Wireless Regional Area Networks s1

May 2011 doc.: IEEE 802.22-11/0xxxr01

IEEE P802.22 Wireless RANs

2011 March Plenary Meeting Minutes for IEEE 802.22

Date: 2011-05-11 Author(s): Name Company Address Phone email 404-819-0314 / [email protected] Apurva Mody BAE Systems Merrimack, NH 603-809-0459 m [email protected] Gerald 3701 Carling Ave. Ottawa, CRC +1 613-998-2500 [email protected] Chouinard Ontario, Canada

Abstract

This document contains the minutes of the March 2011 session of the 802.22 Working Group.

Notice: This document has been prepared to assist IEEE 802.22. 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 802.22.

Patent Policy and Procedures: The contributor is familiar with the IEEE 802 Patent Policy and Procedures , 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 Apurva N. Mody 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 802.22 Working Group. If you have questions, contact the IEEE Patent Committee Administrator at .

Apurva Mody, BAE Systems May 2011 doc.: IEEE 802.22-11/0xxxr01

IEEE 802.22 Wireless Regional Area Networks March Session, Singapore March 2011

MINUTES

Contributions:  22-11-0035-01-0000-singapore-march-plenary-working-group-agenda.xls: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.22/dcn/11/22-11-0035-01-0000-singapore-march-plenary-wg- agenda.xls  22-11-0037-00-0000-january-interim-meeting-minutes.doc: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.22/dcn/11/22-11-0037-00-0000-january-interim-wg-meeting- minutes.doc  22-11-0040-04-0000 P802.22 D2 Sponsor Ballot Comments Database.xls: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.22/dcn/11/22-11-0040-04-0000-p802-22-d2-sponsor-ballot- comments-database.xls  22-11-0039-00-0000 March Plenary Opening Report: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.22/dcn/11/22- 11-0039-00-0000-802-22-march-plenary-opening-report.ppt  22-11-0045-00-0000 March Plenary Closing Report: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.22/dcn/11/22- 11-0045-00-0000-march-plenary-closing-report.ppt  22-11-0042-03-0000 Motion March Plenary EC Meeting: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.22/dcn/11/22-11-0042-03-0000-motion-march-2011-ec-meeting.ppt  22-11-0043-01-0000 March Plenary Working Group Motions: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.22/dcn/11/22-11-0043-01-0000-march-plenary-wg-motions.doc  22-11-0041-03-0000 Comment 63 Resolution to P802.22-D2.0: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.22/dcn/11/22-11-0041-03-0000-comment-63-resolution-to-p802-22- d2.doc  22-11-0015-02-0000 Proposed Resolution to Comment 257: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.22/dcn/11/22-11-0015-02-0000-proposed-resolution-to-comment-no- 257-part-2-sensing-methods-for-dvb-t.doc  22-11-0044-00-0000 Proposed Resolutions to Comment 60: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.22/dcn/11/22-11-0044-00-0000-proposed-resolution-to-comment-no- 60-on-d2-smart-threshold-setting-for-dvb-t-sensing.doc  P802.22-D2.0 – Uploaded to the members only area of the 802.22 website

March 12 th Saturday, 1:00 p.m. – 5.00 p.m. – IEEE Workshop The IEEE 802 LMSC in association with I2R and other sponsors of the Plenary conducted a Workshop to educate the audience of the various standards related activities that are on-going in the IEEE 802. The workshop was attended by approximately 40 people.

Monday PM1 (WG Opening Plenary)

Chairman Apurva Mody called the meeting to order at 140PM Singapore local time. 9 people were in the room at the opening of the session.

Apurva expressed sympathies for all the colleagues and people in Japan. The hope was that life will return back to normal as soon as possible.

The events also had an impact on the 802.22 attendance.

1.1 Secretary The chair asked for a volunteer to take minutes. Since there was no volunteer, Apurva Mody decided to take notes of the meeting minutes.

Apurva went over the attendance system & showed the URL for it. There will be 1 social event during this Interim: The host plenary meeting will start at 6.00 p.m. local time followed by the regular social on Wednesday night.

Arrangements will be made so that other participants could attend the meeting via a telecon.

1.2 Meeting agenda: 22-11-0035r1

The proposed agenda for this plenary was discussed and the timeslots for the respective WGs looked at. Agenda was then approved without comment.

The main tasks for the WG were to quickly address and resolve the comments that were received during the Sponsor Ballot Re-circ #1 and decide if another re-circ was required. The Chair would seek a (conditional) approval from the IEEE 802 EC to forward the draft to the RevCom.

The other important agenda for the meeting was to have a discussion on the new PARs

1.3 Minutes of the previous session: 22-11-0037r0

There were no outstanding issues from the meeting minutes for the January 2011 Los Angeles interim. These Minutes were discussed and approved without comment.

1.3.1 Matters arising from the previous session

Apurva reported on the results of the Sponsor Ballot Re-circ #1; P802.22-D3 received 84% response ratio and a 94% approval. Discussion ensued re: the next steps that should be taken and the timing. Apurva hoped for a final approval of the standard by the May Interim session. Ways and means were discussed on the comments resolution process for this ballot and when a 15-day sponsor recirculation would be launched.

1.3.1.1 Regularory Issues

Apurva reviewed the recent happenings in various regulatory domains. The Govt. of India, proposed National Frequency Allocation Plan (NFAP) revision for frequency bands from 490 MHz – 698 MHz was discussed. IEEE 802.22 WG has been working with the IEEE 802.18 Regulatory TAG to subcmit a letter to the Wireless Planning and Co-ordination Committee in India. The Chair also talked about FCC 10-198 Notice of Inquiry (NOI) dealing with what’s next in Dynamic Spectrum Access. Discussion ensued on how other WGs might be affected.

1.3.1.2 Clarification between technical and procedural motions

Apurva asked if all were aware of the approval requirements for Technical vs. Procedural motions. No one indicated that clarification was needed.

2.1 IEEE-SA Patents Policy

Apurva reviewed the IEEE Patent Policy with the WG. No one had any comments. Apurva reported that some LOAs had been received from some companies and that work was continuing in this area.

2.2 Attendance recording

Apurva again reiterated the attendance URL & showed where on the IEEE site the documentation requirements could be obtained.

2.4 Other announcments Mike Kipness from the IEEE-SA staff was thanked by the WG for his assistance over the past 5 years & his successor, Tricia, was introduced to the WG. The Chair requested Tricia to address the 802.22 participants and give an introduction on the PARs as well as what are the steps involved.

2.4.2 New Aspirants introduction

Dr. Michael Gundlach from Nokia Siemens was a new participant to the 802.22 session.

3. WG Motions

Motion 1, Monday, March 14th at 2.15 p.m. Move: To Approve the Meeting minutes of the January interim held in Los Angeles as contained in Document 22-11-0037 Rev 0 Move: Apurva Mody Second: Ivan Reede No objection. Motion passes unanimously.

4. Reports from external and internal liaisons and ad-hoc grgoups

4.1 Between 802.22 to/from 802.18

Getting the letter from IEEE 802.18 to WPC in India was the primary agenda of the 802.22 activity in 802.18. Apurva will work with 802.18 (Mr. Michael Lynch and Mr. John Notor) to get that done.

4.2 Between 802.22 to/from 802.19

Ivan reported that most of the proposals that were made to the 802.19 on co-existence manager were very similar, and it was likely that these proposals will be merged. 802.19 is likely to go to the WG Letter Ballot by September.

4.3 External liaison representatives

Gabor Bajko (Nokia Siemens) will present the IETF database access activities on Wednesday to and see how 802.22 and IETF can work together. IEEE 802.22 Sponsor Ballot Status and Comment Resolution – 22-11-0040r4

Apurva reported on the results of the Sponsor Ballot Re-circ #1; P802.22-D3 received 84% response ratio and a 94% approval. During the Sponsor Ballot Re-circ #1, that ended on March 13th 2011, 63 comments were received in total. There were three technical comments with Must be Satisfied condition from Rene Struik. 47 editorial comments were received from Ranga Reddy. 4 Editorial comments were received from Tom Gurley. One editorial comment was received from Gwangzen Ko. Six comments (one technical, one general and four editorial) comments were received from Aziz (Mohammad Rahman).

