1. Discussion of straw poll results
November 2001
doc.: IEEE /619r0
Discussion of straw poll results
Andrew Myles
8 November 2001
Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems
Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

2. The straw poll demonstrates that there is significant disagreement within the group that we need to resolve
Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

3. The group is divided as to whether the SERVICE field should be used to support dynamic TPC
Question? 1
Yes comments:
I might be willing to change my stance if someone suggested a better way to do dynamic TPC, on the grounds its use will reduce interference which is the same goal as the regulations
No comments:
I don't concur with the description of what this feature provides - it seems to provide power _used_ estimation, which could be determined from a priori knowledge (ie state based information)
Dynamic TPC is not required by the ERC.
The facility is broken without margin reporting and using the SERVICE field is dangerous
Of course 11h facilities could be used for dynamic TPC. However, the draft should not describe this use or provide extra facilities to support it
Other comments:
Prefer to use MAC level frames. Service field should not be used
Possibility to estimate transmit power needed (Transmitted Power bits in SERVICE field)
Needed?
Retain?
Yes 10 7
Uncertain No 5 8
Result?
Divided
Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

4. The group is divided as to whether the SERVICE field should be used to support dynamic TPC
Question? 1
Questions:
Do the three people that said this facility is needed but should not be retained want to use MAC frames to support dynamic TPC instead?
Do the people who want to retain this facility also want to add a “receive margin” in the SERVICE field?
What else is included in thinking
See AFM presentation that states, “There are no compelling reasons to include support for dynamic TPC in TGh’s future drafts”
Motions:
The editor is directed to remove all explicit support for dynamic TPC from the TGh draft
Possibility to estimate transmit power needed (Transmitted Power bits in SERVICE field)
Needed?
Retain?
Yes 10 7
Uncertain No 5 8
Result?
Divided
Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

5. The group tends strongly towards wanting to remove hidden station reporting
Question? 2
Yes comments:
No comments:
Not useful AT ALL
I vote to not retain only because of the obvious lack of support for experimental features such as this
Other comments:
D1.0 only defined reporting, not detection
Hidden station detection and reporting (Hidden station frame & element and their usage)
Needed?
Retain?
Yes 1 1
Uncertain No 14 14
Result?
Nearly remove
Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

6. The group tends strongly towards wanting to remove hidden station reporting
Question? 2
Questions:
Why did someone believe that hidden station reporting should be retained?
Motions:
The editor is directed to remove text related to hidden station reporting
Hidden station detection and reporting (Hidden station frame & element and their usage)
Needed?
Retain?
Yes 1 1
Uncertain No 14 14
Result?
Nearly remove
Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

7. The group is unanimous in wanting to define the local maximum transmit power using the Power Constraint element
Question? 3
Yes comments:
No comments:
Other comments:
Actually the Power Constraint element, as defined in the D1.0 indicates the mitigation, not the maximum power, for the current channel only.
Indication of the maximum transmit power for the channel currently in use (Power Constraint element)
Needed?
Retain?
Yes 14 14
Uncertain 1 1 No
Result?
Retain
Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

8. The group is unanimous in wanting to define the local maximum transmit power using the Power Constraint element
Question? 3
Questions:
The one uncertain person appears to be confused about the distinction between the local and regulatory maximum transmit powers
Motions:
None required
Indication of the maximum transmit power for the channel currently in use (Power Constraint element)
Needed?
Retain?
Yes 14 14
Uncertain 1 1 No
Result?
Retain
Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

9. The group is divided as to whether the Power Capability element should be used to indicate maximum power capability
Question? 4
Yes comments:
No comments:
There is nothing in the ERC doc about transmit capability
Other comments:
Indication of the maximum transmit power the STA is capable of transmitting with (Power Capability element)
Needed?
Retain?
Yes 9 11
Uncertain 1 No 5 4
Result?
Divided
Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

10. The group is divided as to whether the Power Capability element should be used to indicate maximum power capability
Question? 4
Questions:
Maximum power capability appears to be concerned with performance management ie we can reject STAs that have a low power capability.
Could someone explain the relevance of Power Capability to the ERC (99)/23?
If we really want to retain this facility then it needs to be fixed. See AFM presentation that concludes:
“The current TPC specification relating to the definition of constraints and capabilities is inconsistent and lacking in functionality”
Motions:
The editor is directed to remove all text related to Power Capability
Indication of the maximum transmit power the STA is capable of transmitting with (Power Capability element)
Needed?
Retain?
Yes 9 11
Uncertain 1 No 5 4
Result?
Divided
Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

