May 2019 doc IEEE 802 24 19 0012

May 2019 doc. : IEEE 802. 24 -19 -0012 r 0 802. 24 Vertical Applications TAG May 2019 Atlanta, GA, USA Submission Slide 1 Tim Godfrey, EPRI

May 2019 doc. : IEEE 802. 24 -19 -0012 r 0 802. 24 Overview • Officers – TAG Chair: – Secretary & TAG Vice Chair: Tim Godfrey Ben Rolfe • Task Groups – 802. 24. 1 Smart Grid TG – 802. 24. 2 Io. T TG Tim Godfrey Chris Di. Minico • 26 Voting Members • Agenda: 24 -19 -0011 -00 • Meetings for the Week – Tuesday PM 2 – Wednesday PM 2 24 24. 1 • Manual attendance tracking for 802. 1 & 802. 3 members Submission Slide 2

Agenda – 802. 24 -19 -0010 r 1 May 2019 802. 24 Agenda - May 2019, Atlanta, Georgia, USA 1 doc. : IEEE 802. 24 -19 -0012 r 0 24 -19 -0011 -01 -0000 Tuesday PM 2 session 1. 1 Call session to order, present “Guidelines for IEEE SA meetings”, Quorum Godfrey 5 4: 00 PM 1. 2 Review of Agenda / Approval of Agenda Godfrey 5 4: 05 PM 1. 3 Approve minutes from prior TAG meeting Godfrey 5 4: 10 PM 1. 4 Introduction/meeting objectives / Review action items from previous meeting Godfrey 5 4: 15 PM 1. 5 Liaison Review Godfrey 10 4: 20 PM 1. 6 802. 24. 1 Smart Grid Task Group Godfrey 0 4: 30 PM 1. 7 ITU and regulatory items Godfrey/Holcomb 15 4: 30 PM 1. 8 Collaboration with 802. 21: 'Network Enablers for Seamless HMD-based VR (Virtual Reality)’ Godfrey / Das 30 4: 45 PM 1. 9 Progressing "Network Integration" concept into a project Godfrey 30 5: 15 PM Recess Godfrey 0 5: 45 PM 2 2 2. 1 Wednesday PM 2 session Call to Order 802. 24 TAG Liasion Discussion of IEC SEG 8 report "Deliverable 3_Market Trend_Meeting_Review" Godfrey 0 4: 00 PM 2. 2 Godfrey 15 4: 15 PM 2. 3 Update on P 2413 Liaison Winkel? 15 4: 30 PM 2. 4 Low Latency White Paper Holland 40 5: 10 PM 2. 5 Whitepaper/document for application-specific use cases of Sub 1 GHz standards 802. 15. 4 g and 802. 11 ah Godfrey/Rolfe 15 5: 25 PM 10 0 5: 35 PM 2. 6 802. 24 New Action Items, New Activities, AOB Godfrey 2. 7 Adjourn Godfrey Submission Slide 3 5: 35 PM Tim Godfrey, EPRI

May 2019 doc. : IEEE 802. 24 -19 -0012 r 0 Guidelines for IEEE-SA Meetings l All IEEE-SA standards meetings shall be conducted in compliance with all applicable laws, including antitrust and competition laws. l Don’t discuss the interpretation, validity, or essentiality of patents/patent claims. l Don’t discuss specific license rates, terms, or conditions. l Relative costs, including licensing costs of essential patent claims, of different technical approaches may be discussed in standards development meetings. l l Technical considerations remain primary focus Don’t discuss or engage in the fixing of product prices, allocation of customers, or division of sales markets. l Don’t discuss the status or substance of ongoing or threatened litigation. l 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/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 https: //development. standards. ieee. org/myproject/Public/mytools/mob/preparslides. ppt Submission IEEE 802 Executive Committee

