Comments by accinent

VIEWS: 13 PAGES: 25

									TGh letter ballot comments and resolutions                                                                                                                 Editors version (unofficial)   4/15/2010




Seq     Name         Company       Clause   Subcl   T Comment                               Suggested Remedy                   LB#36 Resolution
No

 3     Hillman,      Advanced       00              E I was not able to access .11-02- Include the comment                      Declined   TGh did not specifically address
        Garth          Micro                          264 discussing comment           resolutions from the prior LB in                    each issue in LB29. Instead, the
                      Devices                         resolution on the previous TGh addition to the new draft to be                       general spirit of the comments were
                                                      letter ballot so please accept   commented on in the Letter                          used to drive the creation of a
                                                      my apologies if you addressed Ballot process.                                        substantially new draft.
                                                      previous comments that I have
                                                      previously made. Also, I am                                                          Thank you for the kudos
                                                      not a regular participant in
                                                      TGh. In general the draft was
                                                      ready for comment - my
                                                      kudos!

 11   Cole, Terry      AMD          00              E I am not comfortable with the         Consider shortening the title to    Declined   Straw polls in the TG and the WG
                                                      title. The standard nowhere           simply "Spectrum and                           indicated that TGh's PAR (and thus
                                                      states this shall only be for         Transmit Power Management.                     the title) should not be changed at
                                                      5GHz and Europe. The                                                                 this time.
                                                      standard states it may be
                                                      useful elsewhere and for other
                                                      purposes. The PICS do not tie
                                                      the features to 5GHz or
                                                      Europe.
658      Dirk                       00              E I am unable to locate comment         Supply comment resolution to        Declined   TGh did not specifically address
      Ostermiller                                     resolutions for those                 comments of the first letter                   each issue in LB29. Instead, the
                                                      comments submitted to the             ballot                                         general spirit of the comments were
                                                      first letter ballot. I believe that                                                  used to drive the creation of a
                                                      many (most) of those still                                                           substantially new draft. The group
                                                      apply. By the way, I believe                                                         decided to keep PAR unchanged
                                                      that this draft has many ideas                                                       after long discussions and
                                                      which will be useful not only in                                                     entertaining a straw poll in WG
                                                      Europe but to 802.11 in                                                              plenary in Sydney.
                                                      general.
 16    Rosdahl,     Micro Linear    00              T The title of the Draft is             Drop the "in Europe" from the       Declined   Straw polls in the TG and the WG
         Jon                                          "Spectrum and Transmit                title and other places where it                indicated that TGh's PAR (and thus
                                                      Power Management                      is indicated. These                            the title) should not be changed at
                                                      extensions in the 5 Ghz band          specifications are great for the               this time. However, the draft text
                                                      in Europe. As the IEEE is an          whole world, and a change to                   does state (in clause 11.5 and 11.6)
                                                      international body, wouldn't it       your PAR should be made if                     that the mechanisms may be used in
                                                      be better to drop the "in             possible.                                      other regulatory domains.
                                                      Europe" and let this addition
                                                      be for the IEEE standard as a
                                                      whole rather than a subset.

 21      Xu,        Sharp Labs      00              T DFS and TPC is only required          make it optional.And                Declined   The use of DFS and TPC are
       Shugong      of America                        in Europe, other part of the          investigate its impact to                      optional in regulatory domains where
                                                      world may not need it at              overlapped BSS, and other                      they are not required. It is not within
                                                      all.Moreover, TPC will make           new schemes proposed in 11e.                   the scope of TGh's PAR to
                                                      the BSS management more                                                              investigate overlaping BSS or other
                                                      difficult.                                                                           schemes in the TGe draft.
669     Daniel                      00              T A standard must provide                                                   Declined   This standard provides the
        Nemits                                        information that is adquate for                                                      mechanisms, whereas the ETSI
                                                      a user to determine if a WLAN                                                        BRAN Harmonised Standard (EN
                                                      system has actually                                                                  301893) provides the comformance
                                                      implemented the DFS                                                                  test. The standard also defines a
                                                      functions. In reviewing this                                                         PICS to define conformance to 11h.
                                                      document, this does not seem
                                                      to be the case. The draft as it
                                                      now stands is incomplete.