11. The group is unanimous in wanting to indicate the regulatory maximum transmit power using the Country element
Question? 5
Yes comments:
It seems to me that between this item and #3, only one item is really needed and the other one is not. So I chose this one and Uncertain about #3.
No comments:
Other comments:
Indication of the maximum transmit power allowed in each channel (Country element)
Needed?
Retain?
Yes 15 15
Uncertain No
Result?
Retain
Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

12. The group is unanimous in wanting to indicate the regulatory maximum transmit power using the Country element
Question? 5
Questions:
The one comment appears to be based on confusion about the distinction between the local and regulatory maximum transmit powers
Motions:
None required
Indication of the maximum transmit power allowed in each channel (Country element)
Needed?
Retain?
Yes 15 15
Uncertain No
Result?
Retain
Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

13. The group is divided on whether 802
The group is divided on whether h features should be used for range control
Question? 6
Yes comments:
TGh should not limit the use of TPC or DFS. Useful applications should be allowed (twice)
No comments:
There is nothing in the ERC doc about range control
Of course 11h facilities could be used for range control. However, the draft should not describe this use or provide extra facilities to support it.
Other comments:
Possible use of any of the features for range control
Needed?
Retain?
Yes 10 10
Uncertain 1 1 No 4 4
Result?
Divided
Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

14. The group is divided on whether 802
The group is divided on whether h features should be used for range control
Question? 6
Questions:
Range control is clearly possible using the Power Constraint element - does it really require explicit description in the text?
The answer to this question hinges on how ERC (99)/23 is read (particular “notes b”) – there are two possible interpretations:
It is concerned with interference between HIPERLAN systems as well as between HIPERLAN and licensed systems
It is only concerned with interference between HIPERLAN and licensed systems
Motions:
The editor is directed to remove all text that describe the use of facilities for the purpose of range control
The editor is directed to ensure the text does not disallow the use of the facilities for the purpose of range control
Possible use of any of the features for range control
Needed?
Retain?
Yes 10 10
Uncertain 1 1 No 4 4
Result?
Divided
Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

15. The group is divided on whether channel may be selected to optimise performance
Question? 7
Yes comments:
No comments:
There is nothing in the ERC about channel selection for performance optimisation
Of course 11h facilities could be used for channel selection optimisation. However, the draft should not describe this use or provide extra facilities to support it
One could would need to be careful not to break the uniform spreading rules when selecting channels for performance reasons
Other comments:
Again, this "feature" is the opening sentence for the whole DFS section, reflecting the draft approach to DFS; which is yet another reason for my suspicion towards all DFS mechanisms
Use of DFS to "select the best channel for performance reasons" (either at the start-up phase or during the "normal operation")
Needed?
Retain?
Yes 12 12
Uncertain No 3 3
Result?
Divided
Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

16. The group is divided on whether channel may be selected to optimise performance
Question? 7
Questions:
Where does ERC (99)/23 mention channel selection for performance optimisation?
Where does ERC (99)/23 imply the need for channel selection for performance optimisation?
Is there a possibility that selecting channels for performance reasons could break uniform spreading rules?
Could the person who is “suspicious” expand on their concerns?
Motions:
The editor is directed to remove all text that describes channel selection for performance reasons
The editor is directed to ensure the text does not disallow the use of performance criteria for channel selection
Use of DFS to "select the best channel for performance reasons" (either at the start-up phase or during the "normal operation")
Needed?
Retain?
Yes 12 12
Uncertain No 3 3
Result?
Divided
Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

17. The group is divided on whether DFS facilities should be defined to avoid overlapping BSSs
Question? 8
Yes comments:
This promotes ERC 93 goal of spectrum spreading
This could help to avoid co-channel operation with other system.
No comments:
There is nothing in the ERC about overlapping BSS avoidance.
Of course 11h facilities could be used for overlap avoidance. However, the draft should not describe this use or provide extra facilities to support it.
Other comments:
Use of DFS to avoid overlapping BSSs
Needed?
Retain?
Yes 12 12
Uncertain No 3 3
Result?
Divided
Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