May 2019 doc. : IEEE 802. 24 -19 -0012 r 0 Participation in IEEE 802 Meetings Participation in any IEEE 802 meeting (Sponsor, Sponsor subgroup, Working Group subgroup, etc. ) is on an individual basis • Participants in the IEEE standards development individual process shall act based on their qualifications and experience. (https: //standards. ieee. org/develop/policies/bylaws/sb_bylaws. pdf section 5. 2. 1) • IEEE 802 Working Group membership is by individual; “Working Group members shall participate in the consensus process in a manner consistent with their professional expert opinion as individuals, and not as organizational representatives”. (subclause 4. 2. 1 “Establishment”, of the IEEE 802 LMSC Working Group Policies and Procedures) • Participants have an obligation to act and vote as an individual and not under the direction of any other individual or group. A Participant’s obligation to act and vote as an individual applies in all cases, regardless of any external commitments, agreements, contracts, or orders. • Participants shall not direct the actions or votes of any other member of an IEEE 802 Working Group or retaliate against any other member for their actions or votes within IEEE 802 Working Group meetings, see https: //standards. ieee. org/develop/policies/bylaws/sb_bylaws. pdf section 5. 2. 1. 3 and the IEEE 802 LMSC Working Group Policies and Procedures, subclause 3. 4. 1 “Chair”, list item x. By participating in IEEE 802 meetings, you accept these requirements. If you do not agree to these policies then you shall not participate. (Latest revision of IEEE 802 LMSC Working Group Policies and Procedures: http: //www. ieee 802. org/devdocs. shtml ) Submission Slide 5 IEEE 802 Executive Committee

May 2019 doc. : IEEE 802. 24 -19 -0012 r 0 Administration • Attendance take on IMAT – Reciprocal rights for most WGs • Web page – http: //www. ieee 802. org/24 • Mailing list – stds-802 -24@listserv. ieee. org – 802 -24 -voters@listserv. ieee. org (voters list) • Document archive – http: //mentor. ieee. org/802. 24/documents • IEEE 802 announcement reflector, stds-802 -all@listserv. ieee. org – Send email to listserv@listserv. ieee. org with no subject and with the – following 2 lines appearing first in the body of the message Subscribe stds-802 -all end Submission Slide 6 Tim Godfrey, EPRI

May 2019 doc. : IEEE 802. 24 -19 -0012 r 0 802. 24 TAG • Approve March minutes – 24 -19 -00010 r 0 • TAG Action Items from March: üGet latest P 2413 draft for private area q. Subir Das to provide VR text for TSN White Paper Submission Slide 7 Tim Godfrey, EPRI

May 2019 doc. : IEEE 802. 24 -19 -0012 r 0 ITU and Radio Regulatory Items • Update from 802. 18 – Jay Holcomb • 900 MHz licensed spectrum NPRM (Broadband) – Will be discussed at Open Meeting of FCC – Interference with ISM? • OFCOM – 2390 -2400 MHz consultation Submission Slide 8 Tim Godfrey, EPRI

May 2019 doc. : IEEE 802. 24 -19 -0012 r 0 Collaboration with 802. 21 AR/VR Vertical Applications • 'Network Enablers for Seamless HMD-based VR (Virtual Reality)’ • Subir Das Submission Slide 9 Tim Godfrey, EPRI

May 2019 doc. : IEEE 802. 24 -19 -0012 r 0 Goals for AR/VR collaboration in 802. 24 • IEEE 802 can create a community for developing a suite of capabilities suited for this class of applications – Moving the focus from maximizing throughput only to also consider quality of experience and reliability. • Build on 802. 24 Low Latency White Paper – Broadly define the set of applications (vertical and otherwise) around bounded / low latency – Look at the VR architecture diagram and consider the appropriate standard for each link. They will be a mix of wireless and wired. • In current white paper, latency limit is 5 m. S. Combination of wired/wireless. • Some use case may incorporate a WAN. • Existing testing shows challenges exceeding two hops (switches) in a network • IEEE 802 could provide comparable services to what is promised by 5 G. Submission Slide 10 Tim Godfrey, EPRI

May 2019 doc. : IEEE 802. 24 -19 -0012 r 0 Goals for AR/VR collaboration in 802. 24 • 802. 21 plans to provide the services layer above the MAC/PHY – AR/VR is an identified vertical application for Smart Grid (electric utilities) for field force, safety, and training • 802. 24 will liaise to other WGs if they develop amendments to their standards to support RTC. – 802. 21 will provide input on requirements to WGs – Vertical Application areas can provide input on specific use cases – Include representatives from related activities in other WG’s • 802. 24 will provide a venue for collaboration (joint meetings) at Plenary Submission Slide 11 Tim Godfrey, EPRI

May 2019 doc. : IEEE 802. 24 -19 -0012 r 0 Next Steps • • 802. 21 to provide text contributions Goal is to have the real time white paper by 2020? Bring together various working groups to solve issues for VR and performance. Application space is driven by ever increasing resolution. Target HDMI 1. 2 specification. Resolution and frame rate drive data rate. Can it be compressed? • This can be seen as alternative to 5 G approaches, but standards-based and lower cost to use. – Show Wi-Fi technology can provide an equally good or better result and performance (bandwidth and low jitter and low latency) • Map identified uses cases on to various IEEE 802 standards. Submission Slide 12 Tim Godfrey, EPRI

May 2019 doc. : IEEE 802. 24 -19 -0012 r 0 “Network Integration” action item – Define the value and differentiation of the IEEE 802 architecture in the context of vertical markets – How is IEEE 802 better suited to deployment in the communication infrastructure of private enterprise, industry, and the individual user? • Compared to network architectures oriented towards service providers – The IEEE 802 architecture enables networks that are like Ethernet: Well understood, mature, predictable. A “cleaner” integration of disparate technologies under the common architecture and addressing. Submission Slide 13 Tim Godfrey, EPRI

May 2019 doc. : IEEE 802. 24 -19 -0012 r 0 Review of 802. 1 CF in this context • Introductory Presentation – Max Riegel “Thoughts on IEEE 802 network integration with respect to P 802. 1 CF” 24 -18 -0026 r 0 • Discussion – Based on many discussions of the place of 802. 11 in 5 G. – 5 G SC • Conclusions – AANI integrating 802. 11 into 5 G domain. Nothing corresponding in 3 GPP • Industry connections – NENDICA – Flexible Factory Io. T, Data Center Bridging – What’s missing – a picture of 802 as a peer to 5 G – 5 G promises they will do “everything” • But, they don’t do anything wired – 5 G requires an extensive PLMN to support it. • It is designed to help the cellular operator grow their market – Verticals might not want an operator in the middle of their network – Value proposition: 802 networks are customer-owned • Example – Santa Clara Emergency services issues Submission Slide 14 Tim Godfrey, EPRI

May 2019 doc. : IEEE 802. 24 -19 -0012 r 0 Points For Whitepaper Outline • • • IEEE 802 is a transport network IEEE 802 is Layer 2 3 GPP RAN is layer 3 only, Layer 2 is not available Direct support of IPv 4 and IPv 6 or pure layer 2 protocols Trade-off between flexibility (L 2) and scalability (L 3) – – – Routing provides path to higher scale Smaller scale provide more flexibility Smaller scale provides opportunity for real-time IEEE 802 can route via L 3 when needed. 3 GPP cannot offer L 2 IEEE 802 can also offer L 2 routing when appropriate (e. g. 802. 15. 10) • Not an alternative to L 3 routing, but there to address a different problem Submission Slide 15 Tim Godfrey, EPRI

May 2019 doc. : IEEE 802. 24 -19 -0012 r 0 Points For Whitepaper Outline • 802 does not provide as many means control a specific end device and it’s traffic on a path. – There are some management facilities in some standards • 3 GPP networks provide more tools for subscriber management • 802 provides local networks that may be (but don’t have to be) connected into an Internet. • Operator networks are focused on services for single devices, while 802 networks support and include multiple devices (networks of networks) – devices can communicate with each other as well as with other networks Submission Slide 16 Tim Godfrey, EPRI

May 2019 • doc. : IEEE 802. 24 -19 -0012 r 0 Points For Whitepaper Outline: Re: Non-802 wireless Io. T networks Commercial, proprietary Io. T services – They don’t have an ethernet like L 2. The system does not have the concept of a LAN. It is terminal to central “gateway” only. Star topology only. – Similar to LTE UE to UE traffic that must route through core. (DTD Proximity services have addressed that to some extent) • 5 G URLLC, and MMTC. – IEEE 802 has already developed TSN in wired, and now being developed for wireless. – Latency is impossible to guarantee in unlicensed, shared spectrum. However it can be highly optimized by the MAC layer. – IEEE 802 has a history and internal coordination of coexistence between different standards operating in unlicensed spectrum. 3 GPP is oriented towards exclusively licensed spectrum, “sharing” is a foreign concept. • 3 GPP has a common strategy for the three use cases. IEEE 802 has a common architecture, but not a common business strategy. – License exempt can provide higher economic value per MHz of spectrum. – See WFA economic value. Cisco Visual Networking Index. Wi-Fi carries more data than all cellular spectrum – Wi-Fi created the expectation of broadband wireless that led to the development of LTE • What would it look like to combine multiple IEEE 802 standards into a single offering? – Some vendors already do that – integrating 802 technologies into systems. – The “Package” offered by the “ 5 G” ecosystem is clearly articulated. – What is the comparable offering from IEEE 802? Submission Slide 17 Tim Godfrey, EPRI

