Call to Order by Temporary Chair, Harry Worstell, AT&T Research

January 2008 doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0185r00

IEEE P802.11 Wireless LANs

TGz Meeting Minutes, January 2008 Session

Date: 2008-01-18

Author(s): Name Company Address Phone email 550 South Winchester [email protected] David Hunter Panasonic San Jose, California 95128 805-259-8564

Submission page 1 David Hunter, Panasonic January 2008 doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0185r00

Monday January 14, 2008 13:30

 Call to order by Temporary Chair, Harry Worstell, AT&T Research a. 802.11z Chair, Menzo Wentink, Conexant, is unable to attend the Taipei 802.11 meeting b. David Hunter, Panasonic, has agreed to be secretary for this session of TGz.  HW: a. Noted the Patent Policy http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.ppt and described the IEEE patent announcement requirements. b. Called for patent claims; no response from the members present. c. Announced that affiliation must be mentioned upon each individual’s first statement in the 802.11z sessions d. Anti-trust, Ethics FAQs e. Also noted that 802 P&P changed in November 2007 f. Reminded members present to fill in attendance forms.

 Discussion of agenda provided by Menzo Wentink, Conexant: 11-08-0052-00 a. Jiyoung Huh, Path Switch 0029-01 i. JH: would like to move my presentation to Tuesday b. HW: Alexander Safonov, IITP RAS, sent an email that he would like to present on Tuesday c. Move to approve agenda 0052-00: i. David Hunter, Panasonic, moved / Wayne Fisher, ARINC, seconded ii. Passed with unanimous consent.

 Atlanta Meeting Minutes a. HW: Menzo sent email to HW that minutes for the latest conference call have not yet been uploaded to the server; Daniel Borges will upload them later  Move to approve minutes from Atlanta meetings in 07/2801r0, 07/2854r0, 07/2919r0 a. Ganesh Venkatesan, Intel, moved / Lee Armstrong, DoT, seconded b. Passed with unanimous consent

 Move to teleconference minutes from Dec 11 in 07/2965r0 (Motion 3 in 0052r1) a. WF moved / GV seconded b. Passed with unanimous consent.  Move to have conference calls: Jan 29, Feb 18, Mar 3 for 1 hour at 11am ET a. Ganesh Venkatesan, Intel, moved / Henry Ptasinski, Broadcom , seconded b. HW: we need to count the vote, (counted vote as going to 802.11 WG) c. Vote: 6:0:3 Passed.

 TGz Timeline – Slide 10 of the Agenda (0052r0) -- highlights a. Initial WG LB  Letter Ballot discussion a. Andrew Myles, Cisco: How close is the current document to being ready for LB? b. GV: Quite close

c. HP: Material was well developed before TGz existed; there are a few items of additional work, but it is pretty solid now d. HP: How long is sponsor ballot signup pool available? e. HW: 30 days; can ask for it to start 6 months ahead of the expected Sponsor Ballot period. f. HP: Alright, just want to make sure the 3 month window suggested in this list is sufficient g. AM: Can go to SB after 75% approval in an LB. h. HW: Can do that, as long as all comments have been addressed – also usually form the sponsor ballot pool just before that period. i. HP: We’ll have to see after the first LB.

 Presentations a. HW: We are ready to hear presentations, but none are available yet b. HW: Any other business that anyone knows of for today? Hearing none, I would like to ask for a motion to recess.

 Move to recess at this point until the next session Tuesday a. Ganesh Venkatesan, Intel, moved / Myron Hattig, Intel, seconded b. HW: Hearing no objection , the motion to recess is approved with unanimous consent.

======

Tuesday January 15, 2008 10:30am

 Call to order by Harry Worstell, AT&T Research  HW: Agenda for Tuesday needs to be modified a. Addition of approval of minutes for January 8 teleconference i. Minutes 11-08-0116-00 has now been uploaded to the servers b. Move to approve amended agenda i. Ganesh Venkatesan, Intel, moved / Alexander Safonov, IITP RAS, seconded ii. Approved by unanimous consent.

 HW: Reminder to sign in for attendance and reminder of patent policy a. Patent policy information on Slide 2 of 11-08-0052-02 b. Call for patents; none were reported by the group. c. Call for affiliation declaration by each speaker when first speaks in this meeting. d. Reminder of 802.11 and 802 P&P locations.

