Response to Official Comments April 2007 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/0570r0 July 2008 Response to Official Comments Date: 2008-07-16 Authors: Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

April 2007 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/0570r0 July 2008 Abstract 802.11 WG response to official comments on VHTL6 and VHT60 PARs and 5C’s Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

Comments from Mark Klerer / 802.20 WG July 2008 Comments from Mark Klerer / 802.20 WG Set #1 Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

July 2008 Comment The 802.20 WG has reviewed the 802.11 VHT PAR for operation below 6 GHz and has only one comment as a suggested improvement regarding that PAR. The Scope (5.2) states that backward compatibility and coexistence with 802.11n is an objective of this project. Therefore it would seem that the project is dependent on the completion of 802.11n and should be so stated in section 5.3. Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

July 2008 Response In order to take into account this comment section 5.3 of the proposed PAR (11-08/0807) has been edited and now mentions in 11-08/0807r2 that the completion of the VHTL6 standard is dependent upon the completion of IEEE802.11n. The rationale for this change is that in order to provide a higher throughput than IEEE802.11n it is foreseen that the MIMO amendments of IEEE802.11n to IEEE802.11-2007 are required features for the completion of the VHTL6 standard. Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

Comments from Paul Nikolich July 2008 Comments from Paul Nikolich Set #2 Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

July 2008 Comment It appears there is significant commonality between the proposed 802.11 60GHz PAR and the current 802.15.3c 60GHz project when assessing them from the antenna interface up through an interface approaching the MAC/PHY boundary regarding the range, operating frequency, occupied bandwidth, and target peak data rate. I recommend the participants in the two activities spend the time between now and the November 2008 plenary to seriously evaluate whether or not it is possible to craft a specification for a common 60GHz physical layer that can be utilized for both the 802.15.3c project and the proposed 802.11 60 GHz. I realize there is no obvious mechanism within the 802 P&P to establish a dual-working group common physical layer specification project--but that should not deter the participants from considering creative ways to accomplish the suggested goal. Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

July 2008 Response We propose modification to the PAR (in 08/806r2) and a Task Group plan of action as follows: The Additional Explanatory Notes have been modified as follows: It is in the best interest of users and the industry to strive for a level of coexistence between wireless systems. VHT will investigate coexistence with other systems in the 60 GHz band. One approach will be to investigate a common PHY between VHT and 802.15.3c, and adopt if feasible. Another approach is a common coexistence mechanism that may be used by other 60 GHz systems Plan The task group will review technical submissions (e.g. channel models, PHY characteristics) and 802.15.3c draft The task group will set up joint sessions and conference calls to investigate commonality and reuse between systems The task group will establish a plan for executing on common elements Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

Comments from James Gilb July 2008 Comments from James Gilb Set #3 Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

Comment 1/5 I suggest the following changes to the 802.11 VHT PAR: July 2008 Comment 1/5 I suggest the following changes to the 802.11 VHT PAR: 1) In PAR scope, change "Address coexistence with other systems in the band" to be “Address coexistence with 802.15.3c and other systems in the band” Response: The scope of the PAR addresses coexistence with other systems in the band. Modifications were made to the Additional Explanatory Notes referring to 802.15.3c. Refer to response to Set #2. Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

July 2008 Comment 2/5 2) Change PAR item 7.1 from "no" to "yes" and list 802.15.3c because it has similar scope. Response: VHT60 is proposing an amendment to 802.11 providing increased throughput to wireless LAN. This is a different scope than 802.15.3c. Refer to differences outlined during the joint 802.11/802.15 meeting in 11-08-848r0 and 11-08-814r1 Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

July 2008 Comment 3/5 3) Add to PAR scope "The standard specifies a channel plan that is compatible with 802.15.3c.“ Response: The PAR scope includes “Addresses coexistence with other systems in the band”. Addressing coexistence implies that the band plan adopted may be compatible with 802.15.3c. Modifications were made to the Additional Explanatory Notes referring to 802.15.3c. Refer to response to Set #2. Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

July 2008 Comment 4/5 4) Add to the PAR scope bullet list "Enable coexistence by detecting 802.15.3c waveforms and providing methods to avoid interference.“ Alternatively, some equivalent requirement that requires the ability to detect and avoid while allowing the Task Group to develop new and innovative ways to solve this problem in the standard that they will develop. Response: Agree to modify the PAR as described in response to Set #2 Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

July 2008 Comment 5/5 5) Replace "Maintain the 802.11 user experience" with "Support all of the currently approved 802.11 management features.“ Response: Additional Explanatory Notes have been changed in 08/806r2 to include the meaning of “Maintain the 802.11 user experience”. “Regarding 802.11 user experience, this refers to 1) maintaining the network architecture of the 802.11 system and 2) reuse and maintain backward compatibility to 802.11 management plane” Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

Comments from 802.15 WG Set #4 July 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

July 2008 Comment 1/2 Eldad, Bruce As you are aware, 802.15 passed the following motion at its opening plenary on Monday: Given that the 802.15 WG perceives no significant differences between the approved 802.15.3c PAR and the proposed 60 GHz VHT PAR (11-08-0715-00), the 802.15 WG recommends that the 802 EC not forward it to NesCom based on the fact that it is not sufficiently unique. Please view this as a comment to modify the scope and purpose of the draft 60GHz VHT PAR to reduce the overlap with 3c or alternatively to be more inclusive of 3c and defining what elements would need to be added to 3c to meet 802.11 VHT needs at 60GHz. The 802.15 Working Group will look again at its closing plenary on Thursday evening at whatever modified draft has been approved by 802.11 at its mid week plenary and circulated to the EC and recommend a position based on the modified PAR. I am encouraging TG3c to offer more concrete suggestions prior to the 1700 deadline today.  Let me know if you have any questions. Regards Bob Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

July 2008 Response With respect to the “802.15 WG perceives no significant differences” Two aspects of the PAR ensure distinct identity from 802.15.3c Enable fast session transfer between PHYs Maintain the 802.11 user experience As an amendment to 802.11, VHT maintains the 802.11 user experience maintaining the network architecture of the 802.11 system E.g. infrastructure basic service set, extended service set, access point, station Reuse and maintain backward compatibility to 802.11 management plane E.g. association, authentication, security, measurement, capability exchange, MIB Fast session transfer provides seamless rate fall back between VHT and 802.11n for multi-band devices Provides expected WLAN coverage from combo 60 + 2.4/5 GHz devices Refer to differences outlined during the joint 802.11/802.15 meeting in 11-08-848r0 and 11-08-814r1 With respect “encouraging TG3c to offer more concrete suggestions” See responses to Set #5 Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

July 2008 Comment 2/2 I think the 802.15 position is consistent with Paul's comment if we can agree to spend some quality time between now and November with some special emphasis at the September Interim. Response: refer to response for Set #2 Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

Comments from 802.15.3c 15-08-0498-03-003c Set #5 July 2008 Comments from 802.15.3c 15-08-0498-03-003c Set #5 Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

July 2008 Comment 1/7 In PAR scope, change "Address coexistence with other systems in the band" to be "Address coexistence with 802.15.3c and other systems in the band“ Response: Refer to (Set #3, comment 1) Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

July 2008 Comment 2/7 2) Change PAR item 7.1 from "no" to "yes" and list 802.15.3c because it has a similar scope. Response: Refer to (Set #3, comment 2) Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

July 2008 Comment 3/7 3) Add to PAR scope "The standard specifies a channel plan that is compatible with 802.15.3c.“ Response: Refer to (Set #3, comment 3) Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

July 2008 Comment 4/7 4) Add to PAR scope "Compliant STAs and APs shall be able to identify the 802.15.3c common mode for the purpose of detecting and avoiding mutual interference.“ Response: Refer to Set #2 Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

July 2008 Comment 5/7 5) Add to the PAR scope "The amendment shall support all of the currently approved 802.11 management functions.” Response: Refer to (Set #3, comment 4) Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

July 2008 Comment 6/7 6) Suggest VHT60 adopt the three PHYs developed in TG3c and work on a MAC amendment. Response: Refer to Set #2 Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

July 2008 Comment 7/7 7) Modify the PAR to show significant differences in scope, in terms of data rate and range from 802.15.3c. Response: Refer to (Set #4, comment 1) Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation