1. Proposed Changes for LB81 Comments
Month Year
doc.: IEEE p
April, 2006
Proposed Changes for LB81 Comments
Date:
Authors:
Notice: This document has been prepared to assist IEEE 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
Patent Policy and Procedures: The contributor is familiar with the IEEE 802 Patent Policy and Procedures < ieee802.org/guides/bylaws/sb-bylaws.pdf>, 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 Working Group. If you have questions, contact the IEEE Patent Committee Administrator at
Carl Kain, Mitretek Systems
Carl Kain, Mitretek Systems

2. Month Year
doc.: IEEE p
April, 2006
Abstract
Identify major issues and recommend procedure for addressing them.
Clause 20
Annex P
Many identical duplicate comments submitted – comment count is inflated
Carl Kain, Mitretek Systems
Carl Kain, Mitretek Systems

3. Major Issues Major comments from IEEE 802.11 LB #81 WRSS
April, 2006
Major Issues
Major comments from IEEE LB #81
WRSS
20 MHz and 10 MHz channel descriptions
Regulatory requirements in Clause 20 and Annex P
Normative and informative information mixed in Annex P
Parameters in Annex P conflict with Parameters in other parts of document (TXOP)
Carl Kain, Mitretek Systems

4. April, 2006
LB #81 WRSS Issues
Range of received signal measurement too small (-60 to -30 dBm)
See CIDs 179, 195, 369, 880, 978, 995, 1177, 1195, 1718…..
Confusion over 100 frame requirement; what happens when less than 100 frames are received
Instantaneous fading will exceed range limits
0.2 dB resolution too stringent
See CIDs 978, 533, 446, 1717, 2012 ….
Needs additional constraints
Manufacturers cannot meet, granularity is excessive
Three signal strength measurements already exist
Several comments asking how to measure with multiple antennas
Recommendations
Need to clarify measurement procedure, verify granularity is achievable
Make measurement on single action frame using method in TGk
Or—use one of the existing RSS values in rev.ma or TGk
Multiple antenna inputs already defined in rev.ma, TGk
Carl Kain, Mitretek Systems

5. LB #81 Mixing 10 and 20 MHz Channel Requirements
April, 2006
LB #81 Mixing 10 and 20 MHz Channel Requirements
Standard describes 10 and 20 MHz channels
Interference rejection levels are not described for situation where adjacent channel is different bandwidth; same for non-adjacent channel
Channels in standard follow proposed FCC channel plan
Commenters questioning why only two 20 MHz channels are allowed
CCA sensitivities should be proportional to bandwidth
Commenters claim CCA sensitivity should be 3 dB higher for 20 MHz channel
Recommendation
Consider having standard describe only 10 MHz channel bandwidth WAVE operation
Put all North American specific regulatory requirements in annex (informative)
Carl Kain, Mitretek Systems

6. LB #81 Mixing Normative and Informative Information in Annex P
April, 2006
LB #81 Mixing Normative and Informative Information in Annex P
Unclear what information in annex is strictly informative versus normative
Regulatory information is not stable
PAR required when regulatory decisions made
Cannot put TBD information into standard
Recommendation
Re-work parts of standard and annex
Determine what is clearly normative and put in clause 20
All regulatory information, country specific information, and other informative items go in annexes
If regulatory information is subject to change or TBD, it does not go in standard
Harmonize with annexes in rev.ma (annex P, I, J etc.)
Carl Kain, Mitretek Systems

7. April, 2006
LB #81 Conflicting parameters between Annex P, main document, and main rev.ma
TXOP parameters inconsistent between Table P3 and Annex P
TXPWR_LEVEL inconsistent with clause 17
Recommendations
Careful mapping between annex P, clause 20, clause 17, and QOS parameters needed
Recommend changes when all inconsistencies are apparent.
Carl Kain, Mitretek Systems