May 2019 doc. : IEEE 802. 24 -19 -0012 r 0 Points For Whitepaper Outline • IEEE needs to think about how to create that package without a “subscription model” – IEEE 802 is often free • • IEEE 802 is deployed in vertical markets, where the network is owned and operated by the user of the services. Are there other models for IEEE 802 other than subscription that can provide ancillary economic value? – Is management of shared spectrum a candidate? • IEEE 802 and unlicensed spectrum enables faster innovation – Many of the breakthrough innovations were not as planned • • The story of why IEEE 802 complements everything else, and everything else (alone) is not sufficient. Io. T is built around many specialized niches. The challenge is meeting the diverse requirements. IEEE 802 provides multiple standards to address multiple Io. T applications. Submission Slide 18 Tim Godfrey, EPRI

May 2019 doc. : IEEE 802. 24 -19 -0012 r 0 Next Steps • Develop TOC for white paper from these points • Volunteers requested provide text contributions for white paper Submission Slide 19 Tim Godfrey, EPRI

May 2019 doc. : IEEE 802. 24 -19 -0012 r 0 Wednesday 802. 24 TAG Submission Slide 20 Tim Godfrey, EPRI

May 2019 doc. : IEEE 802. 24 -19 -0012 r 0 Liaison with IEC SEG 8 • Scope of SEG 8: – Assess, provide an overview and prioritization of the evolution of technical development and standardization in the field of communication technologies and architectures – The report includes aspects relevant to both Smart Grid and Io. T. • New Document shared in 802. 24 Private Area – IEC_SEG 8_Deliverable 3_Market Trend_Meeting_Review_010419_v 3_clean. pdf • Final Opportunity to review and comment as SEG 8 is finishing in next few months Submission Slide 21 Tim Godfrey, EPRI

May 2019 doc. : IEEE 802. 24 -19 -0012 r 0 P 2413 Liaison • P 2413 -D 0. 4. 6. pdf currently in Sponsor Ballot • Available in 802. 24 Private Area Submission Slide 22 Tim Godfrey, EPRI

May 2019 doc. : IEEE 802. 24 -19 -0012 r 0 “Low latency” White Paper • Achieving low latency with IEEE 802 standards – Including wired and wireless communications – An alternative (or complement) to 5 G URLLC • A set of vertical applications enabled by low latency • The challenges of reliable low latency in unlicensed spectrum. – Adapting TSN’s “FRER” feature – Adapting 802 wireless to licensed spectrum? – Operating over multiple bands or channels? • Special cases for high data rates for immersive video • Oliver Holland to lead white paper development – Current Draft 802. 24 -19 -0003 r 1 Submission Slide 23 Tim Godfrey, EPRI

May 2019 doc. : IEEE 802. 24 -19 -0012 r 0 “Low latency” White Paper • Discussion Notes Submission Slide 24 Tim Godfrey, EPRI

May 2019 doc. : IEEE 802. 24 -19 -0012 r 0 802. 15. 4 g and 802. 11 ah Coexistence (802. 19. 3) • 802. 24 will develop a whitepaper/document for application-specific use cases. Identifying where each standard is most suitable, and how to make best use of other changes. • • Identify use cases where 802. 15. 4 g is not sufficient and both are needed Could be choices of applications, channel guidelines, duty cycle, Avoid perception that 802 standards are unable to coexist Evaluate and describe potential application-level implications of delay/latency increases due to mutual interference • 802. 19. 3 project schedule: – A draft ready by April – WG Ballot Sept 2019 – SA Ballot November 2019 • Plan to develop a white paper in 2 nd half of year. Review status in July Submission Slide 25 Tim Godfrey, EPRI

May 2019 doc. : IEEE 802. 24 -19 -0012 r 0 2019 TAG Activity Plan • “Low latency” White Paper – Include 802. 21 AR/VR activity – Nendica FFIOT might also fit into this • “Network Integration” white paper about unique benefits of IEEE 802 architecture • A whitepaper/document for application-specific use cases of Sub 1 GHz standards 802. 15. 4 g and 802. 11 ah. Identifying where each standard is most suitable, and how to make best use of mechanisms proposed in 802. 19. 3 TG. – Can this also include applying 802. 15. 4 s in sub-1 GHz spectrum? – 2 H 2019 for starting • TBD – 802. 24 white paper on Io. T and P 2413 – Update of first Smart Grid white paper to address latest amendments of 802. 15. 4 u, v, w, x, y, Revmd Submission Slide 26 Tim Godfrey, EPRI

May 2019 doc. : IEEE 802. 24 -19 -0012 r 0 802. 24 TAG closing • Action Items from this meeting • Any New Business? Submission Slide 27 Tim Godfrey, EPRI