1. Project Planning Committee Closing Report (Session #72) IEEE 802.16 Presentation Submission Template (Rev. 9) Document Number: IEEE 802.16ppc-11/0002 Date Submitted: 2011-03-16 Source: Rakesh Taori E-mail: Rakesh.Taori@samsung.com Samsung Electronics Venue: The Grand Hotel, Taipei, Taiwan Base Contribution: None Purpose: Project Planning WG Closing Plenary: Output of the week Notice: This document does not represent the agreed views of the IEEE 802.16 Working Group or any of its subgroups. It represents only the views of the participants listed in the “Source(s)” field above. It is offered as a basis for discussion. It is not binding on the contributor(s), who 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 802.16. Patent Policy: The contributor is familiar with the IEEE-SA Patent Policy and Procedures: and.http://standards.ieee.org/guides/bylaws/sect6-7.html#6http://standards.ieee.org/guides/opman/sect6.html#6.3 Further information is located at and.http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-material.htmlhttp://standards.ieee.org/board/pat

2. 22/15/2016 Project Planning Session this week Timeslots this week: –1 st Session: Tuesday, 1:30pm – 6:00pm (4502/4503) –2 nd session: Wednesday, 8:00am – 12:30pm (4502/4503) –3 rd session: Thursday, 8:00am – 12:30pm (4502/4503) (was released) Objectives for the week 1.Finalize the Draft PARs for 802.16 Revision Discuss the submitted contributions (1 contribution in WG directory) Prepare a proposal suitable for submission to the EC. Tuesday afternoon meeting dedicated to this issue. 2.Finalize the Hierarchical Network Study Report Discuss the submitted contributions (3 contributions in the PPC folder) Expected to discuss this topic on Wednesday and possibly Thursday. Both the foregoing objectives were achieved

3. 32/15/2016 1. Discussion on the 802.16 PARs (Tuesday) The group discussed Contribution C802.16-11_0001 –Title: Proposed Draft PARs for Revision and Division of IEEE Std 802.16 The contribution provided –Background (Revision requirements and why this is an “unusual” revision) –Explanation of the proposal Revision PAR (includes amendments prior to 802.16e, 802.16e itself, 802.16j and 802.16h) 802.16M PAR (a new standard incorporating the 802.16m amendment and potential amendments on top of the 802.16m amendment itself) –Rationale for the proposal. Discussion centered around –Gaining a better understanding of the proposal (clarification) –Impact on the ongoing work (802.16pand 802.16n) Interactive review of the PAR language –P802.16Rev.doc –P802.16M.doc Group output uploaded to temp server for review by the membership.

4. 42/15/2016 Motion to approve the 2 PARs (Wednesday) (in PPC) Move to approve the PARs in documents IEEE 802.16-11_0010 and IEEE 802.16-11_0011 and to submit these to the 802 EC for approval. –Moved by: Dan Gal –Seconded by: Lei Wang –Result: Passes with unanimous consent In Favor: 12 Opposed: 0 Abstain: 0

5. 52/15/2016 Motion to approve the 2 PARs (Wednesday) (in WG) Move to approve the PARs in documents IEEE 802.16-11_0010 and IEEE 802.16-11_0011 and to submit these to the 802 EC for approval. –Moved by: –Seconded by: –Result: In Favor: Opposed: 0 Abstain: 0

6. 62/15/2016 2. Hierarchical Network Session (Wednesday) The HN (Hierachical Networks) Ad-hoc, chaired by Inuk Jung, used IEEE C802.16ppc-10_008r3, the output of PPC from Session #71, as their starting point in developing the study report –Contained bracketed text –There were additional proposals The adhoc held 3 Conference calls to discuss and harmonize the contents of the study report between Session #71 and #72. The output of the ad-hoc was uploaded prior to Session #72 (IEEE C802.16ppc-11_002r3) There were 3 contributions (C802.16ppc-11_0007, 008 and 009) in response to the call for comments on the ad-hoc’s output. PPC discussed the three contributions and adopted the texts proposed in the contributions with some modifications. The resulting text is documented in IEEE C802.16ppc-11_0007r2. A cleaned-up version (without any revision marks) of the document (IEEE C802.16ppc-11_0007r3) was adopted by the PPC as the baseline Hierarchical Networks Study report.

7. 72/15/2016 Topics covered in the HN Study Report (High Level Classification) Coordination techniques between devices, between cells in the same tier and multi tiers (Single RAT) IM techniques (Single-RAT and/or Multi-RAT) Enhanced spectrum utilization (Multi-RAT) Connection flow offloading (Multi-RAT) Interworking with other RAT involving access points and IEEE802.16 BS. (Multi-RAT) Collaboration between Multi-RAT devices (e.g. tethering) (Multi-RAT) Focus: Maximizing Spectrum Utilization

8. 82/15/2016 Discussion on the HN Study report Discussion points –Initiating activity based on Heterogeneous networks? –Scope of the HN work

9. 92/15/2016 Real-Time Minutes (non-binding)

10. 102/15/2016 PAR related discussion Stakeholders: –Add TTA in the listof stakeholders Modifications in clause 7 –Say No in 7.2 –Say Yes to 7.3a But 7.3 and 7.4 are not visible. So add notes in the “Explanatory Notes” section –Do this for both the PARs Naming: What would the revision standard be called –IEEE decides. They are likely to call it 802.16-2012. Update process in ITU –Mar 2012 would be good time to get it ready in time for the annual update related to ITU-R.

11. 112/15/2016 PAR related discussion Naming (again) – This time why 802.16M –16.1 and 16.2 are already taken. Calling the standard 16.4 or 16.5 did not sound right –16.10 and 16.20 were also considered. But 16.20 might not be such a good name for 802.16m amendment. –16m is a widely used term and therefore calling it 802.16M makes sense. –This seemed agreeable to Nescom folks as well.

12. 122/15/2016 PAR related discussions In the second PAR (pertaining to 802.16M), should we try to limit the scope to “no new features”? –It is very difficult to limit the scope (how do you define “new”). –The Scope appears in the final specification document and it is inadequate if the text would list a bunch of limitations. Why not create 4 separate books E, J, H, and M? –16h and 16j are fully dependent on legacy frame structure. –H and J are not standalone.

13. 132/15/2016 PAR related discussions: The “How” part Step 1: –Editorial: Merge j, h and m (done by the IEEE editors?) –Likely to be a simple combination of all the existing specifications. Step 2: –Split in to two books (IEEE editors or.16 editors) Step 3: –Open these split books for WG ballot. –During balloting, people can bring in technical comments. –The entire books will be open for commenting.