January 2008 doc IEEE 802 11 080036 r

January 2008 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -08/0036 r 2 Coex Ad Hoc January Taipei Agenda and Report Authors: Submission Date: 2008 -01 -10 1 Eldad Perahia (Intel)

January 2008 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -08/0036 r 2 Abstract Coex Ad Hoc in November Atlanta agenda and report regarding comment resolution of LB 115 (802. 11 n), including straw polls Submission 2 Eldad Perahia (Intel)

January 2008 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -08/0036 r 2 Highlights of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards – Participants have a duty to tell the IEEE if they know (based on personal awareness) of potentially Essential Patent Claims they or their employer own – Participants are encouraged to tell the IEEE if they know of potentially Essential Patent Claims owned by others • This encouragement is particularly strong as the third party may not be a participant in the standards process – Working Group required to request assurance – Early assurance is encouraged – Terms of assurance shall be either: • Reasonable and nondiscriminatory, with or without monetary compensation; or, • A statement of non-assertion of patent rights – Assurances • • Shall be provided on the IEEE-SA Standards Board approved LOA form May optionally include not-to-exceed rates, terms, and conditions Shall not be circumvented through sale or transfer of patents Shall be brought to the attention of any future assignees or transferees Shall apply to Affiliates unless explicitly excluded Are irrevocable once submitted and accepted Shall be supplemented if Submitter becomes aware of other potential Essential Patent Claims – A “Blanket Letter of Assurance” may be provided at the option of the patent holder – A patent holder has no duty to perform a patent search – Full policy available at http: //standards. ieee. org/guides/bylaws/sect 6 -7. html#6 Submission 3 Eldad Perahia (Intel) 1

January 2008 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -08/0036 r 2 IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards 6. 2 Policy IEEE standards may be drafted in terms that include the use of Essential Patent Claims. If the IEEE receives notice that a [Proposed] IEEE Standard may require the use of a potential Essential Patent Claim, the IEEE shall request licensing assurance, on the IEEE Standards Board approved Letter of Assurance form, from the patent holder or patent applicant. The IEEE shall request this assurance without coercion. The Submitter of the Letter of Assurance may, after Reasonable and Good Faith Inquiry, indicate it is not aware of any Patent Claims that the Submitter may own, control, or have the ability to license that might be or become Essential Patent Claims. If the patent holder or patent applicant provides an assurance, it should do so as soon as reasonably feasible in the standards development process. This assurance shall be provided prior to the Standards Board’s approval of the standard. This assurance shall be provided prior to a reaffirmation if the IEEE receives notice of a potential Essential Patent Claim after the standard’s approval or a prior reaffirmation. An asserted potential Essential Patent Claim for which an assurance cannot be obtained (e. g. , a Letter of Assurance is not provided or the Letter of Assurance indicates that assurance is not being provided) shall be referred to the Patent Committee. A Letter of Assurance shall be either: a) A general disclaimer to the effect that the Submitter without conditions will not enforce any present or future Essential Patent Claims against any person or entity making, using, selling, offering to sell, importing, distributing, or implementing a compliant implementation of the standard; or b) A statement that a license for a compliant implementation of the standard will be made available to an unrestricted number of applicants on a worldwide basis without compensation or under reasonable rates, with reasonable terms and conditions that are demonstrably free of any unfair discrimination. At its sole option, the Submitter may provide with its assurance any of the following: (i) a not-to-exceed license fee or rate commitment, (ii) a sample license agreement, or (iii) one or more material licensing terms. Submission 4 Eldad Perahia (Intel) 2

