doc.: IEEE /1197r0 Submission November 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 1 Review 802 PARS under consideration for Nov Plenary Date: Authors:

doc.: IEEE /1197r0 Submission November 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 2 Abstract The 802 November Plenary has 12 PARs under consideration. This submission captures the WG comments on the PARs under consideration. We held 3 sessions: Monday PM2: attended Tuesday AM2: attended Thursday PM1:

doc.: IEEE /1197r0 Submission November 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide Qbg amendment for edge virtual bridging, PAR and 5CPAR5C 802.1Qbh amendment for bridge port extension, PAR and 5CPAR5C 802.1Qaz PAR modification for enhanced transmission selection for bandwidth sharing between traffic classes, PARPAR amendment for TV white spaces operation, PAR and 5CPAR and 5C amendment for prioritization of management frames, PAR and 5CPAR and 5C h PAR extension, PARPAR new standard for TV white space coexistence mechanisms, PAR and 5 CPAR5 C c amendment for single radio handovers, PAR and 5CPAR and 5C 802.3bf amendment for MAC service interface and management parameters to support time synchronization protocols, PAR and 5CPAR5C PAR modification to clarifying scope, PAR and 5CPAR and 5C new standard for scalable WRAN operations, PAR and 5CPAR and 5C d revision of , PAR and 5C.PAR5C November 16-20, 2009, Atlanta, GA

doc.: IEEE /1197r0 Submission November 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide Qbg amendment for edge virtual bridging, PAR and 5CPAR5C Correct Typo in Purpose: “managemen” to “management” No other comments were received.

doc.: IEEE /1197r0 Submission November 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide Qbh amendment for bridge port extension, PAR and 5CPAR5C No comments received

doc.: IEEE /1197r0 Submission November 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide Qaz PAR modification for enhanced transmission selection for bandwidth sharing between traffic classes, PARPAR No comments received

doc.: IEEE /1197r0 Submission November 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide h PAR extension, PARPAR No comments received.

doc.: IEEE /1197r0 Submission November 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide new standard for TV white space coexistence mechanisms, PAR and 5 CPAR5 C 2.1 Title: Standard for Information Technology - Telecommunications and Information Exchange Between Systems - Local and Metropolitan Area Networks - Specific Requirements - Part 19: TV White Space Coexistence Mechanisms –Situation #1: Title includes “Coexistence Mechanism”, –Problem: The PAR and 5C does not define what “Coexistence Mechanism” is. –Suggested Fix: In the PAR and 5C define what “Coexistence Mechanism” really is. Straw Poll: Submit to.19: 14 yes, 2 no, 11 abstain

doc.: IEEE /1197r0 Submission November 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide Title –Situation #2: The title specifies that this a Standard. –Problem: We do not believe it should be Standard. The level of evidence provided for Feasibility in the 5C does not justify a Standard The 5C does not identify any existing proven similar “coexistence mechanisms” in any unlicensed bands. –Suggested Fix. Make this PAR for a Recommended Practice to provide group an opportunity to demonstrate the feasibility A Recommended Practice has a trial use aspect that should be addressed. Typically the technical rigor that is employed in creating documents increases as you go from Guides -> Recommended Practices -> Standards. Strawpoll: submit to.19 – 9 yes 6 no 13 abstain

doc.: IEEE /1197r0 Submission November 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide (Cont) 5.2 Scope: The standard specifies mechanisms for coexistence among dissimilar or independently operated TV Band Device (TVBD) networks and dissimilar TV Band Devices. –Situation: –Problem: –Suggested Fix:

doc.: IEEE /1197r0 Submission November 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide (cont) 5.4 Purpose: The purpose of the standard is to enable the family of IEEE 802 Wireless Standards to most effectively use TV White Space by providing standard coexistence mechanisms among dissimilar or independently operated TVBD networks and dissimilar TVBDs. This standard addresses coexistence for IEEE 802 networks and devices and will also be useful for non IEEE 802 networks and TVBDs.