18. The group is divided on whether DFS facilities should be defined to avoid overlapping BSSs
Question? 8
Questions:
Can uniform channel spreading sufficient for regulatory approval be implemented without BSS overlap detection?
It is claimed BSS overlap detection assists avoidance of interference between HIPERLANs. This is true, but is this relevant when attempting to satisfy ERC (99)/23, which is only concerned with interference with licensed users?
Motions:
The editor is directed to remove all text that describes BSS overlap detection mechanisms
The editor is directed to ensure the text does not disallow the use of measurements for BSS overlap detection
Use of DFS to avoid overlapping BSSs
Needed?
Retain?
Yes 12 12
Uncertain No 3 3
Result?
Divided
Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

19. The group is tending towards retaining facilities are needed to detect other BSSs
Question? 9
Yes comments:
Detecting other BSSs is useful in the sense that if ALL energy in a channel is from other BSSs one can conclude there is no licensed user in the channel.
This would give characteristics of the interference source, which might make easier to avoid the interference
This promotes ERC 93 goal of spectrum spreading.
No comments:
This facility is not needed if we can identify all licensed users by other means.
Other comments:
Detection of other BSSs (Generally, details in questions 16-19)
Needed?
Retain?
Yes 12 12
Uncertain 1 1 No 2 2
Result?
Nearly retain
Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

20. The group is tending towards retaining facilities are needed to detect other BSSs
Question? 9
Questions:
Why does the existence of another BSS indicate that a licensed user is not also operating in the band?
Wouldn’t it be more useful to know that all (and not at least some) transmissions were from another BSS?
Can’t uniform channel spreading sufficient for regulatory approval be implemented without BSS detection?
Why is easy avoidance of interference, given the interference source is another BSS, relevant to ERC (99)/23?
Motions:
None yet
Detection of other BSSs (Generally, details in questions 16-19)
Needed?
Retain?
Yes 12 12
Uncertain 1 1 No 2 2
Result?
Nearly retain
Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

21. The group is divided on whether CCA measurements are useful
Question? 10
Yes comments:
No comments:
RSSI statistics do a better job.
Not enough information for radar detection. We may need some other reports instead.
Other comments:
While the CCA stuff could be useful, it is not clear how the mechanism works to detect licensed users
Measurement of CCA Busy Periods (Generally, details in questions 20-21)
Needed?
Retain?
Yes 6 6
Uncertain 2 2 No 7 7
Result?
Divided
Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

22. The group is divided on whether CCA measurements are useful
Question? 10
Questions:
Could someone explain the gory details of how CCA busy period measurement may be used to detect licensed users?
Are CCA busy period measurements sufficient to detect licensed users?
When are CCA busy period measurements not useful to detect licensed users?
Is there are better way to do the same job?
Will this require chip spins for existing implementations?
Motions:
The editor is directed to remove all text that describes CCA measurement mechanisms
Measurement of CCA Busy Periods (Generally, details in questions 20-21)
Needed?
Retain?
Yes 6 6
Uncertain 2 2 No 7 7
Result?
Divided
Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

23. The group is unanimous in wanting to retain some received signal strength statistics
Question? 11
Yes comments:
I read this question as the general question of whether to measure signal strength, where perhaps not all measurements are needed, per the detailed questions below
This is required to accurately assess the interference environment
No comments:
Other comments:
While the RSSI stats could be useful, it is not clear how the mechanism works to detect licensed users
Measurement of received signal strength statistics (Generally, details in questions and 22-23)
Needed?
Retain?
Yes 13 14
Uncertain 2 1 No
Result?
Retain
Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

24. The group is unanimous in wanting to retain some received signal strength statistics
Question? 11
Questions:
Has anyone detailed the algorithms required to detect licensed users based on the received signal strength statistics?
Motions:
None yet
Measurement of received signal strength statistics (Generally, details in questions and 22-23)
Needed?
Retain?
Yes 13 14
Uncertain 2 1 No
Result?
Retain
Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

25. The group is unanimous in wanting to retain the channel switch announcement
Question? 12
Yes comments:
Mechanism is used to get STA's out of channels with licensed users
No comments:
Other comments:
Indication of the new frequency channel and switching time (Channel Switch Announcement element)
Needed?
Retain?
Yes 15 15
Uncertain No
Result?
Retain
Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

26. The group is unanimous in wanting to retain the channel switch announcement
Question? 12
Questions:
Motions:
None
Indication of the new frequency channel and switching time (Channel Switch Announcement element)
Needed?
Retain?
Yes 15 15
Uncertain No
Result?
Retain
Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

27. The group is tending towards retaining the supported channels element
Question? 13
Yes comments:
No comments:
There is nothing in the ERC about detecting selecting channels based on capability. In fact, in some cases such channel selection schemes will break the uniform channel spreading rule
Other comments:
Indication of the channels a STA is capable of operating in (Supported Channels element)
Needed?
Retain?
Yes 13 13
Uncertain No 2 2
Result?
Nearly retain
Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

28. The group is tending towards retaining the supported channels element
Question? 13
Questions:
AFM withdraws negative vote (now )
Can the other “no” voter expand on his “no” vote
Motions:
None yet
Indication of the channels a STA is capable of operating in (Supported Channels element)
Needed?
Retain?
Yes 13 13
Uncertain No 2 2
Result?
Nearly retain
Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

29. The group is tending towards retaining the power level adjustment in the channel measurement report
Question? 14
Yes comments:
No comments:
This facility only appears to be in the draft to parallel Hiperlan2 facilities.
Other comments:
The purpose for this facility is unclear
Isn't this TPC?
Indication of the maximum transmit power for the channel currently in use (Power Level Adjustment in the Channel Measurement Report)
Needed?
Retain?
Yes 13 13
Uncertain 1 1 No 1 1
Result?
Nearly retain
Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

30. The group is tending towards retaining the power level adjustment in the channel measurement report
Question? 14
Questions:
What is this facility used for?
How is this facility related to European regulations?
Motions
None yet
Indication of the maximum transmit power for the channel currently in use (Power Level Adjustment in the Channel Measurement Report)
Needed?
Retain?
Yes 13 13
Uncertain 1 1 No 1 1
Result?
Nearly retain
Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

31. The group is divided on whether the energy during PLCP of most recent own Beacon is useful
Question? 15
Yes comments:
This is necessary to help calibrate RSSI levels. It will enhance accuracy when measurements are made by different STAs
No comments:
This facility only appears to be in the draft to parallel Hiperlan2 facilities
Other comments:
The purpose for this facility is unclear
Indication of the energy during the PLCP preamble of the most recent Beacon received from the current AP (Own Beacon RSSI in Channel Measurement Report)
Needed?
Retain?
Yes 9 11
Uncertain No 6 4
Result?
Divided
Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

32. The group is divided on whether the energy during PLCP of most recent own Beacon is useful
Question? 15
Questions:
How are the “calibrate RSSI levels” useful for detecting licensed users?
What is this field used for in Hiperlan2?
Will this require chip spins for existing implementations?
Motions:
The editor is directed to remove all text that describes energy measurements during a PLCP header of most recent Beacon
Indication of the energy during the PLCP preamble of the most recent Beacon received from the current AP (Own Beacon RSSI in Channel Measurement Report)
Needed?
Retain?
Yes 9 11
Uncertain No 6 4
Result?
Divided
Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

33. The group is divided on whether the BSS bit is useful
Question? 16
Yes comments:
Helps determine if other a interference is present
No comments:
The detection of at least one valid MAC header tells you nothing about whether a licensed user is operating in the band
Other comments:
Indication of at least one valid MAC Header detected (BSS bit in Measurement Summary field)
Needed?
Retain?
Yes 10 10
Uncertain 1 1 No 4 4
Result?
Divided
Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

34. The group is divided on whether the BSS bit is useful
Question? 16
Questions:
How do we determine the difference between a licensed user and two 11a systems colliding?
If we can’t distinguish between them, does this mean that we can only operate in a clear channel?
What doe this say about the capacity of 11a?
Motions:
Indication of at least one valid MAC Header detected (BSS bit in Measurement Summary field)
Needed?
Retain?
Yes 10 10
Uncertain 1 1 No 4 4
Result?
Divided
Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

35. The group is divided on whether the QBSS bit is useful
Question? 17
Yes comments:
No comments:
The detection of at least one QBSS tells you nothing about whether a licensed user is operating in the band
QBSS cannot be used because it is currently part of the 11e draft
Relies on completion of TGe. This is too risky.
Other comments:
Indication of at least one BSS found running in QBSS mode (QBSS bit in Measurement Summary field)
Needed?
Retain?
Yes 6 4
Uncertain No 9 11
Result?
Divided
Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

36. The group is divided on whether the QBSS bit is useful
Question? 17
Questions:
Can someone please explain why this is a useful feature to satisfy ERC (99)/23?
Motions:
The editor is directed to remove all text that describes the use of the QBSS bit
Indication of at least one BSS found running in QBSS mode (QBSS bit in Measurement Summary field)
Needed?
Retain?
Yes 6 4
Uncertain No 9 11
Result?
Divided
Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

37. The group is divided on whether the FromDS and ToDs bits are needed
Question? 18
Yes comments:
Helps determine if another AP is on the channel
No comments:
The detection of at least one ToDs or FromDs tells you nothing about whether licensed user is operating in the band
Other comments:
Indication of at least one frame with FromDS or ToDS set (Respective bits in Measurement Summary field)
Needed?
Retain?
Yes 7 7
Uncertain 1 1 No 7 7
Result?
Divided
Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

38. The group is divided on whether the FromDS and ToDs bits are needed
Question? 18
Questions:
Why is the existence of an AP (specifically) relevant to satisfying ERC (99)/23?
Motions:
The editor is directed to remove all text that describes the FromDs and ToDs bits
Indication of at least one frame with FromDS or ToDS set (Respective bits in Measurement Summary field)
Needed?
Retain?
Yes 7 7
Uncertain 1 1 No 7 7
Result?
Divided
Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

39. The group is divided on whether BSS sets are needed
Question? 19
Yes comments:
Assists DFS algorithms in avoiding interference. Without these kind of details how would one go about obtaining the required info for DFS?
Assists DFS algorithms in avoiding interference
Promotes goal of ERC 93 of spectrum spreading over all channels.
AP will be able to identify the interference source so that they can negotiate the appropriate power or channel changes with other APs. It would help to avoid co-channel operation with other WLAN system.(ERC(99)/23)
No comments:
The existence of another BSS does not tell you whether or not a licensed user is operating in the channel
Other comments:
Detailed information about a BSS operating on a channel (BSS Sets)
Needed?
Retain?
Yes 6 6
Uncertain No 9 9
Result?
Divided
Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

40. The group is divided on whether BSS sets are needed
Question? 19
Questions:
Is interference with other WLAN systems relevant to satisfying ERC (99)/23?
Can’t the uniform spreading requirement be satisfied without detailed BSS set information?
Motions:
The editor is directed to remove all text that describes BSS sets
Detailed information about a BSS operating on a channel (BSS Sets)
Needed?
Retain?
Yes 6 6
Uncertain No 9 9
Result?
Divided
Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

41. The group is divided on whether the periodicity bit is needed
Question? 20
Yes comments:
No comments:
While the periodicity bit could be useful, it is not clear if the mechanism works to detect licensed users
Creates the illusion of being able to detect radars. Better method required.
Not sure if it is enough to detect Radar.
Other comments:
Indication of periodic behaviour of CCA during the measurement period (Periodicity bit in Measurement Summary field)
Needed?
Retain?
Yes 6 6
Uncertain 2 1 No 7 8
Result?
Divided
Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

42. The group is divided on whether the periodicity bit is needed
Question? 20
Questions:
Could someone explain the gory details of how the periodicity measurement may be used to detect licensed users?
Are the periodicity measurements sufficient to detect licensed users?
When are periodicity measurements not useful to detect licensed users?
Is there are better way to do the same job?
Motions:
The editor is directed to remove all text that describes the periodicity bit
Indication of periodic behaviour of CCA during the measurement period (Periodicity bit in Measurement Summary field)
Needed?
Retain?
Yes 6 6
Uncertain 2 1 No 7 8
Result?
Divided
Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

43. The group is divided on whether CCA characteristics are useful
Question? 21
Yes comments:
No comments:
These are unnecessary. RSSI statistics do a better job.
Not sure if it is enough to detect Radar.
Other comments:
While the CCA stuff bit could be useful, it is not clear how the mechanism works to detect licensed users
Representation of the characteristics of the CCA during the measurement period: Busy Fraction, Busy Duration and Busy Interval (Extended CCA Report)
Needed?
Retain?
Yes 5 5
Uncertain 1 1 No 9 9
Result?
Divided
Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

44. The group is divided on whether CCA characteristics are useful
Question? 21
Questions:
Could someone explain the details of how the CCA characteristics may be used to detect licensed users?
Are the CCA characteristics sufficient to detect licensed users?
When are CCA characteristics not useful to detect licensed users?
Is there are better way to do the same job?
Motions:
The editor is directed to remove all text that describes the CCA characteristics
Representation of the characteristics of the CCA during the measurement period: Busy Fraction, Busy Duration and Busy Interval (Extended CCA Report)
Needed?
Retain?
Yes 5 5
Uncertain 1 1 No 9 9
Result?
Divided
Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

45. The group needs clarification before accepting the use of Total RSSRI histograms
Question? 22
Yes comments:
This provides a comprehensive measurement of all interference that is needed in DFS implementation
Comprehensive measurement of all interference is needed
No comments:
The signal level is probably needed, but the histograms are probably not. So I guess the answer to the item as a whole is N, but I am not sure I understand Histograms fully.
Other comments:
While the RSSI stats could be useful, it is not clear how the mechanism works to detect licensed users
Record and indicate the received signal levels during the measurement period (Total RSSRI Histogram)
Needed?
Retain?
Yes 12 12
Uncertain 2 2 No 1 1
Result?
Nearly retain
Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

46. The group needs clarification before accepting the use of Total RSSRI histograms
Question? 22
Questions:
Can anyone specify exactly what we are looking for when measuring the Total RSSI?
What is special about the histogram structure?
Motions:
None
Record and indicate the received signal levels during the measurement period (Total RSSRI Histogram)
Needed?
Retain?
Yes 12 12
Uncertain 2 2 No 1 1
Result?
Nearly retain
Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

47. The group is divided on the use of the Unknown RSSI histogram
Question? 23
Yes comments:
Helps detect fringe interference of other a systems.
Promotes goal of ERC 93 of spectrum spreading over all channels
No comments:
Other comments:
While the unknown RSSI stats could be useful, it is not clear how the mechanism works to detect licensed users
Record and indicate the received signal levels for the PPDUs with a correct PLCP header but an incorrect CRC during the measurement period (Unknown RSSRI)
Needed?
Retain?
Yes 7 5
Uncertain 1 1 No 7 9
Result?
Divided
Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

48. The group is divided on the use of the Unknown RSSI histogram
Question? 23
Questions:
Does anyone have any comments that support the “no” case, which seems to have lots of support?
Can anyone specify exactly what we are looking for when measuring the Unknown RSSI and what it indicates?
Can the Unknown RSSI distinguish between a collision with another 11a systems and a collision with a licensed user?
It is claimed that the use if Unknown RSSI histogram supports channel spreading. How?
Motions:
None
Record and indicate the received signal levels for the PPDUs with a correct PLCP header but an incorrect CRC during the measurement period (Unknown RSSRI)
Needed?
Retain?
Yes 7 5
Uncertain 1 1 No 7 9
Result?
Divided
Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

49. The group is divided on whether the ForeignPLCPHeader bit is needed
Question? 24
Yes comments:
Helps detect non systems like Hiperlan/2.
Helps detect Hiperlan/2 systems.
No comments:
The existence of at least one foreign preamble does not tell you whether or not a licensed user is operating in the channel.
Other comments:
Indication of at least one PLCP preamble with an invalid Signal field detected (ForeignPLCPHeader bit in Measurement Summary field)
Needed?
Retain?
Yes 8 18
Uncertain 1 No 6 7
Result?
Divided
Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

50. The group is divided on whether the ForeignPLCPHeader bit is needed
Question? 24
Questions:
Why does the existence of at least one foreign PLCP header indicate that a licensed user is not also operating in the band?
Wouldn’t it be more useful to know that all (and not at least some) transmissions were from a foreign (unlicensed) user?
Motions:
None yet
Indication of at least one PLCP preamble with an invalid Signal field detected (ForeignPLCPHeader bit in Measurement Summary field)
Needed?
Retain?
Yes 8 18
Uncertain 1 No 6 7
Result?
Divided
Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems