VHT SG May 2008 Report Date: Authors: May 2008 April 2007

VHT SG May 2008 Report Date: 2008-05-14 Authors: May 2008 April 2007
doc.: IEEE /0570r0 May 2008 VHT SG May 2008 Report Date: Authors: Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

Patent Policy Following 5 slides May 2008 April 2007
doc.: IEEE /0570r0 May 2008 Patent Policy Following 5 slides Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

Instructions for the WG Chair
April 2007 doc.: IEEE /0570r0 May 2008 Instructions for the WG Chair The IEEE-SA strongly recommends that at each WG meeting the chair or a designee: Show slides #1 through #4 of this presentation Advise the WG attendees that: The IEEE’s patent policy is consistent with the ANSI patent policy and is described in Clause 6 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws; Early identification of patent claims which may be essential for the use of standards under development is strongly encouraged; There may be Essential Patent Claims of which the IEEE is not aware. Additionally, neither the IEEE, the WG, nor the WG chair can ensure the accuracy or completeness of any assurance or whether any such assurance is, in fact, of a Patent Claim that is essential for the use of the standard under development. Instruct the WG Secretary to record in the minutes of the relevant WG meeting: That the foregoing information was provided and that slides 1 through 4 (and this slide 0, if applicable) were shown; That the chair or designee provided an opportunity for participants to identify patent claim(s)/patent application claim(s) and/or the holder of patent claim(s)/patent application claim(s) of which the participant is personally aware and that may be essential for the use of that standard Any responses that were given, specifically the patent claim(s)/patent application claim(s) and/or the holder of the patent claim(s)/patent application claim(s) that were identified (if any) and by whom. The WG Chair shall ensure that a request is made to any identified holders of potential essential patent claim(s) to complete and submit a Letter of Assurance. It is recommended that the WG chair review the guidance in IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual and in FAQs 12 and 12a on inclusion of potential Essential Patent Claims by incorporation or by reference. Note: WG includes Working Groups, Task Groups, and other standards-developing committees with a PAR approved by the IEEE-SA Standards Board. (Optional to be shown) Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

Participants, Patents, and Duty to Inform
April 2007 doc.: IEEE /0570r0 May 2008 Participants, Patents, and Duty to Inform All participants in this meeting have certain obligations under the IEEE-SA Patent Policy. Participants: “Shall inform the IEEE (or cause the IEEE to be informed)” of the identity of each “holder of any potential Essential Patent Claims of which they are personally aware” if the claims are owned or controlled by the participant or the entity the participant is from, employed by, or otherwise represents “Personal awareness” means that the participant “is personally aware that the holder may have a potential Essential Patent Claim,” even if the participant is not personally aware of the specific patents or patent claims “Should inform the IEEE (or cause the IEEE to be informed)” of the identity of “any other holders of such potential Essential Patent Claims” (that is, third parties that are not affiliated with the participant, with the participant’s employer, or with anyone else that the participant is from or otherwise represents) The above does not apply if the patent claim is already the subject of an Accepted Letter of Assurance that applies to the proposed standard(s) under consideration by this group Quoted text excerpted from IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws subclause 6.2 Early identification of holders of potential Essential Patent Claims is strongly encouraged No duty to perform a patent search Slide #1 Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

Patent Related Links Patent Policy is stated in these sources:
April 2007 doc.: IEEE /0570r0 May 2008 Patent Related Links All participants should be familiar with their obligations under the IEEE-SA Policies & Procedures for standards development. Patent Policy is stated in these sources: IEEE-SA Standards Boards Bylaws IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual Material about the patent policy is available at If you have questions, contact the IEEE-SA Standards Board Patent Committee Administrator at or visit This slide set is available at Slide #2 Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

Call for Potentially Essential Patents
April 2007 doc.: IEEE /0570r0 May 2008 Call for Potentially Essential Patents If anyone in this meeting is personally aware of the holder of any patent claims that are potentially essential to implementation of the proposed standard(s) under consideration by this group and that are not already the subject of an Accepted Letter of Assurance: Either speak up now or Provide the chair of this group with the identity of the holder(s) of any and all such claims as soon as possible or Cause an LOA to be submitted Slide #3 Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

Other Guidelines for IEEE WG Meetings
April 2007 doc.: IEEE /0570r0 May 2008 Other Guidelines for IEEE WG Meetings All IEEE-SA standards meetings shall be conducted in compliance with all applicable laws, including antitrust and competition laws. Don’t discuss the interpretation, validity, or essentiality of patents/patent claims. Don’t discuss specific license rates, terms, or conditions. Relative costs, including licensing costs of essential patent claims, of different technical approaches may be discussed in standards development meetings. Technical considerations remain primary focus Don’t discuss or engage in the fixing of product prices, allocation of customers, or division of sales markets. Don’t discuss the status or substance of ongoing or threatened litigation. Don’t be silent if inappropriate topics are discussed … do formally object. See IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, clause and “Promoting Competition and Innovation: What You Need to Know about the IEEE Standards Association's Antitrust and Competition Policy” for more details. Slide #4 Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

Tentative Agenda for the Week
April 2007 doc.: IEEE /0570r0 May 2008 Tentative Agenda for the Week Wednesday May 14th, 8:00 – 10:00 Reaffirm agenda Presentations PAR motions Thursday May 15th, 8:00 – 10:00 60 GHz PAR Thursday May 15th, 10:30 – 12:30 <6 GHz PAR 11:30 12:00 Review time line Goals for July Conference calls Monday May 12th, 10:30 – 12:30 Patent policy, etc. Set agenda Officer Elections Review from March Discussion of timeline Call for submissions Presentations Tuesday May 13th, 8:00 – 10:00 Reaffirm agenda <6 GHz Tuesday May 13th, 16:00 – 18:00 60 GHz PAR amendment vs standard Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

Officer Elections The following are currently officers of VHT SG
April 2007 doc.: IEEE /0570r0 May 2008 Officer Elections The following are currently officers of VHT SG Chair: Eldad Perahia Secretary: Additional nominations? Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

Review from March May 2008 April 2007 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/0570r0
6 GHz PAR & 5C’s development Presentations , On the feasibility of 1Gbps for various MAC/PHY architectures, Roberta Fracchia , Coexistence Mechanisms at 5 GHz, Brian Hart PAR & 5C’s proposal discussion lead by Marc de Courville vht-below-6ghz-11vht-par-5c-s-proposal.ppt Discussion on scope regarding metric, target data rate, and exclusion of 2.4GHz 60 GHz PAR & 5C’s development , WLAN Overlay with 60 GHz Channels, John Barr , Potential Benefits of Dual-radio VHT Systems, Harkirat Singh PAR & 5C’s proposal discussion lead by Gal Basson vht-proposal-for-60ghz-vht-par.doc & vht-proposal-for-60ghz-vht-5c.doc Discussion on compatibility with c PHY, amendment versus new standard , Wi-Fi Alliance (WFA) VHT Study Group Usage Models, presented by Rolf de Vegt Final report refining categories, usage models, and prioritization of usage models Goals for May Presentations related to “call for submissions” Should be prepared for presentation in the first VHT time slot Complete work on PAR & 5 C’s and submit motion to WG Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

Review from Conference Calls
April 2007 doc.: IEEE /0570r0 May 2008 Review from Conference Calls Conference call on April 3 08/0451r0, Mapping WFA Usage Models to Operating Bands, Eldad Perahia Conference call on April 17 08/465r0, VHT metrics by Darwin Engwer 08/464r0, <6 GHz PAR discussion by Marc De Courville Conference call on April 24 08/464r1, <6 GHz PAR discussion by Marc De Courville Strawpoll 1: Do you agree to not give further detail where to measure the throughput metric in the PAR/scope (i.e. leave to comparison criteria)? Y: 11, N:0, abs: 6 Strawpoll 2: Do you agree with “A BSS peak aggregated throughput of at least 1Gbps as measured at the MAC data service access point (SAP)”? Y: 12, N:2, abs: 5 Need to clarify “aggregated” with submission Conference call on May 1 08/498r0, Modifications to the 60GHz PAR & 5 C’s Proposal, Eldad Perahia Suggested modifications addressing range/coverage, new standard, coexistence, limiting usage model Conference call on May 8 08/0525r0, Recommendation for 60GHz PAR to be an Amendment to the Standard, Mark Grodzinsky Strawpoll: Do you agree that the 60GHz PAR should be an Amendment to the standard? Y: 8, N: 5, A: 18 Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

Time Line May 2008 May 2007 (Interim) July 2007 (Plenary)
April 2007 doc.: IEEE /0570r0 May 2008 Time Line May 2007 (Interim) Initial meeting July 2007 (Plenary) Presentations WG approval of SG extension to Nov Sept 2007 (Interim) Nov 2007 (Plenary) SG motion for extension to March Jan 2008 (Interim) Initial version of PAR & 5 C’s Mar 2008 (Plenary) Work on PAR & 5 C’s SG/WG/EC motion for extension to July May 2008 (Interim) final version of PAR & 5 C’s WG approval June 2008 EC submission by June 17 July 2008 (Plenary) WG re-approval (if necessary) SG/WG/EC motion for extension to Sept EC approval on July 18 VHT TG’s unofficially begin Aug 2008 NesCom submission by Aug 8 Sept 2008 (Interim) NesCom meeting on Sept 17 Nov 2008 (Plenary) Task Group’s officially start Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

April 2007 doc.: IEEE /0570r0 May 2008 Call for Submissions Information on following subjects will assist us in creating a PAR and 5 Criteria: Market needs, applications, usage scenarios Technology & feasibility MAC efficiency evaluation and enhancements, including evaluation of 11n MAC with higher PHY rates PHY enhancements to 11n new MAC & PHY technology Requirements metrics (i.e. throughput, network capacity, spectral efficiency, range) coexistence / interoperability Spectrum availability & regulatory options relationship with IMT-Advanced Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

Submissions Mon AM2 < 6 GHz PAR & 5C’s (Tues AM1) 60 GHz PAR & 5C’s
April 2007 doc.: IEEE /0570r0 May 2008 Submissions Mon AM2 Rolf De Vegt, 08/579, VHT Process Darwin Engwer, 08/0499r0, <6 GHz metric < 6 GHz PAR & 5C’s (Tues AM1) Minyoung Park, 08/0535r0, <6 GHz throughput analysis Marc De Courville, 08/0464 60 GHz PAR & 5C’s Eldad Perahia, 08/591, amendment vs. standard Mark Grodzinsky, amendment vs. standard, 08/525 Mark Grodzinsky, PAR & C’s Vinko Erceg, 60 GHz channel model (Wed) Red indicates completed submissions Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

Agenda for Monday May 12th
April 2007 doc.: IEEE /0570r0 May 2008 Agenda for Monday May 12th Patent policy, etc. Set agenda Officer Elections Review from March Discussion of timeline Call for submissions Presentations Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

Presentations for Monday May 12th
April 2007 doc.: IEEE /0570r0 May 2008 Presentations for Monday May 12th Rolf De Vegt, 08/579r0, Towards an Improved Proposal Development Process for VHT Darwin Engwer, 08/0499r0, VHTL6 Throughput Metric Thoughts Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

Minutes for Monday May 12th
April 2007 doc.: IEEE /0570r0 May 2008 Minutes for Monday May 12th Election, re-affirm Eldad Perahia as chair 08/579r0 Discussion on proposal process Strawpoll: do you support further development of the proposal process outlined in 08/579? Yes: 33 No: 4 Abs: 25 08/0499r0 Discussion on metrics Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

Agenda for Tues May 13th AM1
April 2007 doc.: IEEE /0570r0 May 2008 Agenda for Tues May 13th AM1 <6 GHz PAR & 5C’s discussion Minyoung Park, 08/0535r0, <6 GHz throughput analysis Marc De Courville, 08/0464r2 Marc De Courville, 08/0609r0, PAR & 5C’s word doc Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

Presentations for Tues May 13th AM1
April 2007 doc.: IEEE /0570r0 May 2008 Presentations for Tues May 13th AM1 Minyoung Park, 08/0535r0, <6 GHz throughput analysis Marc De Courville, 08/0464r3 Marc De Courville, 08/0609r0, PAR & 5C’s word doc Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

Minutes for Tues May 13th AM1
April 2007 doc.: IEEE /0570r0 May 2008 Minutes for Tues May 13th AM1 No objection to agenda 08/0535r0 Andrew Myles: to achieve 1Gbps we have to massive aggregates, 80MHz, 4 antennas, is there demand for this? Brian Hart: what kind of receiver? Eldad: MMSE Marc De Courville: only single link was considered. 08/307r1 presented throughput with 3 devices simultaneous. OFDMA throughput will scale linearly Frank: are we still operating with , or clean sheet? Minyoung: based on Andrew Myles: don’t confuse clean sheet with amendment/new standard Peter Loc: on slide 9, what is CW base on? Minyoung: ~7 Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

08/0464r3 May 2008 April 2007 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/0570r0
Vinko: opt. 1 hard to change since everyone wants 1Gbps; opt. 2 use of optional is tricky; opt. 3, scope already includes multiple streams Marc: to be realistic, we need 1 AP & 3 STA’s Rolf: what do you mean by entry point products? Marc: first product to come out on the market for a smooth transition from 11n, with two antennas/streams Eldad: MID with two antennas Adrian: “multiple communications as the same time” what do we mean by “same time”? Tx or buffered packets? We are building into technical solution into scope. Haven’t seen proof of technical feasibility of SDMA. Speaking for strawpoll option 1, and remove “multiple communications as the same time” Marc: “multiple communications as the same time” is a feature not a solution; there are many standards already with parallel communications Dave Bagby: what are thoughts about mesh or IBSS? Marc: wanted a be clear how throughput computed Andrew Myles: three options of strawpoll all focus on throughput. This is only one dimension, need to consider other dimensions, e.g. range, spectrum efficiency, power Marc: big difference now is that scope covers full BSS, not just single link Johny Zweig: worried about scope being vague Peter Loc: friendly amendment by removing “multiple communications as the same time” Marc: wants to preserve multiple communications for uniqueness Darwin: tried to word in most general sense to allow different types of technology for multiple simultaneous communications Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

April 2007 doc.: IEEE /0570r0 May 2008 08/0464r3 Straw poll: In order to come up with a reasonable PAR target throughput that avoids putting too many constraints on entry point products which is your favorite option? Option 1: lower the peak rate in the PAR scope wording straw poll result: 500Mbps: 14, 750Mbps: 3, 1Gbps: 45 Indicates that 1Gbps should be the target! Option 2: make the throughput metric optional in the scope wording e.g.: An optional mode providing a maximum infrastructure BSS throughput of at least 1Gbps as measured at the MAC data service access point (SAP) Option 3: add an explanatory note to detail in which specific configuration the throughput constraint must be met e.g.: The infrastructure BSS throughput is defined as the sum of the MAC SAP throughputs across all active transmissions within the BSS The 1Gbps maximum BSS throughput is to be achieved when considering a BSS with at least 1 AP and 3 simultaneously actively-communicating STAs Option 1: 13 Option 2: 1 Option 3: 28 Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

April 2007 doc.: IEEE /0570r0 May 2008 08/0464r3 Eldad: re. third bullet on slide 6, should be in 5 Criteria, not in additional explanatory section Adrian: re. third bullet on slide 6, is this meant to be a replacement of due diligence? Marc: propose to remove third bullet Adrian: does 2nd bullet impose restriction of simultaneously Eldad: in a query, responding TG chairs operating with additional explanatory section not being normative, but may have used points in additional explanatory section to create requirements Brian: re. technical feasibility, OFDMA takes 80MHz with divides it among multiple STA’s but it is still only 80MHz. Do we get increase in throughput from other technologies? Marc: smaller bandwidth with give diversity gain, increased SNR; multi-use MIMO increases throughput further Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

Agenda for Tues May 13th PM2
April 2007 doc.: IEEE /0570r0 May 2008 Agenda for Tues May 13th PM2 60 GHz PAR & 5C’s discussion Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

Presentations for Tues May 13th PM2
April 2007 doc.: IEEE /0570r0 May 2008 Presentations for Tues May 13th PM2 Eldad Perahia, 08/591, amendment vs. standard Gal Basson, PAR & C’s, 08/0223r3 Vinko Erceg, 60 GHz channel model, 08/632 Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

Minutes for Tues May 13th PM2
April 2007 doc.: IEEE /0570r0 May 2008 Minutes for Tues May 13th PM2 08/591 Strawpoll: Do you agree that the 60GHz PAR should be an Amendment to the standard? Yes: 34 No: 5 Abs: 25 Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

April 2007 doc.: IEEE /0570r0 May 2008 08/0223r3 Eldad: issue with “Although this amendment proposes to use the same spectrum as the proposed IEEE c PHY, this work will create a solution compatible with existing IEEE deployments while ensuring that both systems will coexist in the same area” John modify to “Although this amendment proposes to use the same spectrum as the proposed IEEE c PHY, this work will create a solution compatible with existing IEEE deployments” Brian: two TG’s amending , will this be an issue? One TG’s could restart from clause 30? Strawpoll: Should VHT 60GHz be limited to inserting new clauses and minimize changes to existing clauses? Yes: 8 No: 22 Abs: 26 Peter: question on 7.4, elaborate on fast session transfer Eldad: meant to be a rate change Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

08/632 Solomon: directional antenna was only used on one end of link
April 2007 doc.: IEEE /0570r0 May 2008 08/632 Solomon: directional antenna was only used on one end of link Assaf: S&V were derived for freq bands that were diffractive rather than reflective, does this apply to 60GHz? Vinko: Few amount of literature indicates that clustering and angle of arrival/departure model is reasonable Padam: c not considering MIMO, so did not consider AoD. We need to consider this. Eldad: pathloss parameters are almost the same as TGn, how are 5GHz and 60GHz the same? Perhaps we need a model that counts walls. Brian: more measurements needed in more complicated environments Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

April 2007 doc.: IEEE /0570r0 May 2008 Agenda for Wed May 14th AM1 Final review of most recent changes to <6 GHz (5 min) Discussion of critical edits to PAR scope and purpose (5 min) Final review of most recent changes to 60 GHz (5 min) Discussion and Strawpoll of <6 GHz PAR & 5C’s Discussion and Strawpoll of 60 GHz PAR & 5C’s Motion Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

Minutes for Wed May 14th AM1
April 2007 doc.: IEEE /0570r0 May 2008 Minutes for Wed May 14th AM1 Review of Changes to 08/609 from yesterday Title to add <6 GHz Focused on the two bullet points in 7.4 and changed second bullet slightly to clarity intent In b, added <6 GHz Moved third bullet in 7.4 and moved it to tech. feas. Review of changes to 08/223 from yesterday One change to remove coexistence statement from distinct identity Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

Discussion of <6 GHz PAR & 5C’s
April 2007 doc.: IEEE /0570r0 May 2008 Discussion of <6 GHz PAR & 5C’s Strawpoll: Do you support bringing the <6 GHz PAR &5C’s to WG for motion? Yes: 39 No: 3 Abs: 16 Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

Discussion of 60 GHz PAR & 5C’s
April 2007 doc.: IEEE /0570r0 May 2008 Discussion of 60 GHz PAR & 5C’s Strawpoll: Do you support bringing the 60 GHz PAR &5C’s to WG for motion? Yes: 40 No: 3 Abs: 19 Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

April 2007 doc.: IEEE /0570r0 May 2008 Motion Moved that the Study Group chair make the following motion on behalf of the Study Group during Working Group plenary: Believing the PAR & 5 Criteria contained in the documents below meet IEEE-SA guidelines, Request that this PAR & 5 Criteria for <6 GHz contained in 11-08/609r1 be posted to the ExCom agenda for WG 802 preview and ExCom approval (and subsequent submission to NesCom) Move: Marc De Courville Second: Darwin Engwer Vote Y: 39, N: 3, Abs: 16 Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

April 2007 doc.: IEEE /0570r0 May 2008 Motion Moved that the Study Group chair make the following motion on behalf of the Study Group during Working Group plenary: Believing the PAR & 5 Criteria contained in the documents below meet IEEE-SA guidelines, Request that this PAR & 5 Criteria for 60 GHz contained in 11-08/223r4 be posted to the ExCom agenda for WG 802 preview and ExCom approval (and subsequent submission to NesCom) Move: Gal Basson Second: Robert Stacey Vote: Y: 40, N: 3, Abs: 19 Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

Notes from WG mid-week plenary
April 2007 doc.: IEEE /0570r0 May 2008 Notes from WG mid-week plenary <6 GHz motion Comments on PAR Dave Bagby - PAR excludes Mesh & IBSS Andrew Myles – need to address range, spectral efficiency, power, technical feasibility Vote: Y:32, N:19, A:24; motion failed 60 GHz motion Dave Bagby – no mention of range Darwin Engwer called for postponement of motion, postponement passed Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

Agenda for Th May 15th AM1 Administrative stuff
April 2007 doc.: IEEE /0570r0 May 2008 Agenda for Th May 15th AM1 Administrative stuff Review of WG mid-week plenary Discussion of <6 GHz PAR & 5C’s Discussion of 60 GHz PAR & 5C’s Motion(s) Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

