doc IEEE 802 11 170291 r 5 Mar

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 Agenda for IEEE 802. 11 PDED ad hoc meeting in Vancouver in March 2017 14 March 2017 Authors: Name Company Phone email Andrew Myles Cisco +61 418 656587 amyles@cisco. com Submission Slide 1 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 Welcome to the third F 2 F meeting of the IEEE 802. 11 PDED ad hoc in Vancouver • PDED stands for Preamble Detect Energy Detect – PDED is an attempt to encapsulate the goal of the group … – … which is to discuss issues related to the 3 GPP RAN 1 request to IEEE 802. 11 WG to adopt an ED of -72 d. Bm • The IEEE 802. 11 PDED ad hoc was formed in September 2016 at the Warsaw interim meeting – Andrew Myles was appointed as Chair • It met in San Antonio (Nov 2016) and Atlanta (Jan 2017) • We will be meeting twice this week in Vancouver (Mar 2017) – Tuesday AM 2 – Wednesday PM 1 Submission Slide 2 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 The first task for the PDED ad hoc today is to appoint a secretary • It is important to keep proper minutes of all PDED meetings • However, it is generally not practical to Chair a meeting and take minutes at the same time – Especially without a recording • Therefore we need a volunteer for a Secretary – At least for this session … – … and thanks to Thomas Derham, Dick Roy, Graham Smith & Guido Hiertz for volunteering previously • The rewards for the Secretary are numerous – Power over the ad hoc – Respect from your peers – … and a cold beverage from the Chair Submission Slide 3 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 The PDED ad hoc will review the official IEEE-SA patent material for pre-PAR groups • 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. Submission Slide 4 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 The PDED ad hoc will review the official IEEE-SA patent material for pre-PAR groups • If you have questions: – Contact the IEEE-SA Standards Board Patent Committee Administrator at patcom@ieee. org – Visit standards. ieee. org/about/sasb/patcom/index. html • See IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, clause 5. 3. 10 and “Promoting Competition and Innovation: What You Need to Know about the IEEE Standards Association's Antitrust and Competition Policy” for more details. • This slide set is available at: – development. standards. ieee. org/myproject/Public/mytools/mob/slideset. ppt Submission Slide 5 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 Links are available to a variety of other useful resources • Link to IEEE Disclosure of Affiliation – http: //standards. ieee. org/faqs/affiliation. FAQ. html • Links to IEEE Antitrust Guidelines – http: //standards. ieee. org/resources/antitrust-guidelines. pdf • Link to IEEE Code of Ethics – http: //www. ieee. org/web/membership/ethics/code_ethics. html • Link to IEEE Patent Policy – http: //standards. ieee. org/board/pat-slideset. ppt Submission Slide 6 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 The PDED ad hoc will operate using accepted principles of meeting etiquette • IEEE 802 is a world-wide professional technical organization • Meetings shall be conducted in an orderly and professional manner in accordance with the policies and procedures governed by the organization • Individuals shall address the “technical” content of the subject under consideration and refrain from making “personal” comments to or about others Submission Slide 7 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 The PDED ad hoc will consider a proposed agenda Proposed Agenda • Bureaucratic stuff, including approving minutes • Why was the PDED ad hoc formed … and why is it continuing? • What is happening this week? (in no particular order) – – – Review activities in 3 GPP RAN 4 related to testing Review what has happened so far on the PDED issue Develop a response to 3 GPP RAN 1 on the PDED issue Consider further data (based on simulation and testing? ) for future LS’s Review any relevant comments on the question of ED threshold in EN 301 893 • What are the next steps? • Other business Any objections to this agenda? Submission Slide 8 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 The PDED ad hoc will consider approval of the notes of Atlanta meeting as the minutes • Guido Hiertz (Ericsson) kindly took notes for the PDED ad hoc at the Atlanta meeting in Jan 2017 • The notes are available on Mentor: – 11 -17 -0152 -00: Minutes of the Tuesday PDED ad hoc meeting – 11 -17 -0162 -00: Minutes of the Wednesday PDED ad hoc meeting • Are there any objections to approval of these notes as the minutes of the meeting by consent? Submission Slide 9 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 Why was the PDED ad hoc formed … … and why is it continuing? Submission Slide 10 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 The PDED ad hoc was formed based on several presentations to 802. 11 WG and 802. 19 WG Formation documents from Sept 2016 • 19 -16 -0110 -00 described the PDED issue for IEEE 802. 19 WG and a variety of possible responses • 11 -16 -1263 -00 summarised the PDED issue for the IEEE 802. 11 WG and this directly led to the PDED ad hoc formation Submission Slide 11 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 The PDED ad hoc was formed to respond to 3 GPP RAN 1 in relation to the PDED issue • A number of liaisons between IEEE 802 and 3 GPP left the PDED issue open as of September 2016 – Mar 2016: IEEE 802 requested (19 -16 -0037 -09 ) that 3 GPP RAN 1 make LAA more sensitive to 802. 11 transmissions, using either PD/ED similar to IEEE 802. 11 ac or ED of -77 d. Bm – Jun 2016: 3 GPP RAN 1 rejected (R 1 -166040) IEEE 802’s request on the basis that they had considerable debate and decided there was not a problem with an ED of -72 d. Bm; they also requested that IEEE 802. 11 ax adopt the same – Aug 2016: IEEE 802 noted (IEEE 802 liaison to 3 GPP RAN) 3 GPP RAN 1’s simulations (issue 3) were based on invalid assumptions & asked them to use more realistic assumptions; but did not respond to request that 802. 11 ax adopt an ED of -72 d. Bm • The PDED ad hoc was formed in September 2016 primarily to respond to the 3 GPP RAN 1 request that 802. 11 ax adopt an ED of -72 d. Bm Submission Slide 12 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 The PDED ad hoc has determined there is a need for ongoing work • In Nov 2016, after sending a response explaining why the 3 GPP RAN 1 request that 802. 11 ax adopt ED = -72 d. Bm does not make sense • … it was agreed to continue PDED ad hoc in the short term, with the following goals: – Address any future reply from 3 GPP RAN 1 – Develop further data (based on simulation and testing? ) for future LS’s – Address the question of ED threshold in EN 301 893 that applies to 802. 11 ax • In Jan 2017, these goals were confirmed by the PDED ad hoc – Note: a reply had been received from 3 GPP RAN 1 at this time • The IEEE 802. 11 WG Chair agreed in Nov 2016 to authorise the continuation of the PDED ad hoc until we “cancelled too many sessions” Submission Slide 13 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 What is happening this week? Review activities in 3 GPP RAN 4 related to testing Submission Slide 14 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 The PDED ad hoc will hear a summary of discussions at the recent 3 GPP RAN 4 meeting • 3 GPP RAN 4 is undertaking important work to validate the 3 GPP RAN 1 assertions about LAA coexistence with 802. 11 – 3 GPP RAN 1 noted in a liaison in Nov 2016 that 3 GPP RAN 4 has decided on the development of a set of coexistence test cases including multi-node tests to verify the coexistence between LAA and IEEE 802. 11 devices in various scenarios including testing above and below an ED threshold of -72 d. Bm for LAA devices • A number of IEEE 802 participants attended the 3 GPP RAN 4 meeting in Athens the week of 13 February 2017 • Stuart Strickland (HPE) has provided the following slides as a report in the conclusions of the discussions and next steps • The report will provide context for the PDED ad hoc discussion on how to respond to 3 GPP RAN 1’s liaison to IEEE 802 in Nov 2016 Submission Slide 15 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 The PDED ad hoc will hear a summary of discussions at the recent 3 GPP RAN 4 meeting • The following pages are a “ 3 GPP RAN 4 LAA Coexistence Status” report supplied by Stuart Strickland (Distinguished Technologist, HPE) – Dated 27 Feb 2017 and updated on 12 Mar 2017, following RAN Plenary #75 • Stuart is not in attendance this week and so will be presented by an alternate or the Chair Submission Slide 16 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 Purpose & Scope of 3 GPP RAN 4 Multi-node Testing • Procedures for testing coexistence of LAA with other systems operating in the same band are described in 3 GPP TR 36. 789 [1] • The purpose of these tests are “to verify that the two systems can coexist when operating in the same unlicensed spectrum. ” • The 3 GPP WI description that introduced LAA (RP-141664) defined fair coexistence as meaning “that LAA should not impact Wi-Fi services (data, video & voice services) more than an additional Wi-Fi network on the same carrier” [2] – Pass/fail criteria will therefore be based upon a comparison the results of tests of the impact of LAA on Wi-Fi with baseline measurements of the impact of Wi. Fi on Wi-Fi • Functional testing of the LBT coexistence mechanisms specific to LAA, including adherence to the specified ED threshold, maximum channel occupancy time, & minimum idle time, are described elsewhere in 3 GPP TR 36. 141 [3] Submission 17 Stuart Strickland, HPE

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 Testbed Topology • All tests will be performed using a relatively simple network topology Link A-B (I 1) Nod Li Link A-C (S 1) Nod e C D Ank ) Li (I 3 – Nodes A and C represent the “victim system” – Nodes B and D represent the “aggressor system. ” e B nk (I B 2) C • It uses two pairs of network and user equipment devices, where: e A Link C-D (I 4) Link B-D (S 2) Nod e D Note: Link C-D (I 4), shown above, is not defined in the current draft of TR 36. 789 Submission 18 Stuart Strickland, HPE

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 Agreements Reached and Open Issues (prior to RAN 4#82)[4] Device Parameter Setting • Modifications to default settings to ensure repeatability and representative behavior may be needed; specific modifications remained an item for further study Purpose of Testing Wi-Fi as Aggressor System • To help 3 GPP validate LAA and enhancements of system performance; no pass/fail criteria shall be applied for Wi-Fi … Submission 19 Stuart Strickland, HPE

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 Agreements Reached and Open Issues (prior to RAN 4#82)[4] … Traffic Types • Aggressor system shall carry best effort downlink UDP traffic (full buffer or finite load, tbd) in every test scenario • Test scenarios shall be defined in which the victim system carries best effort downlink UDP traffic (full buffer or finite load, tbd) and bidirectional voice traffic • Whether tests should be defined in which the aggressor system carries mixed voice and best effort traffic remained unresolved … Submission 20 Stuart Strickland, HPE

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 Agreements Reached and Open Issues (prior to RAN 4#82)[4] … Pass/Fail Criteria: • Various proposals have been made to compare test results to the mean, median, or 25/50/75%ile of the baseline CDF, with 10% tolerance or possibly further relaxation at lower signals levels; no agreement had been reached Test Levels: • Each test scenario shall be tested at two signal levels, one above and one below the LAA ED threshold of -72 d. Bm (20 MHz) • Specific test levels, whether these apply to wanted traffic (S 1 & S 2), interfering signals (I 1, I 2, I 3 & I 4), or both, and how to determine an appropriate relationship between wanted traffic and interfering signals remained unresolved Submission … 21 Stuart Strickland, HPE

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 Agreements Reached and Open Issues (prior to RAN 4#82)[4] … Timeframe for Completion of Study Item: • Decision taken in 3 GPP RAN Plenary in December to extend the deadline for completion of the LAA Coexistence Test Specification until the next RAN Plenary in March 2017 with expectation that all open issues would be resolved at RAN 4#82 in February 2017. [5] • At the 3 GPP RAN Plenary in March, the RAN 4 chair reported that the study item was 30% complete, the deadline was again extended until June 2017, and one hour was allocated at each of the next two RAN 4 WG meetings in April and May 2017. If, in the judgement of the RAN 4 chair, sufficient progress has not been made after the April meeting, an additional ad hoc meeting may be scheduled [16] [17] [18] [19] Submission 22 Stuart Strickland, HPE

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 Outcome of RAN 4#82 Meeting[6] Device Parameter Setting • No discussion. Specific modifications to default settings to ensure repeatability and representative behavior remain an item for further study. Purpose of Testing Wi-Fi as Aggressor System • Huawei, Ericsson, Qualcomm, and Nokia proposed that future consideration be given to applying pass/fail criteria IEEE 802. 11 ax devices. [7] • HPE reiterated previous objections that 3 GPP RAN was not the proper forum in which to propose conformance tests for IEEE 802. 11 equipment. • Huawei withdrew the proposal. … Submission 23 Stuart Strickland, HPE

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 Outcome of RAN 4#82 Meeting[6] … Traffic Types • Ericsson, Qualcomm, Huawei, Nokia, Alcatel-Lucent Shanghai Bell, Skyworks, AT&T, and Verizon proposed specific scenarios in which the aggressor system would carry aggressor and victim systems would carry voice or best effort traffic. [8] • Broadcom suggested that scenarios in which the aggressor system carried mixed voice and best effort traffic also be included. • Ericsson withdrew the proposal. … Submission 24 Stuart Strickland, HPE

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 Outcome of RAN 4#82 Meeting[6] … Pass/Fail Criteria • Huawei, Qualcomm, Ericsson, Nokia, and Skyworks proposed that the median baseline throughput with 10% tolerance be adopted as the pass/fail criteria for throughput tests. [9] • HPE reminded participants of the rationale for comparing normalized baseline performance with test results at several points and offered text adapted from the WFA LTE-U coexistence test plan to describe how such comparisons could be made without increasing test time or complexity. • Huawei withdrew the proposal … Submission 25 Stuart Strickland, HPE

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 Outcome of RAN 4#82 Meeting (continued)[6] … Test Levels • Qualcomm, Ericsson, and Verizon reiterated previous proposals to set interfering signals (I 1 & I 2) 15 d. B lower than wanted traffic (S 1) at all test levels. [10] • Nokia, Alcatel-Lucent Shanghai Bell, Skyworks, and Verizon presented a simulation study in support of this position. [11] • Broadcom, Cable Labs, HPE, and Marvell presented simulation studies supporting an alternative proposal to conduct below-ED tests with all signals at the same level and above-ED tests with interfering signals 10 d. B lower than wanted traffic. [12] • HPE presented results of field studies in support of this position. [13] • No agreement reached … Submission 26 Stuart Strickland, HPE

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 Outcome of RAN 4#82 Meeting (continued)[6] … Test Time & Complexity: • Ericsson, Nokia, Alcatel-Lucent Shanghai Bell, Qualcomm & Huawei asserted that RSSI measurement uncertainty and variations among equipment vendors would make it difficult to obtain repeatable results, particularly at lower signal levels, that automation would be impossible in some cases, that test would be time consuming and that, therefore, “RAN 4 coexistence tests should focus on compliance to the channel access mechanism (LBT parameters) defined in functional testing of LBT coexistence mechanisms”. [14] • WFA presented data from the execution of its Wi-Fi/LTE-U coexistence test plan, including the initial commissioning of coexistence test beds at CETECOM & AT 4 Wireless, generation of Wi-Fi baseline reference data, and coexistence testing of LTE-U equipment. • … Submission 27 Stuart Strickland, HPE

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 Outcome of RAN 4#82 Meeting (continued)[6] • … • Based on this experience, WFA concluded that full testing could be completed in approximately one week and that additional optimization was possible to further reduce test time. [15] • General agreement that test time and complexity should be considered in specifying multi-node tests, but no specific proposals considered or adopted. … Submission 28 Stuart Strickland, HPE

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 Outcome of RAN 4#82 Meeting (continued)[6] … Outlook • Time previously allocated for completion of the LAA coexistence test plan has been consumed • No agreement has been reached on any open issue • All text proposals introduced in RAN 4#82 were withdrawn • No “Way Forward” agreed • RAN has extended the deadline until June 2017 and allocated one hour for discussion at each of the next two RAN 4 WG meetings Submission 29 Stuart Strickland, HPE

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 Comparison of Test Level Proposals Test Level 1 (Above LAA ED) WFA Testplan S/I: -67/-67 d. Bm BRCM, et al. -57/-67 d. Bm Ericsson, et al. -52/-67 d. Bm Wi-Fi impact on Wi-FI PD deferral Wi-Fi impact on LAA SINR 0 d. B SINR +15 d. B LAA impact on Wi-Fi ED deferral -80/-80 d. Bm -67/-82 d. Bm Test Level 2 (Below LAA ED) S/I: -82/-82 d. Bm Wi-Fi impact on Wi-Fi PD deferral Wi-Fi impact on LAA SINR 0 d. B SINR +15 d. B LAA impact on Wi-Fi SINR 0 d. B SINR +15 d. B Submission 30 Stuart Strickland, HPE

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 References • [1] 3 GPP TR 36. 789 v 0. 0. 3, “Multi-node tests for Licensed-Assisted Access (LAA)” • [2] 3 GPP RP-141664, “Study on Licensed-Assisted Access using LTE” • [3] 3 GPP TR 36. 141, “E-UTRA BS conformance testing, ” Release 13 (Chapter 9) • [4] 3 GPP R 4 -1610947, “Ad-hoc minutes: Rel-13 LAA co-existence testing” • [5] 3 GPP RP-162143, “TSG RAN WG 4 Status Report: Study on multinode testing for LAA” • [6] 3 GPP R 4 -1702300, “RAN 4#82 Evening Ad Hoc Meeting Report” • [7] 3 GPP R 4 -1701227, “On the need for inclusion of future Wi-Fi system” • [8] 3 GPP R 4 -1701625, “Traffic test cases related to multi-node tests for Rel-13 LAA” • [9] 3 GPP R 4 -1701228, “On pass/fail criterion” • … Submission 31 Stuart Strickland, HPE

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 References • … • [10] 3 GPP R 4 -1701607, “SIR operating point for multi-node tests” • [11] 3 GPP R 4 -1701766, “SIR simulation results” • [12] 3 GPP R 4 -1701862, “SIR proposals for multi-node tests” • [13] 3 GPP R 4 -1701879, “Further Implications of Wi-Fi Field Measurements for Multi-Node Testing” • [14] 3 GPP R 4 -1701628, “On test complexity and time requirements for multi-node tests in Rel-13 LAA” • [15] 3 GPP R 4 -1700841, “Wi-Fi / LTE Coexistence Testing Effort” • [16] 3 GPP RP-170009, “Status Report RAN 4 WG to TSG-RAN#75” • [17] 3 GPP RP-170301, “Status Report to TSG on study on multi-node testing for LAA” • [18] 3 GPP RP 170721, “Way Forward on RAN 4 Multi-node tests SI” • [18] 3 GPP RP-170726, “Comments on RAN 4 Multi-Node Test for LAA Status” Submission 32 Stuart Strickland, HPE

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 What is happening this week? Review what has happened so far on the PDED issue Submission Slide 33 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 IEEE 802 responded to 3 GPP RAN 1 in Nov 2016, rejecting its ED request & making a PD request • IEEE 802’s liaison in November 2016 (developed by the PDED ad hoc) explained why the 3 GPP RAN 1 request that 802. 11 ax adopt ED = 72 d. Bm does not make sense • In particular, IEEE 802’s liaison noted such a change would cause 802. 11 ax devices to have a channel access disadvantage relative to: – Deployed 802. 11 a/n/ac devices using ED = -62 d. Bm – LAA devices not using PD = -82 d. Bm • The IEEE 802 liaison concluded by requesting that 3 GPP RAN 1 – Consider explicitly defining support for PD-based channel access in a future release of LAA specification • The IEEE 802 liaison also asked 3 GPP RAN 1 to – Indicate its interest in a continued dialog towards a future framework for efficient sharing of the 5 GHz band Submission Slide 34 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 3 GPP RAN 1 replied to IEEE 802 in Nov 2016, rejecting the IEEE 802 request that LAA use PD in the future • After the IEEE 802’s meeting in Nov 2016, 3 GPP RAN 1 provided a response (see issues 13 & 14) to PDED ad hoc’s liaison that: – Rejected the request to consider use of PD in LAA in the future – Deferred the request to continue a dialog on coexistence issues • 3 GPP RAN 1 did not respond to the material in the IEEE 802 liaison explaining why the use of ED of -72 d. Bm would cause IEEE 802. 11 ax devices to have a channel access disadvantage relative to: – Deployed 802. 11 a/n/ac devices – Future LAA devices Submission Slide 35 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 In parallel to the PDED discussion, in July 2016 IEEE 802 expressed a concern about LAA simulation validity Summary of IEEE 802 liaision (issue 3) to 3 GPP RAN 1 in Jul 2016 • IEEE 802 noted their March 2016 suggestion that the LAA either detect 802. 11 networks with a similar level of sensitivity to that with which 802. 11 devices can detect each other or use an ED of -77 d. Bm or lower • IEEE 802 noted that 3 GPP RAN 1 responded in June 2016 to the March 2016 LS by asserting simulations showed that ED of -72 d. Bm will ensure fair coexistence between LAA and Wi-Fi • IEEE 802 expressed a concern in their July 2016 that the assertion relied upon simulations are not realistic because they used median RSSIs higher than typically found in actual indoor deployments • IEEE 802 went on to request that 3 GPP RAN 1 reconsider its assertion about fair coexistence between LAA and Wi-Fi in a configuration that has a larger percentage of weak 802. 11 links than what is currently assumed in the 3 GPP indoor model Submission Slide 36 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 In Nov 2017, 3 GPP RAN 1 reiterated their confidence in the use of ED using a threshold of -72 d. Bm Summary of 3 GPP RAN 1 response 3 liaised to IEEE 802 in Nov 2016 • 3 GPP RAN 1 reiterated that ED based coexistence using a level of -72 d. Bm was agreed in 3 GPP after considerable debate and with wide participation of stakeholders of both LAA and IEEE 802. 11 technologies • 3 GPP RAN 1 noted that the use of PD was considered – Note: … and rejected • 3 GPP RAN 1 asserted that discussions considered both indoor and outdoor scenarios – Note: … in simulations • 3 GPP RAN 1 noted while default ED in LAA is -72 d. Bm (UE with max tx power of 23 d. Bm), a mechanism has been defined to allow the e. NB to configure a different value in UE, and appropriate values will be studied in RAN 4 • … Submission Slide 37 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 In Nov 2017, 3 GPP RAN 1 reiterated their confidence in the use of ED using a threshold of -72 d. Bm Summary of 3 GPP RAN 1 response 3 liaised to IEEE 802 in Nov 2016 • … • 3 GPP RAN 1 noted that ETSI BRAN had agreed on the same ED threshold of -72 d. Bm in the draft of EN 301 893 – Aside: this is only max value for regulatory purposes, not necessarily the “right” value • 3 GPP RAN 1 stated that it was undesirable to widen the asymmetry between the ED threshold of LAA (-72 d. Bm) and 802. 11 (-62 d. Bm) • … Submission Slide 38 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 In Nov 2017, 3 GPP RAN 1 reiterated their confidence in the use of ED using a threshold of -72 d. Bm Summary of 3 GPP RAN 1 response 3 liaised to IEEE 802 in Nov 2016 • … • 3 GPP RAN 1 noted that 3 GPP RAN 4 has decided on the development of a set of coexistence test cases including multi-node tests to verify the coexistence between LAA and IEEE 802. 11 devices in various scenarios including testing above and below an ED threshold of -72 d. Bm for LAA devices • 3 GPP RAN 1 noted LAA device may use mechanisms in addition to ED – Note: it is rumoured at least one vendor is implementing PD • 3 GPP RAN 1 noted equipment would be tested to ensure fair coexistence between LAA and 802. 11 systems – Note: it is not clear who will do the testing, or if it will be mandatory Submission Slide 39 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 The PDED ad hoc discussed a possible response to 3 GPP RAN 1 on the PDED issue in Jan 2017 • In Jan 2017, the PDED ad hoc reviewed 3 GPP RAN 1’s response to both issue 3 and issue 13 and three options were discussed for next steps 1. Continue disagreeing via “liaison ping pong” 2. Ignore the response and don’t send anything 3. Agree to disagree in a final note • Some argued for option 2 … – “We should stop this. We should focus on improving our technology. We are wasting time for things that we could spend improving 802. 11” (from minutes) • … while others argued for option 3 – Ignoring may suggest we accept all aspects of the response – It is important to document the disagreement for possible future use in other forums Submission Slide 40 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 The PDED ad hoc agreed in Jan 2017 to consider a “agree to disagree” response to RAN 1 in Mar 2017 • A straw poll narrowly gave a preference to option 3 (“agree to disagree”) – Straw poll result: 0/6/7 • The Chair volunteered to draft a possible liaison based on a very rough draft shown in Jan 2017 – Acknowledge that 3 GPP RAN 1 are committed to coexistence based on LAA using an ED threshold of -72 d. Bm – Reiterate that IEEE 802 intend to base coexistence on an ED threshold of 62 d. Bm and a PD threshold of -82 d. Bm, based on current practice – Note that while IEEE 802 would prefer LAA used a similar mechanism, IEEE 802 will at this time accept 3 GPP RAN 1 assertions in multiple LS’s that fair coexistence can be achieved with LAA & Wi-Fi using differing mechanisms – Note that IEEE 802 will interpret 3 GPP RANs lack of objection to the reasons Wi -Fi can’t use an ED of -72 d. Bm as acceptance of IEEE 802’s position Submission Slide 41 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 What is happening this week? Develop a response to 3 GPP RAN 1 on the PDED issue Submission Slide 42 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 The PDED ad hoc will review a proposed “agree to disagree” liaison to 3 GPP RAN 1 • A proposed “agree to disagree” liaison has been developed off line – Proposed text is in separate Word file see 11 -17 -0292 -01 – It does not actually use the “agree to disagree” language • The proposed liaison covers issues 3 and 13 – The ad hoc should tell IEEE 802. 19 WG that they do not need to cover these issues in any response from them Submission Slide 43 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 The PDED ad hoc will review a proposed “agree to disagree” liaison to 3 GPP RAN 1 Main messages in proposed LS to 3 GPP • IEEE 802 & 3 GPP RAN 1 have continued to disagree on various issues related to LAA’s ED threshold and its effect on LAA/802. 11 coexistence – Summarises the various liaisons on the topic – This section is quite long (but factual) but the timeline summary will make it easier for all stakeholders (IEEE 802, 3 GPP and others) to understand the historical context without ploughing through multiple documents • In the interest of resolving these outstanding issues, IEEE 802 requests that 3 GPP continue to work with IEEE 802 to gather additional evidence relating to LAA/802. 11 coexistence – Summarises the outstanding issues at a very high level – Focuses on the need to gather new evidence – Asks 3 GPP to continue working with IEEE 802 to gather new evidence • … Submission Slide 44 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 The PDED ad hoc will review a proposed “agree to disagree” liaison to 3 GPP RAN 1 Main messages in proposed LS to 3 GPP • … • IEEE 802 was encouraged by 3 GPP’s commitment to gather additional evidence by validating LAA/802. 11 coexistence characteristics using test plans developed by 3 GPP RAN 4 – Highlights RAN 1 commitment to do testing in RAN 4 to gather new evidence, particularly both above and below LAA ED threshold of -72 d. Bm • IEEE 802 is now concerned that 3 GPP may not undertake the promised LAA/802. 11 coexistence tests before LAA’s deployment – Highlights the lack of progress in RAN 4 – Notes the risks if tests are not completed and executed • … Submission Slide 45 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 The PDED ad hoc will review a proposed “agree to disagree” liaison to 3 GPP RAN 1 Main messages in proposed LS to 3 GPP • … • IEEE 802 therefore requests that 3 GPP reconfirm its previous commitment to validate LAA/ 802. 11 coexistence using tests developed in 3 GPP RAN 4 before LAA’s deployment – Requests a reconfirmation of the commitment – Asks some practical questions about the testing, such as: — — Date of completion of test plans Plans for execution of tests Process of review of results Process for subsequent spec changes? • … Submission Slide 46 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 The PDED ad hoc will review a proposed “agree to disagree” liaison to 3 GPP RAN 1 Main messages in proposed LS to 3 GPP • … • IEEE 802 also requests that 3 GPP clarify its plans for other testing of LAA’s channel access mechanisms that may be relevant to LAA/802. 11 coexistence – Asks 3 GPP to describe the scope of its other testing in the context of 802. 11 coexistence • Alternatively, in the absence of availability of timely 3 GPP RAN 4 testing, IEEE 802 requests 3 GPP provide its perspective on extending the Wi-Fi Alliance LTE-U tests to LAA – Raises the possibility of extending (without supporting it) the WFA LTE-U/802. 11 coexistence testing to cover LAA – Note that it is legitimate to discuss this because the WFA test plan is public Submission Slide 47 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 The PDED ad hoc will review a proposed “agree to disagree” liaison to 3 GPP RAN 1 • See proposed liaison in 11 -17 -0292 -01 • There was discussion of this topic during the Tuesday AM 2 session – A variety of refinements were suggested; they have all been implemented as marked up in 11 -17 -292 -03 • Participants were invited to provide additional changes by e-mail – None were received – The editor made a small number of additional editorial changes, also as marked up in 11 -17 -292 -03 Submission Slide 48 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 The PDED ad hoc will consider approving a liaison to statement to 3 GPP RAN/RAN 1/RA 4 Motion • The IEEE 802. 11 PDED ad hoc recommends to IEEE 802. 11 WG and IEEE 802 EC that 11 -17 -292 -03 be approved as a liaison statement from IEEE 802 to 3 GPP RAN/RAN 1/RAN 4 in relation to Issue 3 and Issue 13 in the most recent Liaison Statement from 3 GPP RAN 1. It is recommended that the IEEE 802. 11 WG Chair and IEEE 802 EC Chair be given authority to make any editorial changes they deem necessary. • Moved: • Seconded: Submission Slide 49 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 What is happening this week? Consider further data (based on simulation & testing? ) for future LS’s Submission Slide 50 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 Simulations provided one basis of the IEEE 802. 11 PDED ad hoc recommendation in Nov 2016 • During the teleconferences in late 2016 it was suggested that IEEE 802. 11 PDED should undertake its own simulations • Yuichi Morioka (Sony) responded to this suggestion at the San Antonio meeting in Nov 2016 by simulating the case of 802. 11 ax using an ED of 72 d. Bm and legacy 802. 11 using an ED of -62 d. Bm – Title: “Simulations on the effects of changing the ED threshold from a system performance perspective” - 11 -16 -1451 -00 • Yuichi proposed to reject 3 GPP RAN 1’s request to change 802. 11’s ED threshold from -62 d. Bm to -72 d. Bm – As it is not realistic to change legacy STAs behaviour, we analysed case B) “some 802. 11 STA uses ED of -72 d. Bm”, where 802. 11 ax STAs use the new threshold” – In this coexistence scenario, performance of 802. 11 ax STAs significantly degrade, hence the request to change all new 802. 11 STAs to adopt the new threshold should be rejected Submission Slide 51 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 The PDED ad hoc considered another simulation presentation in Jan 2017 from the same authors • In a presentation in Jan 2017, Kosuke Aio (Sony) asked “What happens if both LAA and Wi-Fi operate at ED of -72 d. Bm but with no PD communication? ” – See 11 -17 -0062 -00 • He concluded in relation to the 3 GPP RAN 1 request for 802. 11 ax to adopt ED of -72 d. Bm that “From these simulation results, it can be observed that meeting 3 GPP request is not a way to provide fair coexistence between LAA and WLAN especially in heavy networks” • The presentation proposed that dynamic TX power & ED threshold control is the best solution to provide fairness • However, discussion in Atlanta in January 2017 suggested some participants had concerns about various aspects of the simulations and thus the conclusions Submission Slide 52 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 The PDED ad hoc will consider a refinement of the work presented in Atlanta in Jan 2017 • Kosuke Aio agreed in Atlanta to refine the work for this meeting – The refined presentation is 11 -17 -0348 -00 • The conclusions are: – We confirmed the simulation results incorporating feedbacks and updated simulation scenario and parameters – We updated simulation results that confirm that changing the ED threshold to 72 d. Bm makes ax WLAN performance worse Submission Slide 53 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 What is happening this week? Address the question of ED threshold in EN 301 893 that applies to 802. 11 ax Submission Slide 54 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 In Atlanta, the PDED ad hoc discussed a proposal to maintain the 802. 11 exception in EN 301 893 • In Jan 2017, the PDED ad hoc discussed the possibility of advocating that the next revision of EN 301 893 maintain the “ 802. 11 exception” – The exception allows any device to use ED of -62 d. Bnm and a PD of -82 d. Bm, instead of an ED of -72 d. Bm – While the PD mechanism is defined in IEEE 802. 11 a/n/ac amendments, it is available for use by any technology – Note: the next revision refers to the version beyond the version that just completed ENAP ballot • This option was justified during discussion on the basis that the “ 802. 11 exception”: – Enhanced “fair use” of the 5 GHz spectrum – Was more “technology neutral” than a mechanism relying solely on ED • There was no consensus on the proposal, with strong comments made both for and against Submission Slide 55 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 In Vancouver, the PDED ad hoc will consider comments relevant to the PDED issues in the ENAP ballot • The issue of an “ 802. 11 exception” in the next revision will need to be considered again soon … • … because it might be a key factor in the success or otherwise of 802. 11 ax in Europe (and anywhere using European regulations) • However, there is no proposal to discuss the exception this week … • … at least partially because the revision of EN 301 893 has not started • It is proposed that the PDED ad hoc instead consider any comments relevant to the PDED issues in the ENAP ballot just completed – Comments became available on the 27 February – ETSI BRAN met 6 -10 March in France Submission Slide 56 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 The PDED ad hoc will consider any comments relevant to the PDED issues in the ENAP ballot Notes on ETSI BRAN meeting 7 -9 March 2017 • EN 301 893 did not change substantially after comment resolution • Most interesting comment relevant to PDED was: – DE 07: In order to meet the principle of technology neutrality one limit value for the ED threshold for all technologies should be introduced. • As expected the issue of “technology neutrality” is going to be a key issue in the next revision of EN 301 893 • IEEE 802 will need to argue that extending the “ 802. 11 a/n/ac exception” and expanding its scope to include 802. 11 ax is more “technology neutral” – See slides 47 -62 in 11 -16 -1602 -02 from the Atlanta meeting for discussion – It appears we may have some supporters among EC officials (see later in this deck) • IEEE 802 will also need to consider the effect of these rules on spatial reuse plans in IEEE 802. 11 ax Submission Slide 57 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 The PDED ad hoc will consider any comments relevant to the PDED issues in the ENAP ballot Notes on ETSI BRAN meeting 7 -9 March 2017 • A number of more controversial items were agreed to be part of the next revision on EN 301 893 – A work item that defines the next revision of EN 301 893 can only be submitted once the current work item is complete and voted on by the National Bodies – This is likely to be in about May 2017? • The list of items include: – Possible inclusion of additional receiver parameters besides “blocking” – Consider the possibility of allowing other channel bandwidths in the standard (e. g. 30 MHz, 50 MHz) – Possible deletion or clarification of the wording “temporarily” in section 4. 2. 2. 2 – Consider alignment with ERC/REC 74 -01 on spurious emissions where necessary (in band) –… Submission Slide 58 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 The PDED ad hoc will consider any comments relevant to the PDED issues in the ENAP ballot Notes on ETSI BRAN meeting 7 -9 March 2017 Comments in bold most relevant to PDED –… – Consider to make clear in the standard that transmissions, which have the purpose of preventing others to have access to the channel, are not allowed – Consider a single ED threshold limit value applicable to all technologies – Consider a general review of the adaptivity section (including ED threshold) in light of new technologies. – Consider definition of the threshold level (e. g. -30 d. Bm/MHz) applicable to Short Control Signaling Transmissions – Review of receiver blocking levels – Consider improving the description of the test condition in 5. 4. 9 (Adaptivity) that enables the longest Channel Occupancy Time to be tested. – Consider the removal of the option to allow manufacturers to declare compliance (i. e. Option B) with the Medium Access Mechanism and Maximum Channel Occupancy Time requirements (5. 4. 9. 3. 2. 4. 2 and 5. 4. 9. 3. 2. 5. 2) Submission Slide 59 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 The PDED ad hoc will consider any comments relevant to the PDED issues in the ENAP ballot Other notes • There were some rumours of additional comments that did not occur but may come up later – Apparently some NATO officials are concerned about ED of -72 d. B raising the noise floor compared to the status quo (effectively -82 d. Bm with Wi-Fi) — Only of relevance in 5 GHz DFS channels — Concern mitigated because they understand they ae able to direct LAA SPs to desist if LAA using ED of -72 d. Bm is causing interference to secret radar — Of course this mechanism will be ineffective in the case of Multe. Fire – Apparently some EC officials are concerned that ED is a backward technology step compared to PD/ED — ETSI BRAN standards ae supposed to encapsulate the most up to date technology — This is exactly what IEEE 802 have been telling 3 GPP RAN 1 for two years! Submission Slide 60 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 What are the next steps? Submission Slide 61 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 Should the PDED ad hoc continue? Probably yes because previous tasks incomplete • At the Jan 2017 meeting it was decided to continue with tasks to: – Address the reply from 3 GPP RAN 1 – Develop further data (based on simulation and testing? ) for future LS’s – Address the question of ED threshold in net revision EN 301 893 that applies to 802. 11 ax • For May 2017 meeting, it is likely we will still be completing these tasks – – At the very least will need to deal with ETSI BRAN issue, ie ED for 802. 11 ax May also need to deal with 3 GPP response to liaison statement And further simulation work … … does anyone have any additional tasks? Submission Slide 62 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 Should the PDED ad hoc continue? Probably yes but maybe under an SC structure • At the Monday opening plenary of IEEE 802. 11 WG, Adrian Stephens asked about the expected life of the PDED ad hoc – He noted that a SC structure might be more appropriate – A proposal to create an SC will require an agreed scope and a success metric • What is a reasonable scope for an SC? Submission Slide 63 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 Should the PDED ad hoc continue? Probably yes but maybe under an SC structure A scope for an SC could include: • Discuss the use of PD, ED or other LAA/802. 11 coexistence mechanisms with the goal of promoting “fair” use of unlicensed spectrum – Will initially focus on liaising with 3 GPP RAN/RAN 1/RAN 4 but may also lead to interactions with regulators and other stakeholders – Will probably not conclude at least until RAN 4’s 802. 11/LAA coexistence testing is defined and successfully executed – May require the SC to consider other simulations and tests of potential LAA/802. 11 coexistence mechanisms • Promote the definition of regulations that allows IEEE 802. 11 ax “fair access” to global unlicensed spectrum – Will initially focus on ensuring a “technology neutral” solution in the next revision of EN 301 893 allows 802. 11 ax fair access to unlicensed spectrum in Europe Submission Slide 64 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 Other business? Submission Slide 65 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 Any other business? Other business • There is/was an interesting and relevant PAR being considered by Nes. Com • … Submission Slide 66 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 There is/was an interesting and relevant PAR being considered by Nes. Com • It has come to the Chair’s attention that an interesting and relevant PAR (IEEE 1932. 1) has been proposed to Nes. Com – Scope: This standard defines a mechanism for communications among entities operating in licensed and unlicensed spectrum. The mechanism includes interoperation among MAC/PHY protocols designed for unlicensed and licensed spectrum operations and a controller for coordination among communicating entities. – Need for the Project: This standard is needed to enable interoperability among devices designed for licensed and unlicensed frequency spectrum, including Wi. Fi (sic) and LTE devices, which currently there is no such mechanisms. • Does IEEE 802 need to do anything about this? – – Reach out to proposers? Object to Nes. Com? It is probably up for approval next week at Nes. Com in Shenzen … Submission Slide 67 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 There has been further clarification for the scope of IEEE 1932. 1 suggesting it is outside ad hoc’s scope • Clarification from proponents of IEEE 1932. 1 asserts it will require no changes to IEEE 802. 11 – Our project focuses on developing new management schemes/entities that can provide time alignment for dual transmissions conducted by distributed LTE and Wi. Fi units. This project will also identify a mechanism to retrieve not transmitted packets from Wi. Fi to the LTE-A base station to be retransmitted over licensed band. The project will not change LTE and Wi. Fi standards. • This clarification raises further question about what this group is doing, but probably takes it outside the scope of PDED ad hoc • It is proposed we no longer consider the previously proposed LS to the IEEE-SA SB – See 11 -17 -0394 -00 Submission Slide 68 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -17/0291 r 5 Mar 2017 The IEEE 802. 11 PDED ad hoc meeting is adjourned! Submission Slide 69 Andrew Myles, Cisco