 Motion to approve the January 8 teleconference minutes, 11-08-0116-00 a. Ganesh Venkatesan, Intel, moved / Mike Montemurro, RIM, seconded b. Approved by unanimous consent.

 Presentation: Jiyoung Huh, LG Electronics, 11-07-2797-00, Path Selection and Switch Mechanism a. Added normative text after positive response in a straw poll in the Atlanta meeting.

b. HP: in the Result Table (z8) might want to add a result code for a generic unspecified reason that would cover other results c. GV: I would set 0 to indicate Success and set the Unspecified Result to 1. d. HP: Agree. e. HW: Since Jiyoung will be modifying this text, the modified text will have to be on the servers 4 hours before we can vote on it. Our next session is Thursday, so we will need to vote on this Thursday. f. HW: Please make sure you are using the new slide templates, which does not have the disclaimer on the first page; please remove that information; I can help you with this later.

 Presentation: Alexander Safonov, IITP RAS, 11-08-0070-00, Peer Power Save Mode a. HP: Please explain the TDLS TIM frame a bit more b. AS: Hope this is normal operation; so STA1 just wakes up a various times and STA2 needs to inform STA1 how to use it; just informs the STA that I have data for you; c. Normative text is in 11-08-0071-00 and has been on the server for more than 4 hours. d. Note in the normative text that Peer PS Buffer State form, meaning and usage is exactly the same as the AP Buffer State form, meaning and usage e. Likewise the AID and QoS Capability elements are the same as the DLS versions. f. HP: TIM is implementation dependent, but if one STA is asleep, how does it receive the TIM? g. AS: It is sent over the AP as a broadcast data frame h. HP: I don’t see that in the text i. AS: Agree; I will add that. j. GV: Clause 7.1.3.1.6 describes power management; think the last line should be moved to the procedure that describes how that would behave k. AS: Ok. l. GV: Why did you add AID in Table z2? m. AS: To specify which n. HP: Adding a lot of complexity against just sending a unicast frame via the AP o. AS: IF have several clients and have to inform them of several frames, so seemed simpler to send one broadcast frame. p. HP: Just don’t need to send it broadcast, also thing that all the STAs keeping this state does not add a lot of benefit. Also in 11.z.1 last paragraph on that page, if one STA is asleep and gets a frame, then forces the other STA to stay awake q. AS: Yes, they will sleep in turns; may not be the best solution, but how else? r. HP: Agree that in last session most people were against adding a schedule in advance; but is there any way of working through the AP – loose scheduling: if you wake up and find you have something in the AP, then should stay awake s. AS: could add signalling over the AP to negotiate who will sleep – or should the two negotiate that directly t. HP: no, both could sleep, as long as they have a schedule when to wake up – u. AS: that would be slow v. HP: Agree that would be slow to start up, but once they are awake would run better; I’m also concerned about having too many PS mechanisms that don’t quite work together w. GV: If I am a STA this sending two diff peers, I’d rather sent broadcast than separate unicasts that I am running out of buffer x. HP: I would rather have the indication asap that is running out of buffer

y. GV: So this is a STA mechanism z. AS: Agree aa. HP: normal PS behaviour is that AP immediately sends information that there is a frame waiting as soon as the frame is available ; unicast will be indicated in the TIM in every frame, so STA could wake up more often , even wake up at every beacon and look at the TIM bb. GV: can see advantages of either way. cc. HP: wakeup schedule is up to the STA – but, if you send bcast, then can’t poll for a bcast frame, so it has to stay awake to look for that – dd. HW: Are you going to change the text for this? ee. AS: Yes ff. HW: so we will have two proposals to vote on Thursday.

 Presentation: Sihoon Yang, LG Electronics, 11-07-0073-00, TDLS Inconsistent Security Problem a. HW: Any questions or comments on this presentation? Hearing none, have you put this on the server more than 4 hours ago? b. SY: Not yet 4 hours. c. HW: So we will have three proposals to vote on Thursday.

 HW: Is there any other business for today?  Move to recess until the next session Thursday a. GV moved / HP second b. HW: Hearing no objection, the motion to recess is approved with unanimous consent.

======

Thursday January 17, 2008 16:00

 Call to order by Harry Worstell, AT&T Research  HW: Current proposed agenda is 11-08-0052-03  Motion to approve proposed agenda a. David Hunter, Panasonic, moved / Michelle Gong, Intel, seconded b. Passed with unanimous consent  HW reviewed patent policy again

 Presentation: Normative Text fort Path Selection and Switch a. Jiyoung Huh, LG Electronics, 11-08-0029-03 b. Update on modified text per comments from Menzo Wentink, Conexant and Henry Ptasinski, Broadcom  Move to include normative text in document 11-08-0029-03-000z-normative-text-for-path- selection-and-switch.doc into the TGz draft. a. Jiyoung Huh, LG Electronics, moved / Henry Ptasinski, Broadcom, seconded b. Vote: 7:0:1 (100%; passed 75% threshold for a technical proposal)

 Presentation: Normative Text for Peer Power Save Mode

a. Alexander Safonov, IITP RAS, 11-08-0071-01 b. Update on modified text per comments from Henry Ptasinski, Broadcom c. HP: for the future, change wording in section 7 to remove all “shall” statements; in addition, this normative behaviour should be move to other sections. For instance see the text in 7.2.2.1.10, which should be moved to clause 11. d. AS: much of this text is from the previous version of the TGz draft. e. HP: agreed, we need to change much of this in the whole draft f. AS: do you prefer this happens now, or do later for the whole draft? g. HP: not sure at this point; it needs to be fixed sometime. In addition, in terms of the mechanics of this proposal, we need to rethink having both sides going to sleep. We are not leveraging the fact that the AP is there.. My preference would be to have one mechanism that is used in both cases. h. Srinivas Duvvuri, Atheros: if one STA goes into PPSM mode, there is no way the other STA can go into PPSM mode. Correct? i. AS: we chose this because the most popular case is wall powered AP and battery powered clients. So we can have scheduled service periods. If both STAs go to PS mode, then impossible to have scheduled. In Atlanta we talked about the use case in which only one could go into PS mode. j. SD: The STA that is not going into PPSM mode needs to be aware that while going into Direct Link Power Save mode it can’t change to PS anymore. So I would be prefer to change to PS mode on the fly. k. AS: this does not mean that you shall always use PPSM. But you have to be aware that if you go into PPSM, the server cannot go to sleep. l. SD: concerned not only with server. m. AS: we could add a reason code to reject the request that ‘I don’t support PPSM’ n. HP: once any client goes to sleep, then the other side is trapped – it can’t force its peer to wake up. It can send frames to the AP, but it has no way to re-negotiate. This is what I meant by the point that we are not really leveraging the AP. We could instead use the AP as a mailbox for wakeup messages. But they would both still buffer the traffic locally. This would allow soft scheduling that uses DTIM for stay- awakes until they receive all the traffic. o. AS: I would disagree that the peer can do nothing. The peer can send a frame that causes the peers to change places. Also: if you have to wait for DTIM it is a very big delay, and so is not a good solution. Don’t know if this application is really considered yet. The DTIM is only available when we can allow big jitter. We need to have multiple submissions with different parts. p. HP: On the other side consenting, what is the frame exchange? If both sides want to go to sleep, how do you keep them from fighting or bouncing back and forth? q. AS: Agree that this is a problem, but this is not intended for that case, only for when you have a video server.  Move to include normative text in document 11-08-0071-01-000z-normative-text-for-peer- power-save-mode.doc into the current TGz draft. a. Alexander Safonov, IITP RAS, moved / Jiyoung Huh, LG Electronics, seconded b. Vote: 5:2:1 (71.43%; failed 75% threshold)

 Presentation: TDLS inconsistent security problem, a. Sihoon Yang, LG Electronics, 11-08-0073-01 b. Update on modified text per previous comments.

 Move to include normative text in document 11-08-0073-00, “TDLS inconsistent security problem: and direct the Editor to incorporate it into the TGz draft. a. Sihoon Yang, LG Electronics, moved / Jiyoung Huh, LG Electronics, seconded b. Vote: 7:0:1 (100%; passed 75% threshold for a technical proposal)

 HW: that fulfils the agenda; is there any motion to adjourn?  Motion to adjourn. a. Guido Hertz, Philips, moved / Alexander Safonov, IITP RAS, seconded b. HW: any objection? Hearing none, this meeting is adjourned. c. Adjourned 16:52.

Submission page 7 David Hunter, Panasonic