4.4 PHY ad-hoc group progress report

There were no comments received related to PHY in the 802.22 Sponsor Ballot Re-circ

4.5 MAC and Security ad-hoc group progress report

Ranga Reddy participated via telecon. He reported that MAC and Security related comments will be addressed and resolved.

4.6 Coexistence ad-hoc group progress report Jianfeng Wang was not present. Wendong has disapproved some portions of the coexistence and he maintains his disapprove vote.

4.7 Cognitive radio capability ad-hoc group progress report

There were no comments received related to Cognitive sectionh in the 802.22 Sponsor Ballot Re-circ

4.8 Systems ad-hoc group progress report

Gerald mentioned that he had not reviewed the comments as of yet. Apurva proposed combining some comments from other areas for the Systems ad-hoc group.

4.9 TG1

Nothing to report.

4.10 TG2

Winston Caldwell, Chair of 802.22.2 Task Group did not attend the March Plenary meeting.

The opening plenary meeting was adjourned at 3.30 p.m. local time.

Monday PM2 (Discussion on New PARs)

Apurva called the meeting to order at 4:10 PM PST. 9 people were in the room. Gerald participated via Internet.

Document Types  New: A document that does not replace or modify another standard.

 Revision: A document that updates or replaces an existing IEEE standard in its entirety. Typically all standards need to be revised or re-affirmed every five years.

 Amendment: A document that contains new material to an existing IEEE standard and may contain technical corrections to that standard.

 Corrigendum: A document that only contains technical corrections to an existing IEEE standard.

 Erratum: A document that contains only grammatical corrections to, or errors introduced during the publishing process of, an existing IEEE standard.

IEEE-SA STANDARDS BOARD OPERATIONS MANUAL http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/opman/sect9.html 9. Maintenance of IEEE standards Sponsors are required to undertake a maintenance action on a standard within five years of its IEEE-SA Standards Board approval date. Subsequent maintenance actions on active standards are required within five years of the IEEE-SA Standards Board approval date of the previous maintenance action. For standards with amendments or corrigenda, the maintenance schedule for all components of the standard is based on the schedule for the base document. Standards that meet the criteria for stabilization (see 1.2) can be transferred to the stabilized standards process, where the document is subject to the requirement of maintenance action every ten years.

A maintenance action on an active standard can be an approved PAR for revision; an initiated reaffirmation ballot; an initiated Sponsor withdrawal ballot; or a request to stabilize. If the Sponsor does not undertake a maintenance action by the end of a standard's five-year maintenance cycle, or ten-year maintenance cycle for stabilization, the RevCom Administrator shall notify the Sponsor that the standard will be submitted to RevCom with a default recommendation of withdrawal. RevCom or the IEEE-SA Standards Board may decide to alter the default recommendation.

9.1 Reaffirmation Standards that contain no identified significant obsolete or erroneous information may be submitted by the Sponsor for reaffirmation when accompanied by a ballot indicating approval by at least 75% of the interested and affected parties. When the Sponsor ballots a standard for reaffirmation, the entire standard, including approved amendments, corrigenda, and known errata, is subject to review by its balloters. Objections may indicate the need to revise the standard rather than to reaffirm it. If any approved amendments, corrigenda, or known errata are omitted during a reaffirmation ballot, a recirculation shall be required to present them to the balloting group.

Sponsors shall not conduct a reaffirmation ballot for standards with three or more amendments. In such situations, the Sponsor shall revise the standard instead. (See 8.1.2.)

Following ideas were discussed for new PARs on Monday, and during subsequent sessions:

1. P802.22.2 – needs completion.

2. Amendment (Ranga Reddy) – MIBs – ASN.1 – Ranga to submit a PAR/ 5C document on this amendment during the May interim.

3. Amendment (Ranga Reddy) – Management Plane Procedures. Ranga to submit a PAR/ 5C document on this amendment during the May interim.

4. New PAR (Apurva Mody) – 802.22.3 Includes Specification for the Backhaul and CPE relaying – Responsible – Apurva Mody.