January 2008 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -08/0036 r 2 IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards Copies of an Accepted LOA may be provided to the working group, but shall not be discussed, at any standards working group meeting. The Submitter and all Affiliates (other than those Affiliates excluded in a Letter of Assurance) shall not assign or otherwise transfer any rights in any Essential Patent Claims that are the subject of such Letter of Assurance that they hold, control, or have the ability to license with the intent of circumventing or negating any of the representations and commitments made in such Letter of Assurance. The Submitter of a Letter of Assurance shall agree (a) to provide notice of a Letter of Assurance either through a Statement of Encumbrance or by binding any assignee or transferee to the terms of such Letter of Assurance; and (b) to require its assignee or transferee to (i) agree to similarly provide such notice and (ii) to bind its assignees or transferees to agree to provide such notice as described in (a) and (b). This assurance shall apply to the Submitter and its Affiliates except those Affiliates the Submitter specifically excludes on the relevant Letter of Assurance. If, after providing a Letter of Assurance to the IEEE, the Submitter becomes aware of additional Patent Claim(s) not already covered by an existing Letter of Assurance that are owned, controlled, or licensable by the Submitter that may be or become Essential Patent Claim(s) for the same IEEE Standard but are not the subject of an existing Letter of Assurance, then such Submitter shall submit a Letter of Assurance stating its position regarding enforcement or licensing of such Patent Claims. For the purposes of this commitment, the Submitter is deemed to be aware if any of the following individuals who are from, employed by, or otherwise represent the Submitter have personal knowledge of additional potential Essential Patent Claims, owned or controlled by the Submitter, related to a [Proposed] IEEE Standard and not already the subject of a previously submitted Letter of Assurance: (a) past or present participants in the development of the [Proposed] IEEE Standard, or (b) the individual executing the previously submitted Letter of Assurance. Submission 5 Eldad Perahia (Intel) 3

January 2008 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -08/0036 r 2 IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards The assurance is irrevocable once submitted and accepted and shall apply, at a minimum, from the date of the standard's approval to the date of the standard's withdrawal. The IEEE is not responsible for identifying Essential Patent Claims for which a license may be required, for conducting inquiries into the legal validity or scope of those Patent Claims, or for determining whether any licensing terms or conditions are reasonable or non-discriminatory. Nothing in this policy shall be interpreted as giving rise to a duty to conduct a patent search. No license is implied by the submission of a Letter of Assurance. In order for IEEE’s patent policy to function efficiently, individuals participating in the standards development process: (a) shall inform the IEEE (or cause the IEEE to be informed) of the holder of any potential Essential Patent Claims of which they are personally aware and that are not already the subject of an existing Letter of Assurance, owned or controlled by the participant or the entity the participant is from, employed by, or otherwise represents; and (b) should inform the IEEE (or cause the IEEE to be informed) of any other holders of such potential Essential Patent Claims that are not already the subject of an existing Letter of Assurance. 4 Submission 6 Eldad Perahia (Intel)

January 2008 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -08/0036 r 2 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 fixing product prices, allocation of customers, or dividing 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. -------------------------------- If you have questions, contact the IEEE-SA Standards Board Patent Committee Administrator at patcom@ieee. org or visit http: //standards. ieee. org/board/pat/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 http: //standards. ieee. org/board/pat-slideset. ppt Submission 7 5 Eldad Perahia (Intel)

January 2008 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -08/0036 r 2 Further Information • IEEE Code of Ethics – • IEEE-SA Affiliation FAQ – • http: //standards. ieee. org/board/pat/faq. pdf IEEE 802 LAN / MAN STANDARDS COMMITTEE (LMSC) POLICIES & PROCEDURES – • http: //standards. ieee. org/board/pat/index. html IEEE-SA PATENT FAQ – • http: //standards. ieee. org/board/pat/loa. pdf IEEE-SA STANDARDS BOARD PATENT COMMITTEE (PATCOM) INFORMATION – • http: //standards. ieee. org/resources/antitrust-guidelines. pdf IEEE-SA LETTER OF ASSURANCE (LOA) FORM – • http: //standards. ieee. org/faqs/affiliation. FAQ. html IEEE-SA Antitrust & Competition Policy – • http: //www. ieee. org/web/membership/ethics/code_ethics. html http: //grouper. ieee. org/groups/802/policies-and-procedures. pdf IEEE 802. 11 WLANS WORKING GROUP POLICIES & PROCEDURES – Submission http: //www. ieee 802. org/11/Doc. Files/06/11 -06 -0812 -03 -0000 -802 -11 -policies-and-proceedures. htm 8 Eldad Perahia (Intel)

January 2008 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -08/0036 r 2 Overview • Latest version of spreadsheet: 07/2693 r 5 • Total number of unique unresolved comments: 174 • Goals: – review first draft of submissions for all CIDs this session – Resolve CIDs for submissions previously presented – Resolve all remaining CIDs by March 2008 Submission 9 Eldad Perahia (Intel)

January 2008 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -08/0036 r 2 Coex Ad Hoc Rules / Procedure • As a general rule, we will NOT be reviewing CIDs on a one by one basis • Resolution of comments will in most cases be based on submissions • Coex Ad Hoc chair will bring resolutions which passed by 75% or more for motion in TGn, with affirmation of Ad Hoc • Votes between 50% - 75% may be brought to TGn for further discussion and votes to break deadlock Submission 10 Eldad Perahia (Intel)

January 2008 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -08/0036 r 2 Subgroups (1/2) • Coex 20 -40 – – – 103 comments Clause 7, 11. 9. 8, 11. 15. 1, 11. 15. 2, 11. 15. 3, 11. 15. 4, 11. 15. 10, 11. 17, S. 4. 2 Assignee: Matt F. 07/2742 in progress CID 5223 • • Coex reorg – – – • 8 comments Clause 11. 9, 11. 9. 8, 11. 15. 1 Assignee: Matt, as part of Coex 20 -40 PCO – – • Assignee: Darwin Engwer, 07/2478 r 1 16 comments Primarily 11. 16 Assignee: Tomo Submission date: Jan 2008 L-SIG TXOP – – Submission 11 comments Clauses 9. 13. 5, 9. 13. 6 Assignee: Yuichi Submission date: Jan 2008 11 Eldad Perahia (Intel)

January 2008 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -08/0036 r 2 Subgroups (2/2) • Coex cca – – • Coex protection mechanisms – – – • 17 comments Clauses 7. 3. 2. 53, 9. 13. 4, 11. 15. 6 Assignee: Bjorn 07/2726 in progress 08/0004 CID 5796 assigned to Solomon Coex GF – – • 18 comments Primarily clauses 11. 15. 7, 11. 15. 8 Assignee: Eldad Submission date: Jan 2008 3 comments Clause 9. 13. 3 Assignee: Doug Chan 07/2849 in progress Misc – – Submission CID 5183 Commenter emailed saying to reject comment 12 Eldad Perahia (Intel)

January 2008 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -08/0036 r 2 Submissions Related to Comment Resolution • Bjorn – – • Tomo – • 11 -08 -0035 -00 -000 n-coex-cca. doc (next week) Brian – • 11 -07 -2478 -01 -000 n-coex-cid-589. doc (updated to D 3. 01) (next week) Eldad – • 11 -07 -2742 -03 -000 n-lb 115 -cid 5279 -coex-20 -40. doc (lots of time) (+) Darwin – • 11 -07 -2994 -01 -000 n-lb 115 -submission-coex-l-sig-txop. doc (1 hour) Matt F. – • 11 -08 -0064 -01 -000 n-lb 115 -submission-cid-5796. doc Yuichi – • 11 -07 -2990 -01 -000 n-lb 115 -submission-for-category-pco-in-coex-ad-hoc. doc (45 min) Solomon – • 11 -07 -2726 -03 -000 n-lb 115 -coex-comment-resolutions-protection-mechanisms. doc (15 min) 11 -08 -0004 -00 -000 n-lb 115 -coex-comment-resolution-cid-5628. doc (15 -20 min) Red indicates completed 11 -07 -3000 -00 -000 n-simulation-of-20 -40 -mhz-cca-unfairness. ppt (next week) submissions Doug Submission (+) indicates submission was discussed 13 Eldad Perahia (Intel)