Presentations for Th May 15th AM1
April 2007 doc.: IEEE /0570r0 May 2008 Presentations for Th May 15th AM1 <6 GHz 08/464r4, Marc De Courville 08/609r2 60 GHz 08/223r4+change Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

Minutes for Th May 15th AM1 No objections to goals for July
April 2007 doc.: IEEE /0570r0 May 2008 Minutes for Th May 15th AM1 No objections to goals for July No objections to 2-hour conf. call Discussion on start time, remains unchanged Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

<6 GHz discussion 08/464r4 Strawpoll: do you support the wording
April 2007 doc.: IEEE /0570r0 May 2008 <6 GHz discussion 08/464r4 Presentation of changes to the PAR Strawpoll: do you support the wording Four or more: 5 Multiple: 23 Abs:13 Strawpoll: do you support adding “or 4 Mesh Points”? Yes: 1 No: 12 Abs: 28 Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

08/223r4+change Added metrics to additional comments
April 2007 doc.: IEEE /0570r0 May 2008 08/223r4+change Added metrics to additional comments Strawpoll: do you support Remove metrics (power and/or range): 0 Leave metrics but change to “indicators” from “enhancements to 11n”: 12 Different or no change: 23 Abs: 5 Additional metrics in scope: 3 evaluation metrics in additional explanatory note: 10 No change to additional explanatory note or scope: 14 Abs: 22 Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

Agenda for Th May 15th AM2 Continue discussion of 60 GHz PAR & 5C’s
April 2007 doc.: IEEE /0570r0 May 2008 Agenda for Th May 15th AM2 Continue discussion of 60 GHz PAR & 5C’s Motion(s) Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

Minutes for Th May 15th AM2 May 2008
April 2007 doc.: IEEE /0570r0 May 2008 Minutes for Th May 15th AM2 Strawpoll: do you support adding evaluation metrics to the Additional Explanatory Notes? Yes: 14 No: 13 Abs: 23 Strawpoll: do you support bringing “08/223r4+current change to tech feasibility” to WG? Yes: 30 No: 5 Abs: 25 Strawpoll: if a technical evaluation matrix similar to the 11n were included would you vote against the PAR? Yes: 5 No: 11 Abs: 34 Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

April 2007 doc.: IEEE /0570r0 May 2008 Motion Moved that the Study Group chair make the following motion on behalf of the Study Group during Working Group plenary: Believing the PAR & 5 Criteria contained in the documents below meet IEEE-SA guidelines, Request that this PAR & 5 Criteria for <6 GHz contained in 11-08/609r3 be posted to the ExCom agenda for WG 802 preview and ExCom approval (and subsequent submission to NesCom) Move: Marc De Courville Second: John Barr Vote Y: 42, N: 1, Abs: 13 Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

April 2007 doc.: IEEE /0570r0 May 2008 Motion Moved that the Study Group chair make the following motion on behalf of the Study Group during Working Group plenary: Believing the PAR & 5 Criteria contained in the documents below meet IEEE-SA guidelines, Request that this PAR & 5 Criteria for 60 GHz contained in 11-08/223r5 be posted to the ExCom agenda for WG 802 preview and ExCom approval (and subsequent submission to NesCom) Move: Gal Basson Second: Marc De Courville Vote: Y: 34, N: 3, Abs: 21 Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

Strawpoll: which sequence to you support?
April 2007 doc.: IEEE /0570r0 May 2008 Strawpoll: which sequence to you support? <6 GHz then 60 GHz: 16 60 GHz then <6 GHz: 15 Abs: 25 Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

Goals for July Presentations related to “call for submissions”
April 2007 doc.: IEEE /0570r0 May 2008 Goals for July Presentations related to “call for submissions” Should be prepared for presentation in the first VHT time slot Update PAR’s & 5C’s based on feedback Complete work on PAR & 5 C’s and re-submit motion to WG Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

Conference call times Continue conference call times: Topics:
April 2007 doc.: IEEE /0570r0 May 2008 Conference call times Continue conference call times: Weekly on Thursday’s, 11:00 Eastern Time two hour Topics: Update PAR’s & 5C’s based on feedback Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

VHT SG May 2008 Report Date: Authors: May 2008 April 2007

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "VHT SG May 2008 Report Date: Authors: May 2008 April 2007"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

VHT SG May 2008 Report Date: Authors: May 2008 April 2007

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "VHT SG May 2008 Report Date: Authors: May 2008 April 2007"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback