLANS WORKING GROUP POLICIES & PROCEDURES –http://www.ieee802.org/11/DocFiles/06/11-06-0812-03-0000-802-11-policies-and-proceedures.htm

9. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 9 Overview Latest version of spreadsheet: 07/2693r5 Total number of unique unresolved comments: 174 Goals: –review first draft of submissions for all CIDs this session –Resolve CIDs for submissions previously presented –Resolve all remaining CIDs by March 2008

10. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 10 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

11. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 11 Subgroups (1/2) Coex 20-40 –103 comments –Clause 7, 11.9.8, 11.15.1, 11.15.2, 11.15.3, 11.15.4, 11.15.10, 11.17, S.4.2 –Assignee: Matt F. –07/2742 in progress –CID 5223 Assignee: Darwin Engwer, 07/2478r1 Coex reorg –8 comments –Clause 11.9, 11.9.8, 11.15.1 –Assignee: Matt, as part of Coex 20-40 PCO –16 comments –Primarily 11.16 –Assignee: Tomo –Submission date: Jan 2008 L-SIG TXOP –11 comments –Clauses 9.13.5, 9.13.6 –Assignee: Yuichi –Submission date: Jan 2008

12. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 12 Subgroups (2/2) Coex cca –18 comments –Primarily clauses 11.15.7, 11.15.8 –Assignee: Eldad –Submission date: Jan 2008 Coex protection mechanisms –17 comments –Clauses 7.3.2.53, 9.13.3, 9.13.4, 11.15.6 –Assignee: Bjorn –07/2726 in progress –08/0004 –CID 5796 assigned to Solomon Coex GF –3 comments –Clause 9.13.3 –Assignee: Doug Chan –07/2849 in progress Misc –CID 5183 –Commenter emailed saying to reject comment

13. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 13 Submissions Related to Comment Resolution Bjorn –11-07-2726-03-000n-lb115-coex-comment-resolutions-protection-mechanisms.doc (15 min) –11-08-0004-00-000n-lb115-coex-comment-resolution-cid-5628.doc (15-20 min) –Group discussion on two transfers from Gen (open slot) Tomo –11-07-2990-01-000n-lb115-submission-for-category-pco-in-coex-ad-hoc.doc (45 min) Solomon –11-08-0064-01-000n-lb115-submission-cid-5796.doc Yuichi –11-07-2994-01-000n-lb115-submission-coex-l-sig-txop.doc (1 hour) –11-08-0105-00-000n-lb115-submission-coex-l-sig-txop-misc.doc (Mon PM1) Matt F. (Mon PM2, Mon Eve) –11-07-2742-03-000n-lb115-cid5279-coex-20-40.doc (lots of time) (+) Darwin (Mon PM1) –11-07-2478-01-000n-coex-cid-589.doc (updated to D3.01) (next week) Eldad –11-08-0035-00-000n-coex-cca.doc (Wed AM1) –Misc (Mon PM1, Tues eve) Brian (Wed AM1) –11-07-3000-00-000n-simulation-of-20-40-mhz-cca-unfairness.ppt Doug (GF) (Wed AM1) Red indicates completed submissions (+) indicates submission was discussed

14. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 14 Agenda for Friday Jan 11 Bjorn –11-07-2726-03-000n-lb115-coex-comment-resolutions-protection- mechanisms.doc (15 min) –11-08-0004-00-000n-lb115-coex-comment-resolution-cid- 5628.doc (15-20 min) Tomo –11-07-1990 (45 min) Matt F. –11-07-2742-03-000n-lb115-cid5279-coex-20-40.doc (lots of time)

15. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 15 Minutes for Friday Jan 11 07/2726r3 –CID 5796 assigned to Solomon and removed from submission –CID 5627 – no issues with proposed resolution –CID 5535 – no issues with proposed resolution –CID 5100 – no issues with proposed resolution –No objection to accepting submission as resolution to CIDs and bringing to motion 08/0004r0 –Some discussion on having a note showing “-3”. There is already such a note in 9.13.4 –Eldad: since the name of the parameter includes “convolutional” will we get someone asking what the value is with LDPC? –No objection to accepting submission as resolution to CIDs and bringing to motion

16. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 16 07/2990 Resolves Editor CID 5875, needs to be transferred to Coex –No objections to resolution CID 5876 –Bruce: question regarding “any channel width” phrase, any issue with limiting to 40MHz Tomo: text in 7.3.1.24 is the same type of wording Eldad: “any channel width” is limited to Supported Channel Width Set Everyone happy with current text, no objection with resolution CID 5841 – no objections CID 5359 – no objections CID 5829 – no objections CID 5109 – no objections CID 5736 – no objections CID 5737 – no objections CID 5739 –Adrian: Change the may to can in the second edit instruction –no objections to resolution with changes CID 5740 – no objections

17. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 17 07/2990 continued CID 5741 –Adrian: can we make the second two sentences (in the first editor instruction) into a note, since they are informative. Limits comments. No objections to change –No objections to resolution with changes CID 5830 – no objections CID 5831 –Solomon: address the fact that traffic mixes are unknown in the rejection –No objections to resolution with changes CID 5360 –Bruce: some grammar changes –Eldad: may needs to be changed to may –No objections to resolution with changes CID 5744 – no objections CID 5358 – no objections CID 5745 – no objections No objection to accepting r1 of submission as resolution to CIDs and bringing to motion

18. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 18 08/0064 CID 5796 –No intent to change meaning, just clarifications –Bruce: grammar corrections No objection to accepting r1 of submission as resolution to CID and bringing to motion

19. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 19 07/2742 Reviewed changes based on conference call discussion –CID 5045, 5485, 5424, 5447, 5850 CID 5850 –Still have issue with changing channel width in IBSS when there is no DFS owner, changed color to green Solomon: we have the same issue with changing channel in IBSS Matt: general issue of dynamic parameters in IBSS when no one is in charge (see CID 5276 in MAC in 07/2999) Adrian: might get a mix of DFS and non-DFS capable devices –Issue is held open by CID 5872 CID 5117 –Adrian: making assertion the operation is fair, its never been tested. But we don’t necessary care if its fair. Matt: changed “fair” to “sufficiently adequate user experience” –Allert: is this a “counter” –Luke is ok with “counter” –No further objection CID 5485 –Added rejection resolution text since conference call –No objections

20. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 20 07/2742 continued CID 5851 –Matt: Term BSS includes IBSS –Matt: Changed IDO STA to FC HT STA 17 to broaden the language to allow a non-DFS owner to start IBSS, but changes will be un-done since DFS 802.11-2007 rules in 11.9.7.2 state a STA starting an IBSS in DFS band shall be the DFS owner. –Changed to reject –No objections CID 5852, 5854 – no objection CID 5180 –Lots of discussion on whether to change “5 GHz” to “not 2.4GHz”, points raised: There was only 2.4 & 5 GHz at time of 11n starting, now we have 11y We have only thought about 2.4 & 5 GHz we don’t know what the 40 MHz coex issues would be in other bands Tomo: FC 17 restricts to 5 GHz, which is in many other places. Changes only to 11.9.8.3 would not be enough To make all the changes to draft would be complicated, reject and leave for next task group –Allert: change to FC HT AP restricts to HT device in “other band” Since the change was un-done, “FC HT” is not added anymore –No objection to rejection –Changes based on 5180 un-done

21. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 21 07/2742 continued CID 5853, 5855 –Changed to reject, refer to 5851 –No objections CID 5856, 5858 –No objections CID 5857 –Changed “HT AP or IDO STA” to “HT AP or IDO STA that is also an HT STA” in 11.9.8.3 –No objections CID 5859 - no objections CID 5030 –Resolution text modified to indicate changes based on 2.4GHz language and 5 GHz language –No objections CID 5860 –Changed to reject, refer to 5851 –No objections

22. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 22 07/2742 continued CID 5861 –Added reference to CID 5851 in resolution –No objections CID 5862 – no objections CID 5031 –Added resolution text stating that the use of scan results is implicit on existing rules –Tomo: is there a reference to rules? Matt: anything that causes a trigger event must follow the trigger Continue with CID 5808 tomorrow

23. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 23 Agenda for Saturday Jan 12 Review progress Yuichi –11-07-2994-01-000n-lb115-submission-coex-l-sig-txop.doc (1 hour) Matt F. –11-07-2742-03-000n-lb115-cid5279-coex-20-40.doc (remainder of time)

24. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 24 Status at end of Friday Jan 11 Unresolved CIDs (not approved by ad hoc to be motioned in TGn): 144 –20/40 group: 103 –CCA: 16 –GF: 3 –Protection: 2 –Reorg: 8 –L-SIG TXOP: 11 –Misc: 1 –PCO: 0 CIDs in 07/2724 w/ no objections: 31 CIDs still needing review: 113

25. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 25 Minutes for Saturday Jan 12 07/2994 –CID 5629 – no objections –CID 5470 Withdrawn by commenter (Yuichi) –CID 5630 Modified resolution by change the paragraph below –L-SIG TXOP Protection may be used even when not all HT STA in the BSS support the feature, provided that the frames using L-SIG TXOP Protection are not directed to a recipient that does not support L-SIGTXOP Protection. changing may to can and change to note No objection to new resolution –CID 5471 – no objection –CID 5632, 5472 – no objection –CID 5633 Discussion on whether note is enough explanation or proper explanation Adrian crafted new language explaining the use of HT_MF on the third PPDU no objection

26. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 26 07/2994 continued CID 5634 –Tomo: also delete the language “except during the 40 –MHz phase of PCO operation (see 11.16 (Phased Coexistence Operation)).” –No objection to new resolution CID 5635 – no objection CID 5636 – no objection CID 5637 –Discussion on TXOP truncation used in conjunction with L-SIG TXOP –Modified resolution by adding a new note –no objection No objection to accepting r2 of submission as resolution to CIDs and bringing to motion Yuichi requested to not withdraw his comment and action his comment. Decision was made to remove CID 5470 and 5630 from document and making it r3. No objection to accepting r3 of submission as resolution to CIDs and bringing to motion

27. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 27 07/2742 continued CID 5808 –Add to resolution text that capability is not changed –And delete a particular use of “shall set STA Channel Width field to 0” –No objection CID 5078 –Discussion on use of operators –modification to note to define “==“ –No objection CID 5079 – no objection CID 5863, 5864, 5865 – no objection CID 5080 –Use the comments choice of 25 MHz –No objection CID 5032 –Create new acronyms for secondary channel offset = 1 and another acronym when = 3 –No objection

28. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 28 07/2742 continued CID 5319 – no objection CID 5716, 5809 – no objection CID 5081 – no objection CID 5866 –Modified resolution to say it must be a DFS only –No objection CID 5867 – no objection CID 5868 – no objection

29. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 29 07/2742 continued CID 5869 –Changed from reject to counter –modification to resolution text to indicate that IBSS is forbidden from making channel width changes –Comment left open for now pending MAC changes CID 5870 –Changed IDO STA to DFS owner –No objection CID 5871 – no objection CID 5320 – no objection

30. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 30 07/2742 continued CID 5717, 5810 –Adrian We have two methods of changing width: secondary channel offset and E-CSA Secondary channel offset does not impact connectivity, E-CSA could –Discussion of the issue – if secondary channel offset is changed to switch the BSS to 20 MHz, the regulatory class still remains at 40 MHz. Is this ok? –In principle, does a change of channel width imply a change of regulatory class? –Possible solution: Allow an AP to operate a 20 MHz BSS in a 40 MHz regulatory class Regulatory class represents what is possible, secondary channel offset represents what is current situation Any frame that contains a new reg class field (E-CSA frame & element) with a value that corresponds to 40 MHz channel shall also include a secondary channel offset field –Comment still open

31. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 31 07/2742 continued CID 5082, 5083 –No need for record of STA Channel Width of STAs –Change to counter and delete the last paragraph of 11.9.8.4 –No objections to new resolution CID 5011 – no objection CID 5182 – no objection CID 5084 – no objection CID 5085 –Slight modification to resolution –no objection to modified resolution CID 5718 – no objection CID 5719 – no objection CID 5474 – no objection CID 5086, 5720 – no objection

32. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 32 07/2742 continued CID 5087, 5890 –Discussion regarding Notify Channel Width Action Frames –Need to continue discussion of these CIDs

33. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 33 Status at end of Sat Jan 12 Unresolved CIDs (not approved by ad hoc to be motioned in TGn): 136 –20/40 group: 103 –CCA: 16 –GF: 3 –Protection: 3 –Reorg: 8 –L-SIG TXOP: 2 –Misc: 1 –PCO: 0 CIDs in 07/2724 w/ no objections: 51 CIDs still needing review: 85

34. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 34 Agenda for Mon Jan 14 PM1 Status and review from pre-meeting Darwin –11-07-2478-01-000n-coex-cid-589.doc Yuichi –11-08-0105-00-000n-lb115-submission-coex-l-sig- txop-misc.doc

35. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 35 Minutes for Mon Jan 14 PM1 07/2478r1 –Matt: why IDO STA using Tspecs? –Delete “ or IDO STA” –No objection to accepting r2 of submission as resolution to CID and bringing to motion 08/0105r0 –Bruce: wording for “non supported HT STAs” is awkward, clearer wording? –Adrian: reference specific value of the capability field in HT Info element –IBSS? –George: one bullet is positive, one is negative, needs to be fixed –Discussion regarding rewording of the bullets –No objection to accepting r1 of submission as resolution to CID and bringing to motion

36. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 36 Agenda for Mon Jan 14 PM2 Matt –11-07-2742-05-000n-lb115-cid5279-coex-20-40.doc

37. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 37 Minutes for Mon Jan 14 PM2 07/2742 –CID 5087, 5890 – no objection –CID 5893 Luke stated that Andrew said comment can be rejected Resolution changed to reject –CID 5721 Similar to CID 5717, 5810 Still open, but no objections to proposed solution from 5717 & 5810 –CID 5892 – no objection –CID 5722, 5088, 5089 – no objection –CID 5723 – no objection –CID 5724 – no objection

38. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 38 07/2742 continued CID 5872 –Changing resolution to refer to 5869 –Allert: in DFS with radar detection on secondary, would changing to 20MHz primary be allowed? Matt: no –Still open pending 5869 CID 5097 –Discussion on setting of MIB activity threshold MIB variable –no objection CID 5091 – no objection CID 5090 –Remove “must scan twice” since it we don’t specify the separation between scans anyways –Leave open until edited –Need to transfer related CIDs 5092, 5093 from general to Coex CID 5096 – no objection CID 5098 – no objection

39. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 39 Agenda for Mon Jan 14 Evening Matt –11-07-2742-05-000n-lb115-cid5279-coex-20-40.doc

40. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 40 Minutes for Mon Jan 14 Evening 07/2742 –CID 5725 Discussion pro and con on deleting activity threshold Strawpoll: do you support deleting the activity threshold parameter and associated behavior? –Y: 3 –N: 7 –Abs: 10 Matt: suggestion for choosing MIB parameters for individual stations No objection to rejecting Naveen: interested in allowing exemptions to scanning for individual stations

41. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 41 07/2742 continued CID 5475 – no objection to rejecting CID 5894 – no objection CID 5279 – no objection CID 5106 – no objection CID 5277 –Guido: question about Probe Response with group address? Matt: receiver doesn’t have to worry about it since it is an illegal tx Guido will think about it more and come back if has further issue No other objection CID 5731 –Discussion on it makes sense for 20 MHz AP to permit 40MHz BSS –Eldad: could be used with DLS –Adrian: edits make the STA Channel Width in HT Info element becomes redundant with this change Matt: has historical value –No objection

42. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 42 07/2742 continued CID 5107 –Modify resolution text based on 5731 –No objection CID 5108 – no objection CID 5811 – no objection CID 5732 –Slight modification to edits –No objection to modified text CID 5278 –The CID removes the countdown timer, now report at end of scan interval –Michael: what is the STA action when it receives a request? Need to add that you create the frame report upon request Text modified accordingly –No objections to modified edits CID 5110 – no objection

43. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 43 07/2742 continued CID 5747 –Adrian: slightly worried that this station isn’t qualified enough –Text modified to limit to setting address if actually transmitting frame –No objections to modified edits CID 5111 –Change resolution to counter and delete paragraph –CID still open CID 5748 – no objection CID 5807 – no objection CID 5749 – no objection

44. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 44 Status at end of Mon Jan 14 Unresolved CIDs (not approved by ad hoc to be motioned in TGn): 133 –20/40 group: 102 –CCA: 16 –GF: 3 –Protection: 3 –Reorg: 8 –L-SIG TXOP: 0 –Misc: 1 –PCO: 0 CIDs in 07/2724 w/ no objections: 82 Total CIDs in Coex still needing review: 51

45. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 45 Minutes for Tues Jan 15 Evening 07/2742r5 –CID 5869 Previously reviewed, but open CID, now with resolution in r5 Adrian: wondering if channel selection rules still apply to IBSS –First follow rules in 11.9.8.4, then keep the value Adrian: is there an issue with changing channels in DFS? CID remains open –CID 5090, 5091 Previously reviewed, but open CID, now with resolution in r5 No objection –CID 5111 Previously reviewed, but open CID, now with resolution in r5 No objection –CID 5112 – no objection –CID 5750 – no objection –CID 5827 George objected to resolution –CID 5792 – no objection

46. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 46 07/2742r5 continued CID 5132 –Modified resolution to refer to 5473 –No objection CID 5473 – no objection CID 5710 – no objection CID 5133 – no objection CID 5181 – no objection CID 5714 – no objection CID 5137 – no objection CID 5102 – no objection

47. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 47 Individual CIDs CID 5183 –Reject –Making CF15 mandatory for CF16 would make all of 11y mandatory for 11n. This is not what we want to do. TGn has the following line in 11.9.8.1: “For an HT STA, the following MIB attributes shall be set to true: dot11RegulatoryClassesImplemented, dot11RegulatoryClassesRequired, and dot11ExtendedChannelSwitchEnabled.” –no objection to resolution and bringing to motion CID 5790 –Accept (deletion of S.2) –no objection to resolution and bringing to motion –Doug may come back with a rewrite of S.2, in which case this CID will be revisited CID 5122 –counter –Comment refers to S.2 which was deleted based on CID 5790 –no objection to resolution and bringing to motion

48. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 48 Status at end of Tues Jan 15 Unresolved CIDs (not approved by ad hoc to be motioned in TGn): 130 –20/40 group: 102 –CCA: 16 –GF: 3 –Protection: 1 –Reorg: 8 –L-SIG TXOP: 0 –Misc: 0 –PCO: 0 CIDs in 07/2724 w/ no objections: 95 Total CIDs in Coex still needing review: 35

49. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 49 Agenda for Wed Jan 16 AM1 Presentations –CCA sensing Brian –11-07-3000-01-000n-simulation-of-20-40-mhz-cca-unfairness.ppt Guido: 08/0145r0 Eldad: 08/0035 –GF Doug: 98/0111r0 (changed his mind and did not want to present, will schedule presentation for conference call) –Activity threshold Naveen: 08/0148r0 & 08/0150r0

50. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 50 Minutes for Wed Jan 16 AM1 07/3000r1 –Vinko: on slide 18, we already have this rule in the standard Brian: people should listen to the “should” –Tushar: re simulations, fully loaded simulation traffic scenario? Need to consider more modest traffic or real traffic model Brian: PHY simulation only, no MAC –Tushar: probability of overlapping 40 & 20-on-secondary BSS is low –Eldad: PCO already provides a mechanism for management Brian: PCO has issues in OBSS –Bruce: was sim run varying CCA level to see improvement? Brian: no –Guido: MAC aspects no accounted for (e.g. rate adaptation)

51. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 51 07/3000r1 Strawpoll: Do you prefer “shall”, “should”, “may” in the previous text, or no text at all? Vote for 1 or more –Shall: 10 –Should: 17 –May: 2 –No text change: 22 –Abstain: 4 Strawpoll: do you support adding cca text to draft w/ “should”? –Y: 17 –N: 19 –Abs: 10

52. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 52 08/0145r0 Luke: simulations do no match the scenario in the draft, where 40MHz backs off for 20MHz on secondary rather than transmits in 20MHz on primary –Guido: draft does not dictate specific scenario Strawpoll: do you support changing PIFS to XXXX in 11.15.7? –Y: 6 –N: 18 –Abs: 13 Defer discussion for Luke to present on conference call

53. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 53 08/0150r0 Peter Loc: exemption grant bit is in the beacon, so it would reset the bit in frame. STAs would need to request exemption again Adrian: concerned with exemption grant being used in broadcast sense, change text to specify to individual address

54. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 54 Minutes for Wed Jan 16 PM2 08/148r0 –Modifications made based on Peter Loc & Adrian’s comments from yesterday –Peter L: allow unsolicited exemption Modification made –Tomo: add language to indicate when “exemption” fields are reserved Modification made –Text in 08/148 will be copied into 07/2742 –Would be resolution for 5097, changed from reject to counter 08/0167 –No objection

55. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 55 Possible Conference call times Eldad on vacation Feb 13 Luke (CCA): any time Doug (GF): Feb 20 or later Bjorn (protection): Feb 27 or March 5

56. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 56 Status at end of Wed Jan 16 Unresolved CIDs (not approved by ad hoc to be motioned in TGn): 127 –20/40 group: 102 –CCA: 13 –GF: 3 –Protection: 1 –Reorg: 8 –L-SIG TXOP: 0 –Misc: 0 –PCO: 0 CIDs in 07/2724 w/ no objections: 95 Total CIDs in Coex still needing review: 32

57. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 57 Approved Motions

58. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 58 Motion # 285 Moved: Approve resolution of comments found on the tab labelled “coex pending motion set 1” in document 11-07/2693r6. –Based on resolutions in the following submission: 07/2478r2 (CID 5223) 07/2726r3 (protection mechanisms) 08/0064r0 (CID 5796) 08/0004r0 (CID 5628) 07/2944r2, 08/0105r1 (L-SIG TXOP) 11-07/2990r1 (PCO) –Resolves 44 comment with As, Cs, and Rs –All passed by no objection TGn vote: passed by no objection

59. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 59 Motion #289 Moved: Approve resolution of comments found on the tab labelled “coex pending motion set 2” in document 11-07/2693r7. –Resolves CID 5183 with reject, CID 5790 with accept, and CID 5122 with counter –All passed by no objection in ad hoc TGn vote: passed by no objection

60. doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0036r9 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia (Intel)Slide 60 Motion #294 Moved: Approve resolution of comments found on the tab labelled “coex pending motion set 3” in document 11-07/2693r9. –Based on resolutions in the following submission: 08/0167r1 (CIDs 5036, 5895, 5729) –Resolves 3 comment with Cs –passed by no objection in ad hoc TGn vote: passed by no objection