January 2008 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -08/0036 r 2 Agenda for Friday Jan 11 • Bjorn – 11 -07 -2726 -03 -000 n-lb 115 -coex-comment-resolutions-protectionmechanisms. doc (15 min) – 11 -08 -0004 -00 -000 n-lb 115 -coex-comment-resolution-cid 5628. doc (15 -20 min) • Tomo – 11 -07 -1990 (45 min) • Matt F. – 11 -07 -2742 -03 -000 n-lb 115 -cid 5279 -coex-20 -40. doc (lots of time) Submission 14 Eldad Perahia (Intel)

January 2008 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -08/0036 r 2 Minutes for Friday Jan 11 • 07/2726 r 3 – – – CID 5796 assigned to Solomon and removed from submission CID 5627 – no issues with proposed resolution CID 5535 – no issues with proposed resolution CID 5100 – no issues with proposed resolution No objection to accepting submission as resolution to CIDs and bringing to motion • 08/0004 r 0 – Some discussion on having a note showing “-3”. There is already such a note in 9. 13. 4 – Eldad: since the name of the parameter includes “convolutional” will we get someone asking what the value is with LDPC? – No objection to accepting submission as resolution to CIDs and bringing to motion Submission 15 Eldad Perahia (Intel)

January 2008 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -08/0036 r 2 07/2990 • Resolves Editor CID 5875, needs to be transferred to Coex – • No objections to resolution CID 5876 – Bruce: question regarding “any channel width” phrase, any issue with limiting to 40 MHz • • • CID 5841 – no objections CID 5359 – no objections CID 5829 – no objections CID 5109 – no objections CID 5736 – no objections CID 5737 – no objections CID 5739 – – • Tomo: text in 7. 3. 1. 24 is the same type of wording Eldad: “any channel width” is limited to Supported Channel Width Set Everyone happy with current text, no objection with resolution Adrian: Change the may to can in the second edit instruction no objections to resolution with changes CID 5740 – no objections Submission 16 Eldad Perahia (Intel)

January 2008 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -08/0036 r 2 07/2990 continued • CID 5741 – Adrian: can we make the second two sentences (in the first editor instruction) into a note, since they are informative. Limits comments. • – • • Solomon: address the fact that traffic mixes are unknown in the rejection No objections to resolution with changes CID 5360 – – – • • No objections to resolution with changes CID 5830 – no objections CID 5831 – – • No objections to change Bruce: some grammar changes Eldad: may needs to be changed to may No objections to resolution with changes CID 5744 – no objections CID 5358 – no objections CID 5745 – no objections No objection to accepting r 1 of submission as resolution to CIDs and bringing to motion Submission 17 Eldad Perahia (Intel)

January 2008 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -08/0036 r 2 08/0064 • CID 5796 – No intent to change meaning, just clarifications – Bruce: grammar corrections • No objection to accepting r 1 of submission as resolution to CID and bringing to motion Submission 18 Eldad Perahia (Intel)

January 2008 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -08/0036 r 2 07/2742 • Reviewed changes based on conference call discussion – • CID 5045, 5485, 5424, 5447, 5850 CID 5850 – Still have issue with changing channel width in IBSS when there is no DFS owner, changed color to green • • • – • Issue is held open by CID 5872 CID 5117 – Adrian: making assertion the operation is fair, its never been tested. But we don’t necessary care if its fair. • – – – • Solomon: we have the same issue with changing channel in IBSS Matt: general issue of dynamic parameters in IBSS when no one is in charge (see CID 5276 in MAC in 07/2999) Adrian: might get a mix of DFS and non-DFS capable devices Matt: changed “fair” to “sufficiently adequate user experience” Allert: is this a “counter” Luke is ok with “counter” No further objection CID 5485 – – Submission Added rejection resolution text since conference call No objections 19 Eldad Perahia (Intel)

January 2008 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -08/0036 r 2 07/2742 continued • CID 5851 – – • • Matt: Term BSS includes IBSS Matt: Changed IDO STA to FC HT STA 17 to broaden the language to allow a non-DFS owner to start IBSS, but changes will be un-done since DFS 802. 11 -2007 rules in 11. 9. 7. 2 state a STA starting an IBSS in DFS band shall be the DFS owner. Changed to reject No objections CID 5852, 5854 – no objection CID 5180 – Lots of discussion on whether to change “ 5 GHz” to “not 2. 4 GHz”, points raised: • • – Allert: change to FC HT AP restricts to HT device in “other band” • – – Submission There was only 2. 4 & 5 GHz at time of 11 n starting, now we have 11 y We have only thought about 2. 4 & 5 GHz we don’t know what the 40 MHz coex issues would be in other bands Tomo: FC 17 restricts to 5 GHz, which is in many other places. Changes only to 11. 9. 8. 3 would not be enough To make all the changes to draft would be complicated, reject and leave for next task group Since the change was un-done, “FC HT” is not added anymore No objection to rejection Changes based on 5180 un-done 20 Eldad Perahia (Intel)

January 2008 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -08/0036 r 2 07/2742 continued • CID 5853, 5855 – – • CID 5856, 5858 – • Changed “HT AP or IDO STA” to “HT AP or IDO STA that is also an HT STA” in 11. 9. 8. 3 No objections CID 5859 - no objections CID 5030 – – • No objections CID 5857 – – • • Changed to reject, refer to 5851 No objections Resolution text modified to indicate changes based on 2. 4 GHz language and 5 GHz language No objections CID 5860 – – Submission Changed to reject, refer to 5851 No objections 21 Eldad Perahia (Intel)

January 2008 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -08/0036 r 2 07/2742 continued • CID 5861 – Added reference to CID 5851 in resolution – No objections • CID 5862 – no objections • CID 5031 – Added resolution text stating that the use of scan results is implicit on existing rules – Tomo: is there a reference to rules? • Matt: anything that causes a trigger event must follow the trigger • Continue with CID 5808 tomorrow Submission 22 Eldad Perahia (Intel)

January 2008 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -08/0036 r 2 Agenda for Saturday Jan 12 • Review progress • Yuichi – 11 -07 -2994 -01 -000 n-lb 115 -submission-coex-l-sig-txop. doc (1 hour) • Matt F. – 11 -07 -2742 -03 -000 n-lb 115 -cid 5279 -coex-20 -40. doc (remainder of time) Submission 23 Eldad Perahia (Intel)

January 2008 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -08/0036 r 2 Status at end of Friday Jan 11 • Unresolved CIDs (not approved by ad hoc to be motioned in TGn): 144 – – – – 20/40 group: 103 CCA: 16 GF: 3 Protection: 2 Reorg: 8 L-SIG TXOP: 11 Misc: 1 PCO: 0 • CIDs in 07/2724 w/ no objections: 31 • CIDs still needing review: 113 Submission 24 Eldad Perahia (Intel)

January 2008 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -08/0036 r 2 Minutes for Saturday Jan 12 • 07/2994 – CID 5629 – no objections – CID 5470 • Withdrawn by commenter (Yuichi) – CID 5630 • Modified resolution by change the paragraph below – L-SIG TXOP Protection may be used even when not all HT STA in the BSS support the feature, provided that the frames using L-SIG TXOP Protection are not directed to a recipient that does not support L-SIGTXOP Protection. • changing may to can and change to note • No objection to new resolution – CID 5471 – no objection – CID 5632, 5472 – no objection – CID 5633 • Discussion on whether note is enough explanation or proper explanation • Adrian crafted new language explaining the use of HT_MF on the third PPDU • no objection Submission 25 Eldad Perahia (Intel)

