April 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0331r0

IEEE P802.11 Wireless LANs

CBP-SG Telecon Minutes 6 April

Date: 2005-04-06

Author(s): Name Company Address Phone email AMS5/2/, Haarlerbergpark, Haarlerbergweg 13-19, Amsterdam, +31 (0)20 357- Jan Kruys Cisco Systems [email protected] NOORD-HOLLAND 2447 Netherlands 1101 CH

Abstract CBP-SG teleconference minutes from 6 April, 2005

Notice: This document has been prepared to assist IEEE 802.11. 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 802.11.

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 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 802.11 Working Group. If you have questions, contact the IEEE Patent Committee Administrator at . Submission page 1 Jan Kruys, Cisco Systems April 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0331r0

802.11 CBP-SG

April 6, 2005 1PM ET

Discussion leader: Peter Ecclesine, [email protected] 408-527-0815 Notes: Jan Kruys, [email protected]

Opening of the meeting

Peter Ecclesine formally the meeting called to order at 13.05

1) Roll call Present on the call:

Jeff Tao [email protected] Nada Golmie [email protected] Changwne-Liu [email protected] Scott Blue [email protected] Carl R. Stevenson [email protected] Lisa Ward [email protected] Lusheng Ji [email protected] Adrian P. Stephens [email protected] Jim Raab [email protected] Roger Marks [email protected] Narasimha Chari [email protected] Marian Rudolf [email protected] Mike Lynch [email protected] Roger Durand [email protected] Byoung-Jo "J" Kim [email protected] David Steer [email protected] Clint Chaplin [email protected] Jerry Upton [email protected] Jim Tomcik [email protected] Peter Ecclesine [email protected] Marianne Goldhammer [email protected] Jan Kruys [email protected] Kourosh Parsa [email protected] Malik Audeh [email protected] Joseph S. Levy [email protected]

2) Approval of agenda

The agenda was read out by Peter and approved by acclamation.

3) 802.11-05-223 Summary of progress during Atlanta session

Peter re-iterated the main points made in the ExCom meeting at Atlanta:

a) This is considered to be an “all 802” group; its results go to all WG chairs and to all WGs

b) The focus is the technical feasibility of developing or specifying the means to allow any (type of 802) technology to make use of this band. This a major challenge.

Submission page 2 Jan Kruys, Cisco Systems April 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0331r0

c) The output of this group will be a recommendation on how to proceed and that may include a PAR and 5 Criteria for a new WG.

4) 802.11-05/0328 Coordination, Contention, Interference Resolution

The format and content need another round – for the next call. This document contains key elements of FCC R&O’s that are in some way related to this one.

Main points made – in the course of the discussion:

Frequency sharing has three major stages: coordination, contention and resolution. The coordination stage occurs when new entrants check the FCC’s data base of established users and incumbents in order to avoid interference as much as possible by not operating in the same frequency/time/space domain as others. Contention occurs when some measure of f/t/s domain sharing is deemed necessary or acceptable. Its purpose is to avoid interference by dynamic means. If those fail - which means users are affected – the resolution stage kicks in (and we are in the office of a broker or a lawyer, or in court)

The new spectrum and its mode of access can be likened to a 8 lane highway: the FCC only limits the power of the vehicles, not how they avoid colliding etc. However, before being allowed on the highway, the FCC will review the collision avoidance features – like LBT - and deny access if they are not satisfied. THIS IS NOT AN UNLICENSED BAND. If accidents happen, there have to be ways to resolve the results. Again, there is ample precedence for this in the FCC’s rules, e.g. Part 24 and Part 101.

Does this imply that the technical rules do not have to assure complete and perfect sharing that avoids all interference? It does but the burden of higher level conflict resolution is heavy and therefore it behooves us to develop the best possible rules we can come up with.

Listen before talk is a suitable technique but it can never be the whole answer to all sharing issues. There is ample precedence of extensions to the LBT principle – see the Japanese 4msec listening interval that applies in the licensed HiSWAN bands.

The relevant means used in the contention stage may well vary with the environment and conditions in which it occurs: for a rural environment, simple mechanism may suffice. Also: in some cases an external sensor that informs local users of the activity of other spectrum users may be required or advantageous. We should look at precedents where these are available.

The market for this kind of application is about half the population of the US. In fact the FCC has clearly said that this proceeding is very much aimed at opening up rural broadband markets.

Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 1400 until 1300, a week. Peter will re-issue the call in data and any new documents.

§ 90.7 Definitions. * * * * * Contention-based protocol. A protocol that allows multiple users to share the same spectrum by defining the events that must occur when two or more transmitters attempt to simultaneously access the same channel and establishing rules by which a transmitter provides reasonable opportunities for other transmitters to operate. Such a protocol may consist of procedures for initiating new transmissions, procedures for

Submission page 3 Jan Kruys, Cisco Systems April 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0331r0 determining the state of the channel (available or unavailable), and procedures for managing retransmissions in the event of a busy channel.

Submission page 4 Jan Kruys, Cisco Systems