doc.: IEEE /1197r0 Submission November 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide (Cont) 5.5 Need for the Project: Existing IEEE 802 standards groups are developing standards and amendments, to comply with the regulatory rules for use of TV white space. Other non-IEEE 802 wireless standards for use of the TV White Space are also in development. In order for these various dissimilar TVBD networks and devices to effectively coexist in the TVWS spectrum, fair and efficient spectrum sharing is needed. Fair and efficient spectrum sharing among dissimilar TVBD networks and devices may require the coexistence mechanisms provided in this standard. In order to enhance utilization of the TV White Space bands standardized coexistence mechanisms are needed. Mechanisms such as those discussed in the explanatory notes may be considered. 5.6 Stakeholders for the Standard: Designers of TVWS MAC/PHY standards and implementations.

doc.: IEEE /1197r0 Submission November 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide (Cont) 8.1 Additional Explanatory Notes (Item Number and Explanation): Section 5.2 (Scope) –The term “dissimilar” used in this document refers to the networks and devices, which use different radio technologies adapted for TV White Space Frequency Bands. Section 5.2 (Scope) –The term “independently” operated used in this document refers to networks which may or may not use the same radio technology but are operated by independent entities which do not necessarily have a business relationship for coordinating their use of TV White Space Frequency Bands; furthermore, such similar radio access technologies may not have an otherwise available means of coexistence. For example, this differentiates independently operated from a situation in which a single administrative authority manages the coexistence between dissimilar technologies deployed in a composite network.

doc.: IEEE /1197r0 Submission November 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide Additional Explanatory Notes (Cont) Section 5.2 (Scope): The term "TVBD" is the FCC term for TV Band Device which refers to any device which complies with FCC rules to allow unlicensed radio transmitters to operate in the broadcast television spectrum at locations where that spectrum is not being used by licensed services. A TV band device (TVBD) is a low power transmitter that operates on an unoccupied TV channel in the range of channels 2-51, excluding channels 3-4 and 37.

doc.: IEEE /1197r0 Submission November 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide Additional Explanatory Notes (Cont) Sec. 5.5 (Need): –The radio technology independent coexistence mechanisms that are standardized may address the following and related areas: Discovery is the process of determining that there are two or more dissimilar and independently operated wireless networks or devices attempting to use the same White Space frequency range in the same location. This can occur in two ways. The two networks or devices may attempt to enter at the same time or one may be present and a second seek to enter. In the second case, a network operating in White Space, must periodically check for new entrants and a new entrant must check before entering. A Connection for coexistence may be useful for two dissimilar and independently operated wireless networks or devices to exchange information in order to share spectrum. A Logical Mechanism for Promoting Coexistence is a mechanism that involves the exchange of information between different dissimilar or independently operated networks or devices and may also involve algorithms seeking to maximize the quality of service for all participants.

doc.: IEEE /1197r0 Submission November 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide Additional Explanatory Notes (Cont) This standard project addresses USA FCC TV White Space Rules and may address the TV White Space rules of other regulatory domains. During the project lifetime, the draft standard may be modified to address any new or changing regulatory White Space Rules.

doc.: IEEE /1197r0 Submission November 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 17 Questions – Issues to The PAR and 5C subject matter do not match. –The content of the 5C do not relate to the PAR –No earlier/similar coexistence mechanism to show feasibility –Strawpoll: submit to.19 – 6 yes, 7 no, 14 abstain 2. 5C - Technical Feasibility –The responses to the 3 points are non responsive. The technical details are not given, nor are concrete examples of technology that will be utilized or shown as example /1107r0 (link) Strawpoll: submit to.19 – 10 yes, 1 no, 13 abstain 3. 5C – Economic Feasibility –The response does not address what the cost factors are nor if there is economic feasibility that has been demonstrated – 5.5 need explanation –The Claim is made in the PAR that Quality of Service is improved for all participants. In unlicensed bands, that is not technically feasible. There is not enough bandwidth to provide independent control of QoS.

doc.: IEEE /1197r0 Submission November 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 18 Questions – Issues to (Amended) 1. The PAR and 5C subject matter do not match. –The content of the 5C do not relate to the PAR 2. 5C - Technical Feasibility –The responses to the 3 points are non responsive. The technical details are not given, or shown by example /1107r0 (link) 3. 5C – Economic Feasibility –The response does not address what the cost factors are nor if there is economic feasibility that has been demonstrated – 5.5 need explanation –The Claim is made in the PAR that Quality of Service is improved for all participants. In unlicensed bands, that is not technically feasible. There is not enough bandwidth to provide independent control of QoS.