January 2008 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -08/0036 r 2 07/2994 continued • CID 5634 – – – • • • Tomo: also delete the language “except during the 40 MHz phase of PCO operation (see 11. 16 (Phased Coexistence Operation)). ” No objection to new resolution CID 5635 – no objection CID 5636 – no objection CID 5637 – – – Discussion on TXOP truncation used in conjunction with L-SIG TXOP Modified resolution by adding a new note no objection • No objection to accepting r 2 of submission as resolution to CIDs and bringing to motion • Yuichi requested to not withdraw his comment and action his comment. Decision was made to remove CID 5470 and 5630 from document and making it r 3. No objection to accepting r 3 of submission as resolution to CIDs and bringing to motion Submission 26 Eldad Perahia (Intel)

January 2008 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -08/0036 r 2 07/2742 continued • CID 5808 – – – • CID 5078 – – – • • • Discussion on use of operators modification to note to define “==“ No objection CID 5079 – no objection CID 5863, 5864, 5865 – no objection CID 5080 – – • Add to resolution text that capability is not changed And delete a particular use of “shall set STA Channel Width field to 0” No objection Use the comments choice of 25 MHz No objection CID 5032 – – Submission Create new acronyms for secondary channel offset = 1 and another acronym when = 3 No objection 27 Eldad Perahia (Intel)

January 2008 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -08/0036 r 2 07/2742 continued • • CID 5319 – no objection CID 5716, 5809 – no objection CID 5081 – no objection CID 5866 – Modified resolution to say it must be a DFS only – No objection • CID 5867 – no objection • CID 5868 – no objection Submission 28 Eldad Perahia (Intel)

January 2008 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -08/0036 r 2 07/2742 continued • CID 5869 – Changed from reject to count – modification to resolution text to indicate that IBSS is forbidden from making channel width changes – Comment left open for now pending MAC changes • CID 5870 – Changed IDO STA to DFS owner – No objection • CID 5871 – no objection • CID 5320 – no objection Submission 29 Eldad Perahia (Intel)

January 2008 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -08/0036 r 2 07/2742 continued • CID 5717, 5810 – Adrian • We have two methods of changing width: secondary channel offset and E-CSA • Secondary channel offset does not impact connectivity, E-CSA could – Discussion of the issue – if secondary channel offset is changed to switch the BSS to 20 MHz, the regulatory class still remains at 40 MHz. Is this ok? – In principle, does a change of channel width imply a change of regulatory class? – Possible solution: • Allow an AP to operate a 20 MHz BSS in a 40 MHz regulatory class • Regulatory class represents what is possible, secondary channel offset represents what is current situation • Any frame that contains a new reg class field (E-CSA frame & element) with a value that corresponds to 40 MHz channel shall also include a secondary channel offset field – Comment still open Submission 30 Eldad Perahia (Intel)

January 2008 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -08/0036 r 2 07/2742 continued • CID 5082, 5083 – No need for record of STA Channel Width of STAs – Change to counter and delete the last paragraph of 11. 9. 8. 4 – No objections to new resolution • • CID 5011 – no objection CID 5182 – no objection CID 5084 – no objection CID 5085 – Slight modification to resolution – no objection to modified resolution • • CID 5718 – no objection CID 5719 – no objection CID 5474 – no objection CID 5086, 5720 – no objection Submission 31 Eldad Perahia (Intel)

January 2008 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -08/0036 r 2 07/2742 continued • CID 5087, 5890 – Discussion regarding Notify Channel Width Action Frames – Need to continue discussion of these CIDs Submission 32 Eldad Perahia (Intel)

January 2008 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -08/0036 r 2 Status at end of Sat Jan 12 • Unresolved CIDs (not approved by ad hoc to be motioned in TGn): 136 – – – – 20/40 group: 103 CCA: 16 GF: 3 Protection: 3 Reorg: 8 L-SIG TXOP: 2 Misc: 1 PCO: 0 • CIDs in 07/2724 w/ no objections: 51 • CIDs still needing review: 85 Submission 33 Eldad Perahia (Intel)