5. Amendment (Gerald Chouinard, Russ Markhowski) – Geolocation -

6. Amendment (Nokia) – Database Interface Specification and Maturation

7. Amendment (Motorola) – 802.22.1 Beacon for co-existence in C-Band

8. Study Group - Critical infrastructure monitoring

9. Study Group - Smart grid

10. Amendment – PHY –

a. Modulation and Coding Add Multi-dimensional Trellis Coded Modulation. PAPR reduction techniques. (Shigenobu Sasaki)

b. Contiguous channel operation / dis-continuous channels. Channel bonding. Carrier aggregation. (Aziz)

c. FDD as suggested by ETRI.(Sunghyun Hwang)

d. Flexible Bandwidth Management. (Aziz, Sunghyun)

e. MIMO on CPEs. (Ivan Reede)

f. UL Single Carrier FDMA.

g. Carrier exclusion – interference avoidance through carrier nulling (Ivan Reede)

h. PHY –Electronic steered beams. 8 payloads in 8 different directions. Spatial FFT on TD- FFTs. (Ivan Reede)

11. Amendment - Mobility in TV Whitespaces (Ranga Reddy)

12. Amendment – MAC with scope limitation for security. (Ranga Reddy)

13. Amendment – Co-existence as a separate clause. Interference-free CPE scheduling to improve throughput in coexistence situations. Schemes for co-existence with other technologies using the SCW (Jianfeng Wang).

14. Corrigendum / Maintenance: 802.22 Maintenance PAR

a. Database as a separate section

Meeting adjourned at 6:25 PM PST for dinner.

Monday Evening (Tutorials) Monday evening session featured three tutorials. Interested people who had not registered for the IEEE 802 meeting were allowed to attend the tutorial.

Tuesday AM1 (Comment Resolution 22-11-0040r4 – Rene Struik)

Apurva called the meeting to order at 8:10 AM local time. Gerald Chouinard, Ranga Reddy and Rene Struik were present via telecon.

The three technical comments with Must be Satisfied conditions from Rene Struik were discussed. The resolution to the proposed comments can be found in Document 22-11-0040r4

Comment #61 Comment is the same as the previous comment #100 submitted by Rene Struik during the Sponsor Ballot #1 for P802.22/D1.0 so this comment is not related to a new Issue based on the changes made to the Draft during the Sponsor Ballot Comment Resolution. The Comment Resolution Committee had a telecon with the commentor on Tuesday, March 15th, during the AM1 session in Singapore, where the commentor decided to 'Withdraw' this comment. Rene: The version of the RFC 2437 referred to in the 802.22 Draft should not allow support for the MultiPrime feature. Based on the Comment #100 during Sponsor Ballot #1, P802.22/D2 was modified to refer to Version 2.0 (October 1998) of the RFC 2437. It was confirmed that this version does not include the MultiPrime support. Rene agreed that this was the case. Rene Struik (email: 13 March 2011, 19:09:06 -0400): "Those are indeed the correct references and I confirm I will withdraw #1 you quoted below." This sentence referred to this comment #61.

Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 22:34:45 -0400 From: Rene Struik To: apurva mody CC: Gerald Chouinard , apurva mody Subject: Re: Rene: Confirmation for your Comment Resolutions

Hi Apurva:

As previously indicated, I hereby confirm that I withdraw all technical ("TR") comments I submitted during the 802.22 sponsor ballot recirculation that ended Sat March 12, 2011, 11:59pm EST. Please record my corresponding vote as Abstain.

Best regards, Rene

Comment #62

Comment is the same as Comment #125 from the Sponsor Ballot #1 for P802.22/D1.0, so this is Not a New Issue based on the changes made to the Draft. The commentor has decided to 'Withdraw' this comment for the following reasons. The comment resolution committee had a telecon with the commentor on Tuesday, March 15th, during the AM1 meeting in Singapore, and asked the commentor the nature of this comment. The commentor clarified that this should really be an Editorial comment. In response, the chair asked for clarification from Michelle Turner (IEEE-SA chief editor): "IEEE 802.22 is planning to refer to the SEC4 Standard which is a Draft Standard under development as a normative reference." Micheller Turner's response: "The reference to the draft is fine. However, please make sure when it's referenced it includes the date and version of the draft. Also, please make sure the draft is readily available, because we will need to footnote how the draft can be obtained." The CRC wanted further clarification on whether the IEEE SA can store the draft SEC4 standard being referred - Michelle provided this further clarification as follows: "The draft will be placed on file with the IEEE. So the issue of the possibility of it not being at the website years from now, doesn't matter because we will have it. During publication prep, we would include the appropriate footnotes, so the user will know how to obtain the draft. Hopefully this was helpful." As a further clarification, the Chair asked the IEEE -SA Sr. Program Manager if the IEEE -SA will take care of keeping this Draft Standard in their repository and will provide it to whoever asks for it. Please find the e-mail exchange below:

Based on this, the commentor agreed to Withdraw his comment.

Comment #64

On Tuesday, March 15th, AM1 Session in Singapore, the comment resolution committee had a telecon with the commentor. During the telecon, the commentor elaborated his reasons for submitting this comment: In certain applications, one is no longer allowed to use crypto strength of 80 bits (e.g., US Gov't requires a crypto strength of more than 80 bits for government's applications (NIST SP 800-57)). While the cryptographic construct strength used in this specification is deemed to be adequate for industrial/commercial applications right now, it is realized that in the future, more flexibility and higher- crypto bit strengths may be warranted. The commentor is okay if this issue is addressed in a future amendment of the 802.22 specification and he was willing to withdraw this comment. However, the Comment Resolution Committee decided to accept this comment in principle and provided the resolution to this comment, which can be found in contribution (22-11-0041). Higher strength crypto

Apurva Mody, BAE Systems May 2011 doc.: IEEE 802.22-11/0xxxr01 elliptical curve was selected: K-233 or B-233 elliptic curves defined in FIPS 186-3 will be used rather than the K-163 and B-163. Action: Update tables throughout Draft D02, to reflect change of 163-curve to curve with higher cryptographic bit strength. This will include the B-233 and K-233 curves specified by NIST in FIPS Pub 186-3. Instruction to the editor to incorporate changes to 802.22/D2 as proposed in Document 22-11-0041r3.

Final Resolution to Rene Struik’ s comments:

Although Rene Struik and Aziz had agreed to withdraw all their comments, later on Wednesday, after reviewing Ranga Reddy’ s 47 comments, the Chair came to know that although those comments had been submitted as Editorial comments, they are actually Technical comments.

If the CRC decided to incorporate changes based on Ranga’ s comments, then another round of recirculation would be required anyways. As a result, the Working Group decided to have another round of re-circulation and also decided to act on Rene Struik’s comments.

Apurva adjourned the meeting at 10:15 AM PST

Tuesday AM2 (MAC ad-hoc group meeting)

Apurva called the meeting to order at 10:45 AM PST. 12 people were in the room & Gerald and Ranga Reddy were present via Internet.

Ranga Reddy’ s 47 comments were addressed. Chair of 802.22 asked Ranga whether some of his comments were indeed Editorial or they were Technical. Ranga clarified that some his comments were technical during the Sponsor Ballot Re-circ #1, however the editor did not act on them even though they were accepted. As a result, he re-submitted these comments as technical.

Apurva Mody, said that he may have to clarify this with the Chair of IEEE 802, Mr. Paul Nikolich and IEEE SA Staff to see if technical comments can be submitted as editorial if the editor missed out on them.

Apurva adjourned the session at 12:30 PM PST for lunch.

Tuesday PM1 (MAC ad-hoc group meeting)

Apurva called the meeting to order at 1:45 PM PST. 12 people were in the room & Gerald & Ranga were present via Internet.

Apurva invited Michelle Turner, IEEE SA Staff to advise whether Ranga Reddy comments can be considered as Editorial in nature, and whether the IEEE SA staff will help to resolve them editorially. Michelle Turner said that she was not comfortable in incorporating many of the resolutions editorially and this can be either fixed through another round of re-circ or through a corrigenda.

Apurva Mody also asked Mr. Paul Nikolich, Mr. Bob Grove and Mr. David Law, who are members of the IEEE 802 Exedcutive Committee on the best course of action.

In the end it was decided that P802.22-D2 should go though another round of re-circulation and the 802.22 Chair should seek Conditional Approval to forward the P802.22 Draft to RevCom.

Apurva adjourned the session at 330PM PST

Tuesday PM2 (MAC ad-hoc group meeting)

Apurva called the meeting to order at 4:15 PM PST.

Ideas on how to move forward the 802.22 activities and new PARs were discussed.

Joint IEEE 802.19, 802.11, 802.22, 802.16 and 802.15 meeting was held to discusss the P1900.7 PAR. Mr. Stanislav Filin discussed the PAR. There was a lot of discussion on this subject. Many comments were made. The Chair of 802.19, Mr. Steve Shellhammer decided to note down the comments and submit them to P1900.7 as official comments from IEEE 802.

Apurva adjourned the meeting at 5:45 PM PST

Wednesdady AM1 (Comment Resolution)

Apurva called the meeting to order at 8:00 AM PST. Ranga Reddy and Gerald Chouinard attended the meeting via telecon. Apurva informed Ranga and Gerald the resolution from the Tuesday PM1 session that Ranga’ s comments need to be treated as technical if they were originally submitted as technical comments.

Apurva explained that P802.22-D2 will go though another round of re-circulation and the 802.22 Chair will seek Conditional Approval to forward the P802.22 Draft to RevCom.

Apurva adjourned the session at 10:00 AM PST.

Wednesdady AM2 (Coexistence ad-hoc group meeting)

Apurva called the meeting to order at 10:30 AM PST. 7 people were in the room and Ranga & Gerald were present via Internet.

Remaining comments from Aziz and Tom Gurley were resolved.

Apurva adjourned the session at 12:30 PM PST.

Wednesday PM1 (Mid-week Plenary session)

Apurva called the meeting to order at 1:40 PM PST. 9 people were present in the room and Gerald participated via Internet. Gerald Chouinard attended the meeting via telecon.

Following motions were made and passed during the Mid-week Plenary Session.

Motion #2 Motion: Request that the IEEE P802.22 Working Group Chair issue the P802.22/ D3.0 on or before March 24th and launch a 15 day Sponsor Ballot Recirculation #2 based on the modifications to P802.22/D 2.0 as a result of the comment resolutions as contained in 22-11-0040 v6.0. Move: Ivan Reede Second: Jerry Kalke For: 8 Against: 0 Abstain: 0 Motion passes unanimously

Motion #3 The IEEE 802.22 Working Group authorizes the WG Chair to seek Conditional Approval from the IEEE 802 Executive Committee to forward P802.22/D3.0 to the IEEE SA RevCom. Move: Ivan Reede Second: Dr. Hiroshi Harada For: 9 Against: 0 Abstain: 0 Motion passes unanimously

Motion #4 In case another round of re-circulation is needed after the Sponsor Ballot Re-circulation #2 for Draft P802.22/D3.0 The IEEE 802.22 Working Group authorizes the WG Chair to conduct telecons to address and resolve the comments, prepare the new Draft P802.22/D4.0 and launch the Sponsor Ballot Re-circulation. The IEEE 802.22 WG also authorizes the WG Chair to forward P802.22/ D4.0 to the IEEE SA RevCom and conduct any business that the Chair may require to progress the approval of the standard. Move: Gwangzeen Ko Second: Sasaki Shigenobu For: 9 Against: 0 Abstain: 0 Motion passes unanimously

Motion #5 The IEEE 802.22 Working Group authorizes the WG Chair to schedule telecons necessary for drafting maintenance PARs and amendments to the 802.22 PAR as well as resolving any un-resolved issues and comments Move: Jerry Kalke Second: Zander Lei For: 9 Against: 0 Abstain: 0

Motion passes unanimously

Apurva adjourned the session at 3:30 PM PST

The Thursday PM1, PM2 and Evening sessions was canceled. There were no objections to the motion to cancel the evening session.

Gabor Bajko (Nokia Siemens) from IETF PAWS working group presented the activities that were on- going over there and the progress that they had made thus far in defining the requirements for the access to the database.

Wednesdady PM2 (PHY ad-hoc group meeting)

Apurva worked with the Chair if IEEE 802.18, Mr. Michael Lynch, to issue the Letter from the IEEE 802.18 to Dr. Ashok Chandra, at the Wireless Planning and Coordination, Department of Telecommunications, India for their on-going NFAP review process for frequency bands between 490 MHz to 698 MHz.

Thursday AM1 (System ad-hoc group meeting)

Apurva called the meeting to order at 8:20 AM PST. Gerald Chouinard and Ranga Reddy participated via Internet.

Time line for issuing P802.22-D3 were discussed. Gerald said that he will finish incorporating all the comments by Saturday, March 19th, 2011.

Session adjourned the session at 10:00 AM PST

Thursday AM2

Apurva called the meeting to order at 11:30 AM PST. Timing of the final approval for the draft was discussed.

Ideas on New PAR were discussed.

Apurva adjourned the session at 12:30 PM PST.

Thursday PM1, PM2 and EVE sessions were cancelled.

Since 802.22 WG had finished all its activities for

Friday AM1 (Closing Plenary)

1.1: 802.22 WG Agenda

Motion: Motion to modify the agenda as it appears in 22-11-0035 latest rev Move: Jerry Kalke Second: Shigenobu Sasaki No objection Motion passes.

The proposed agenda was approved without comments.

2.1: IEEE-SA Letter of Assurance (LOA)

No new LoA were received.

3.1.4: WG Technical Editor Status

Gerald reported there would be a number of changes to the draft as a result of the comments and we will be going to another round of re-circ. He would issue the draft by Sunday March 20th and Apurva will work with the IEEE SA staff to get the sponsor ballot re-circ process under way.

3.1.5: Strawpoll regarding the sessing location

Straw poll of membership was unanimous in approval of the location for this Plenary meeting.

Straw Poll #1: for Singapore as the location of the meeting: Almost everyone was impressed with the facilities in Singapore. Many people from America thought that the meeting was too far but the hotel was fantastic and they would come back.

Straw Poll #2: March 2012 Plenary Meeting: Melbourne Australia vs Kona Hawaii. From cost and travel perspective, people prefer Hawaii.

3.1.6: WG Motions

Following motions were made during the closing plenary on Friday.

Motion: The WG authorizes the Chair to create a study group to align the 802.22 interface to the incumbent database as may be prescribed by various country regulators. The outcome of the Study Group would be the PAR/5C. Move: Jerry Kalke Second: Shigenobu Sasaki For: 3 Against: 0 Abstain: 0 Motion passes.

Motion: The WG authorizes the Chair to create a study group to investigate the enhancements to the MIBs and specification of the management plane procedures to the 802.22 specification resulting in PAR/5C. Move: Shigenobu Sasaki Second: Jerry Kalke For: 3 Against: 0 Abstain: 0 Motion passes

3.3 Task Group and ad-hoc groups reports

PHY – No new comments were received during the Sponsor Ballot re-circ.

MAC & Security – Ranga Reddy stated that good progress had been made, especially with Rene Struik being present available via telecon. Rene’s comments will be resolved during P802.22-D3.

Coexistence – Apurva stated that Wendong maintained his disapprove based on his comments related to co-existence.

System – Gerald stated that system related comments had been reviewed and resolved.

Local Time: 11.30 p.m. – Motion to Adjourn. Passes Unanimously.

Friday IEEE 802 Executive Committee Meeting 22-11-0042rev3

Apurva Mody, the Chair of 802.22 made following motion to the IEEE 802 EC. The package for conditional approval to forward P802.22 to RevCom can be found in document 22-11-0042 Rev 3.

Motion to grant conditional approval as per the IEEE 802 Operations Manual to forward IEEE P802.22 to the IEEE Standards Association Review Committee. Move: Apurva N. Mody, Second: Bob Heile For: 14 Against: 0 Abstain: 0 Motion Passes

The list of attendees for the Singapore Plenary session is appended below.

802.22 Attendance List Singapore Plenary Session March 2011

Hwang Sung Hyun ETRI, Korea

Kalke Jerome J. CBS Ko Gwangzeen ETRI, Korea Lei Zander I2R, Singapore Lynch Michael MJLA LLC Mody Apurva BAE Systems Rahman Mohammad NICT, Japan Reede Ivan Amerisys Inc. Shellhammer Steve Qualcomm Zhang Xin NICT, Japan Gundlach Michael Nokia Siemens Shigenobu Sasaki Niigata University Lynch Michael MJLA LLC. Note: Participants who had voting status appear in bold.

Apurva Mody, BAE Systems