doc.: IEEE /1197r0 Submission November 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 19 Questions – Issues to (2) 5. – Please review doc 11-09/1107 and respond to the comments/sticky notes. 6. Position as – Should it be a Recommended Practice or a Standard? 7. The PAR does not justify the need for a Standard. –Suggesting a Messaging system rather than a physical system. –Power consumption considerations. –Data plane system that does not change the MAC/PHYs, so the relative rates that are needed to match for communication between the disparate systems is not shown. 8.Confusion on what the proposed PAR will actually change? –It is not clear if is going to propose another MAC/PHY or just provide a layer-3 and above specification. 9. Title is very ambiguous as to what the “Coexistence Mechanism” really are? –Is this requiring a new MAC/PHY or changes to existing 802 WGs.

doc.: IEEE /1197r0 Submission November 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 20 Questions – Issues to (2) (AMENDED) 5. –Removed 6. Position as – Should it be a Recommended Practice or a Standard? 7. The PAR does not justify the need for a Standard. –Suggesting a Messaging system rather than a physical system. –Power consumption considerations. –Data plane system that does not change the MAC/PHYs, so the relative rates that are needed to match for communication between the disparate systems is not shown. 8.Confusion on what the proposed PAR will actually change? –It is not clear if is going to propose another MAC/PHY or just provide a layer-3 and above specification. 9. Title is very ambiguous as to what the “Coexistence Mechanism” really are? –Is this requiring a new MAC/PHY or changes to existing 802 WGs.

doc.: IEEE /1197r0 Submission November 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide (3) 10. From the 5C the following statement needs to be clarified as to what changes to the 802 WGs are going to be targeted. –This standard will not require changes to any existing 802 MAC SAP definitions, ensuring that all LLC and MAC interfaces are compatible to and in conformance with the IEEE architecture, management and internetworking standards. 11 – It is implied that a Standard will be imposed on all the 802 WG after ratification, and what changes may be required is unknown. –Provide more detail on what the expectation is that justifies this being a Standard rather than a Recommended Practice.

doc.: IEEE /1197r0 Submission November 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide c amendment for single radio handovers, PAR and 5CPAR and 5C 5.5 Need for Project: –3 rd sentence: “This amendment will develop protocols…” Change to :”This amendment defines…” [amendments do not develop] 5.2 Scope: –2 nd sentence: “These enhancements will be based…” change to “These enhancements are based …” [Change to present tense as the scope should be used in the final document, and the enhancements will have been done.]

doc.: IEEE /1197r0 Submission November 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide bf amendment for MAC service interface and management parameters to support time synchronization protocols, PAR and 5CPAR5C No comments received.

doc.: IEEE /1197r0 Submission November 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide PAR modification to clarifying scope, PAR and 5CPAR and 5C Item 1: Doc 11-09/1105r1 – submission that has some discussion on the rational for changing the scope. Item 2: Problem: Dates for completion are not realistic. The dates need to be corrected (we suggest that the dates of Start Sponsor and RevCom would be more realistic/acceptable.) Item 3: the form presented was not the correct PAR form. The PAR modification form should be used.

doc.: IEEE /1197r0 Submission November 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide (2) 5.1 Scope: This standard specifies the air interface, including the cognitive medium access control layer (MAC) and physical layer (PHY), of point-to-multipoint wireless regional area networks comprised of a professional fixed base station with fixed and portable user terminals operating in the VHF/UHF TV broadcast bands between 54 MHz and 862 MHz. –Issue 4: “professional fixed base station” should be “professionally installed fixed base station” – (insert the word “installed”)

doc.: IEEE /1197r0 Submission November 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide (3) 8.1 other comments: –Issue 5: Remove the following text as it is no longer necessary/needed from the end of the first paragraph: “The IEEE Study Group chartered to develop this PAR does not believe that any existing IEEE 802 PHY/MAC combination can meet these requirements without extensive modifications. The Study Group has therefore concluded that placing the project in a new WorkingGroup is the most efficient approach..” 5c: Distinct Identity A –Issue 6: This text fails to distinguish among h, which will be an approved amendment in early 2010, and and the efforts proposed in the PAR. Add distinctions between each of the three. Be aware that h clause does report DTV, wireless microphones and other licensed users.

doc.: IEEE /1197r0 Submission November 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide (4) 5C Technical Feasibility – –Issue 7: There is no experience of WLAN devices operating under the control of fixed outdoor devices reliably, and indeed the question of reliable operation without common control is an issue in every unlicensed band. 5C Economic Feasibility – –Issue 8: Not all devices are autonomous, indeed the FCC ruling requires that Master Devices contact the TV bands database before any transmission is allowed. Change this text to include operation with a TV bands database. Straw Poll: submit comment issue 1-8 to yes 0 no 2 abstain

doc.: IEEE /1197r0 Submission November 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide (5) 2.1 Title: Information Technology -Telecommunications and information exchange between systems – Wireless Regional Area Networks (WRAN) - Specific requirements - Part 22: Cognitive Wireless RAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) specifications: Policies and procedures for operation in the TV Bands –Issue 9: The Title is in properly formed. Prior to the “Part 22” it is should be the consistent boilerplate that all 802 Standards have. Then after the “Part 22” it should have what designates this to the 22WG and then the specific title part for the covered technology

doc.: IEEE /1197r0 Submission November 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide new standard for scalable WRAN operations, PAR and 5CPAR and 5C 11-09/1106 discusses possible issues with the PAR and 5C. 2.1 Title of Standard: Cognitive Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) specifications: Policies and procedures for Scalable operations of Wireless Regional Area Networks (WRAN) in the TV Bands. –Issue 1: delete “Policies and procedures for “ from the title. This is a standard for… –Issue 2: The full title is not listed in the PAR form.. It should have the Boiler Plate from 802 followed by “Part 22” followed by the designation that this is for the “WRAN..” and then the specific designation of what is being covered. –Issue 3: the title for should be Distinct and yet consistent with the 802/ family of titles.

doc.: IEEE /1197r0 Submission November 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide (2) 8.1 Notes: –Issue 4: Remove the following text “Item Number: 5.5 (Need for the Project): The IEEE standard is intended to be integrated to IEEE standard. This may be more correctly included in C Distinct Identity: a) Substantially different from other IEEE 802 standards. Table –Issue 5: Page 8 of r0 shows several errors in the table and in the explanation notes. Please correct as noted in 11-09/1106r0.

doc.: IEEE /1197r0 Submission November 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide (3) Technical Feasibility –Issue 6 : the statements are very broad, and in some cases not accurate…” Existing 802 wireless standards in other bands (e.g h) have demonstrated that detection and avoidance of operation in spectrum occupied by licensed users is technically feasible.” The h does not do detect and avoid (DAA) it only specified DFS and TPC. – Issue 7: The statements should address the “demonstrated” technology that show the technical feasibility. –Issue 8: The addition of “Scalable” as the main focus, should be addressed in the 5C to show the distinct difference from the base 22 standard. –Issue 9 (to be renumbered as #1): If is an extension of , and creating a “Scalable” extension of the standard, then this should be an amendment. The Amendment should be created after the standard is approved to allow a consistent target for the amendment to modify. Straw Poll: Send Issue 1-9 to –13 yes 0 no 1 abstain

doc.: IEEE /1197r0 Submission November 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide d revision of , PAR and 5C.PAR 5C No Comments Received.

doc.: IEEE /1197r0 Submission November 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 33 Motions Motion #1: Move to send Issues 1-9 to Moved by Stuart, 2 nd Peter. – Motion passes Motion #2: Move to send Issues 1-9 to –Moved Peter, 2 nd Richard –12 yes o no o abstain Motion passes Motion #3: Move to send Amended set of comments to 19. –Moved Bruce, 2 nd Peter –7 yes, 0 no, 6 abstain.

doc.: IEEE /1197r0 Submission November 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide amendment for TV white spaces operation, PAR and 5CPAR and 5C

doc.: IEEE /1197r0 Submission November 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide amendment for prioritization of management frames, PAR and 5CPAR and 5C

doc.: IEEE /1197r0 Submission November 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 36 References