676      Xu,                        00              T DFS and TPC is only required          make it optional.And                Declined   * TPC and DFS (it?) are already
       Shugong                                        in Europe, other part of the          investigate its impact to                      optional when not required by
                                                      world may not need it at              overlapped BSS, and other                      regulation (it is only currently
                                                      all.Moreover, TPC will make           new schemes proposed in 11e.                   required in Europe)
                                                      the BSS management more                                                              * The impact of TPC and DFS on
                                                      difficult.                                                                           802.11e is outside the scope of
                                                                                                                                           TGh's PAR
                                                                                                                                           * What impact on overlapped BSS's
                                                                                                                                           is the commenter refering to?




                                                                                                                                                                          1/25
TGh letter ballot comments and resolutions                                                                                                     Editors version (unofficial)   4/15/2010




Seq    Name       Company       Clause   Subcl   T Comment                          Suggested Remedy                 LB#36 Resolution
No

 15   Richard                    00              TR There is no way that a device Define a compliance test.           Declined   The scope of TGh is to specify
      Williams                                      can be seen to be compliant                                                  interoperable mechanisms that can
                                                    with the text as it is written. It                                           be used to meet regulatory
                                                    is stated that it is mandatory to                                            requirements. Regulatory compliance
                                                    avoid primary users but it is                                                is being addressed by ETSI in EN
                                                    unlikely that anyone will be                                                 301893.
                                                    able to achieve 100% success
                                                    in this since there are so many
                                                    different primary user signal
                                                    signatures in this band. This
                                                    situation leads to a standard
                                                    that nobody can claim
                                                    compliance to.

 22   Hillman,    Advanced       00              TR In general I feel this radio    Include a channel mapping         Declined   Clause 11.5 and clause 11.6 state
       Garth        Micro                           management tool will be useful mechanism                                     that TPC and DFS may be used in
                   Devices                          for other purposes than DFS                                                  other regulatory domains and bands.
                                                    and TPC in the 5 GHz band in                                                 However, it beyond the scope of
                                                    Europe. I would like to see a                                                TGh's PAR to provide detailed
                                                    channel mapping mechanism                                                    description or mechanisms to enable
                                                    to allow frequencies other than                                              their use in such a way.
                                                    those mandated in Table 88 to
                                                    be addressed. The default map
                                                    could be Table 88

647   Smart,     Micro Linear    00              TR This is not limited to Europe,     Change the PAR and remove      Declined   Straw polls in the TG and the WG
      Kevin      Corporation                        so the PAR should be changed Europe from the title                           indicated that TGh's PAR (and thus
                                                    to eliminate the word "Europe"                                               the title) should not be changed at
                                                    from the title.                                                              this time.
659   Alistair                   00              TR The ITU-R JTG 4-7-8-9 activity A placeholder reference to ITU-    Declined   TGh should go to sponsor ballot now
      Buttar                                        is still underway, and has not R JTG 4-7-8-9 should be                       because:
                                                    yet been completed. ITU-R has added to Section 2. 'Normative                 * TGh's PAR does not mention
                                                    direct influence on the            References'. TGh must wait                WRC2003 as a goal, only
                                                    regulatory environment in          until the ITU-R work is                   ERC/(99)/23
                                                    Europe and hence the intention complete before finalizing text               * Candidate Harmonized Standard
                                                    of the TGh draft standard          for a known requirement and               EN 301 893 was just recently
                                                    should be modified to reflect      functionality.                            approved in ETSI/BRAN
                                                    this. Since the result of the ITU-                                           * TGh draft defines mechanisms that
                                                    R activity is uncertain at this                                              can be used to satisfy the likely
                                                    point in time, it is not possible                                            outcomes of WRC2003
                                                    to finalize the document text                                                Thus the TGh draft is most likely
                                                                                                                                 enough to meet the requirements in
                                                                                                                                 CEPT regulatory domain




                                                                                                                                                             2/25
TGh letter ballot comments and resolutions                                                                                                        Editors version (unofficial)   4/15/2010




Seq    Name       Company   Clause   Subcl   T Comment                             Suggested Remedy                    LB#36 Resolution
No

660    Michael               00              TR The requirements for avoiding                                           Declined   TGh should go to sponsor ballot now
      Hoghooghi                                 primary users have not yet                                                         because:
                                                been finalized. This area must                                                     * TGh's PAR does not mention
                                                be defined. The ITU-R JTG 4-7-                                                     WRC2003 as a goal, only
                                                8-9 activity is still underway,                                                    ERC/(99)/23
                                                and has not yet been                                                               * Candidate Harmonized Standard
                                                completed. ITU-R has direct                                                        EN 301 893 was just recently
                                                influence on the regulatory                                                        approved in ETSI/BRAN
                                                environment in Europe and                                                          * TGh draft defines mechanisms that
                                                hence the intention of the TGh                                                     can be used to satisfy the likely
                                                draft standard should be                                                           outcomes of WRC2003
                                                modified to reflect this. Since                                                    Thus the TGh draft is most likely
                                                the result of the ITU-R activity                                                   enough to meet the requirements in
                                                is uncertain at this point in                                                      CEPT regulatory domain
                                                time, it is not possible to
                                                finalize the document text.
                                                Perhaps, a placeholder
                                                reference to ITU-R JTG 4-7-8-
                                                9 should be added to Section
                                                2. 'Normative References'.
                                                TGh must wait until the ITU-R
                                                work is complete before
                                                finalizing text for a known
                                                requirement and functionality.


671    Javad                 00                  "In Europe" should be removed Remove "in Europe" from the              Declined   Straw polls in the TG and the WG
      Razavilar                                  from the title, while it satisfies title and the scope of the draft               indicated that TGh's PAR (and thus
                                                 ERC requirements, It would be                                                     the title) should not be changed at
                                                 beneficial to keep DFS/TPC                                                        this time.
                                                 region independent and apply
                                                 the same rules uniformly,
                                                 since this would result in better
                                                 spectrum utilization and higher
                                                 system capacities in any
                                                 geographical region.


666   Donald E.              02              TR The ITU-R JTG 4-7-8-9 activity A placeholder reference to ITU-          Declined   TGh should go to sponsor ballot now
      Eastlake                                  is still underway, and has not R JTG 4-7-8-9 should be                             because:
        3rd                                     yet been completed. ITU-R has added to Section 2. 'Normative                       * TGh's PAR does not mention
                                                direct influence on the            References'. TGh must wait                      WRC2003 as a goal, only
                                                regulatory environment in          until the ITU-R work is                         ERC/(99)/23
                                                Europe and hence the intention complete before finalizing text                     * Candidate Harmonized Standard
                                                of the TGh draft standard          for a known requirement and                     EN 301 893 was just recently
                                                should be modified to reflect      functionality.                                  approved in ETSI/BRAN
                                                this. Since the result of the ITU-                                                 * TGh draft defines mechanisms that
                                                R activity is uncertain at this                                                    can be used to satisfy the likely
                                                point in time, it is not possible                                                  outcomes of WRC2003
                                                to finalize the document text                                                      Thus the TGh draft is most likely
                                                                                                                                   enough to meet the requirements in
                                                                                                                                   CEPT regulatory domain
668   Lizy Paul              02              TR The ITU-R JTG 4-7-8-9 activity A placeholder reference to ITU-          Declined   TGh should go to sponsor ballot now
                                                is still underway, and has not R JTG 4-7-8-9 should be                             because:
                                                yet been completed. ITU-R has added to Section 2. 'Normative                       * TGh's PAR does not mention
                                                direct influence on the            References'. TGh must wait                      WRC2003 as a goal, only
                                                regulatory environment in          until the ITU-R work is                         ERC/(99)/23
                                                Europe and hence the intention complete before finalizing text                     * Candidate Harmonized Standard
                                                of the TGh draft standard          for a known requirement and                     EN 301 893 was just recently
                                                should be modified to reflect      functionality.                                  approved in ETSI/BRAN
                                                this. Since the result of the ITU-                                                 * TGh draft defines mechanisms that
                                                R activity is uncertain at this                                                    can be used to satisfy the likely
                                                point in time, it is not possible                                                  outcomes of WRC2003
                                                to finalize the document text                                                      Thus the TGh draft is most likely
                                                                                                                                   enough to meet the requirements in
                                                                                                                                   CEPT regulatory domain




                                                                                                                                                                3/25
TGh letter ballot comments and resolutions                                                                                                              Editors version (unofficial)   4/15/2010




Seq     Name        Company       Clause   Subcl    T Comment                             Suggested Remedy                  LB#36 Resolution
No

672 Chris Ware       Motorola      02               TR The ITU-R JTG 4-7-8-9 activity A placeholder reference to ITU-        Declined   TGh should go to sponsor ballot now
                                                       is still underway, and has not R JTG 4-7-8-9 should be                           because:
                                                       yet been completed. ITU-R has added to Section 2. 'Normative                     * TGh's PAR does not mention
                                                       direct influence on the            References'. TGh must wait                    WRC2003 as a goal, only
                                                       regulatory environment in          until the ITU-R work is                       ERC/(99)/23
                                                       Europe and hence the intention complete before finalizing text                   * Candidate Harmonized Standard
                                                       of the TGh draft standard          for a known requirement and                   EN 301 893 was just recently
                                                       should be modified to reflect      functionality.                                approved in ETSI/BRAN
                                                       this. Since the result of the ITU-                                               * TGh draft defines mechanisms that
                                                       R activity is uncertain at this                                                  can be used to satisfy the likely
                                                       point in time, it is not possible                                                outcomes of WRC2003
                                                       to finalize the document text                                                    Thus the TGh draft is most likely
                                                                                                                                        enough to meet the requirements in
                                                                                                                                        CEPT regulatory domain
371   Cole, Terry      AMD         07       3.2                                       It would be nice to include a
                                                    E It is becoming quite difficult to                                      Declined   The TGh draft specifies modifications
                                                      figure out where what           nice little chart indicating                      to the base standard document and,
                                                      informaiton elements are used   where informaiton elements                        as such, it needs to follow the basic
                                                      in 7.3.2 in general.            are used... we can even                           standard document format. However,
                                                                                      indication that this chart does                   the idea is interesting and he editor
                                                                                      not limit the document                            will discuss it with the other TG
                                                                                      descriptions but serves as                        editors.
                                                                                      information only. Table 20
                                                                                      might be added as in the
                                                                                      attached exchel spreadsheet d-
                                                                                      table20.xls.
 64    Moreton,       Synad        07      2.3.1,   T A full country element should STAs should ignore country               Declined   Prior to transmission STA's are
        Mike        Technologie            2.3.9      not be included in beacons and IEs that come from an IBSS to                      always responsible for determining
                       s Ltd.                         probe responses sent by STAs which they are not joined. In                        the regulatory domain in which they
                                                      that are not an AP (including   an IBSS, the country IE should                    are operating. After hearing Mike's
                                                      IBSS), because it's just too    only contain information for the                  presentation on the issue TGh
                                                      dangerous. Imagine a user       current channel.                                  decided to decline the
                                                      who starts an IBSS while in the                                                   comment&resolution
                                                      US. He then shuts down his
                                                      laptop, and travels to Japan,
                                                      and starts his laptop up again.
                                                      He starts beaconing out that
                                                      the current country is the US.
                                                      This doesn't cause him a
                                                      problem - he wasn't expecting
                                                      his wireless LAN to be working
                                                      in the airport in Tokyo in any
                                                      case. However other STAs
                                                      may be confused and could
                                                      start to use illegal channels.


 71     Meyer,         AMD         07      2.3.9     E Table 12 (1st column, last         Specify "n"                        Declined   This nomeglature is consistent with
        Klaus                                          row): the parameter n is not                                                     the base standard (see 802.11d)
                                                       specified (type, range)
369    Amann,       SpectraLink    07      2.3.9    TR The table indicates that order     Provide appropriate editorial      Declined   This feature was defined in 802.11d
        Keith       Corporation                        "18-n" are requested               instructions to modify the                    which is part of the base standard
                                                       information elements, and that     Probe Request frame format,                   upon which we define spectrum
                                                       these can be requested             as well as add the "Request                   management capabilities in TGh.
                                                       through a "Request                 Information Element"
                                                       Information Element" in a          information element. If the
                                                       Probe Request Frame, yet           intent of the "Request
                                                       there are no instructions to       Information Element" was to
                                                       modify the Probe Request           refer to information elements
                                                       Frame to include a "Request        such as "TPC Request" and
                                                       Information Element".              "Measurement Request" then
                                                       Additionally, there appears to     please rephrase the "notes"
                                                       be no information element          section of order line "18-n" in
                                                       called "Request Information        table 12 to more clearly
                                                       Element" defined in Table 20.      indicate this.
 83   Cole, Terry      AMD         07      3.1.12    E The editing instructions are not   Please make the editing            Declined   * It is not clear what is unclear about
                                                       as clear as others.                instructions as clear as those                the editing instructions
                                                                                          contained in, e.g., 7.2.3.8.                  * There are no editing instructions in
                                                                                                                                        7.2.3.8 (are there?)




                                                                                                                                                                       4/25
TGh letter ballot comments and resolutions                                                                                                             Editors version (unofficial)   4/15/2010




Seq     Name        Company       Clause   Subcl    T Comment                           Suggested Remedy                  LB#36 Resolution
No

 72    Michael                     07      3.1.4    TR The capability information field Please modify the capability       Declined    The TGh draft must only be based on
        Seals                                          does not include the             field to include those                         the base 802.11 standard. It is not
                                                       capabilities added in TGg.       capabilities in TGg.                           allowed to include capabilities from
                                                                                                                                       other drafts
104 Diepstraten,      Agere        07       3.2     TR The elements described can be Make all elements even byte           Declined    Group consensus is that this is not
       Wim           Systems                           odd or even. It should be a   lenght.                                           required because:
                                                       general guideline to make all                                                   [a] it requires additional transmission
                                                       elements an even number of                                                      overhead
                                                       Bytes for the complete                                                          [b] is painful to describe
                                                       element. This makes a lot of                                                    [c] there is substantial precedent for
                                                       difference in an                                                                odd length messages in the 802.11
                                                       implementation.                                                                 standard. Note that at least 6 of the 8
                                                                                                                                       elements in the base standard either
                                                                                                                                       are or can be odd in length.

136     Partho                     07      3.2.10    E At many instances in the         It would be better to call out     Declined    STA is defined in the base standard
        Mishra                                         document the term STA is         whether it is an STA or an AP                  to mean AP station or non-AP station
                                                       used to denote a Station or an   to avoid ambiguity
                                                       AP.
137    Amann,       SpectraLink    07      3.2.10   TR This clause, and 7.4.3, appear   One of the following:              Declined    The TPC Request element described
        Keith       Corporation                        to both provide the same         1) Provide normative                           by 7.3.2.10 is used in the TPC
                                                       functionality using different    justification for both                         Request frame (an Action frame)
                                                       mechanisms. This appears         mechanisms.                                    described by 7.4.3. Therefore, they
                                                       redundant.                       2) Replace both mechanisms                     are are both part of the same
                                                                                        with a combined mechanism,                     mechanism.
                                                                                        perhaps something that would
                                                                                        allow a management "action"                    However, the Action frame
                                                                                        to be included in both an                      descriptions and structure have been
                                                                                        action frame and probe                         improved and hopefully will avoid the
                                                                                        request/response frame using                   confusion highlighted by the
                                                                                        a single format (an action                     commenter.
                                                                                        information element, where an
                                                                                        action frame contains one or
                                                                                        more of these action
                                                                                        information elements).

139     Partho                     07      3.2.11   T Is this symmetric ie. can it be                                 Clarification The text in clause 11.5.4 states that a
                                                                                        Please clarify in the text that
        Mishra                                        sent by the STA also ?            this is symmetric                           STA may make a request of any
                                                                                                                                    other STA in the same BSS or IBSS.
                                                                                                                                    This is illustrated in a new table 10 in
                                                                                                                                    clause 11.6.6.
141     Partho                     07      3.2.11   T Unclear how this would be      Since this will be used for TPC Clarification Please see 11.5.4 for explanation as
        Mishra                                        used as part of TPC (MAC in    please call out how this will be               to how the TPC Report could be for
                                                      PCF or HCF mode)               used eg. Only n PCF or with                    TPC. Noes that the mechanism could
                                                                                     HCF                                            be used for all modes e.g. DCF,
                                                                                                                                    PCF…
146   Cole, Terry      AMD         07      3.2.11   T I am somewhat confused by      Please add a phase "the          Clarification The meaning of tolerance is now
                                                      the term tolerance. This is    assumed tolerance of the                       defined in 7.3.2.12
                                                      becuase there is the actual    transport power values relative
                                                      transmit power at the antenna to _________". Also... who
                                                      and the actual integer sent in makes the assumption... the
                                                      the TPC report element. Is the unit receiving the message?
                                                      tolerance the maximum
                                                      allowed difference between
                                                      those to be compliant to
                                                      standard?

155   Xiao, Yang Micro Linear      07      3.2.11   T Interoperability issue may be                                       Clarification Informative text has been added to
                                                      caused due to Link Margin field                                                   clauses 7.3.2.12 and 11.5.4 to
                                                                                                                                        explain how the link margin can be
                                                                                                                                        defined and used.
156     Green,         Intel       07      3.2.11   T The link margin field is not      Define the link margin in          Declined * It is not necessary to define the link
         Evan                                         defined well enough to enable     standard terms such as BER                      margin in terms of SNR
                                                      interop between vendors.          or SNR etc. Else remove the                     * Informative text has been added to
                                                      "effective communication"         field.                                          11.5.4 to explain how the link margin
                                                      would not be interpreted in a                                                     can be defined and used.
                                                      standard way across vendors.                                                      * Link margin clarified




                                                                                                                                                                      5/25
TGh letter ballot comments and resolutions                                                                                                                  Editors version (unofficial)   4/15/2010




Seq     Name         Company       Clause   Subcl    T Comment                            Suggested Remedy                     LB#36 Resolution
No

157   Cole, Terry      AMD          07      3.2.11   T Why is the link margin             Change the first senttnece of         Declined    The consensus of the group is
                                                       required to be zero on a probe     the paragraph (line 319) to                       against this addition since it is not
                                                       response? It is understandable     indicate "... at which the frame                  needed and has little additional
                                                       in a beacon since there is no      containig the TPC request                         utility. Field is set to zero by
                                                       obvious previously received        element or the probe request."                    convention as with other reserved or
                                                       packet or single addressee. It     Change the last sentence (line                    unused fields in 802.11 to prevent
                                                       seems that for the case of a       322) to read "is included in a                    receivers from using invalid
                                                       probe response the link margin     BEACON, the link margin field                     information
                                                       would describe the conditions      shall be ..."
                                                       at the receive of the probe
                                                       request.

160    Rosdahl,     Micro Linear    07      3.2.11   T IF the Link Margin field is        State the tolerance of the Link       Declined    A new definition for link margin has
         Jon                                           implementation dependent,          Margin Field if this helps                        been added to 7.3.2.11 and some
                                                       does that cause an                 improve efficiency and stability                  informative text added to 11.5.4. The
                                                       interoperability issue?            to power management.                              definition is constructed so that a link
                                                                                                                                            margin tolerance is not necessary

158    Michael                      07      3.2.11   TR While it is acceptable for the    Add tolerances to the link            Declined    A new definition for link margin has
        Seals                                           signal power required for         margin.                                           been added to 7.3.2.11 and some
                                                        effective communication to be                                                       informative text added to 11.5.4. The
                                                        implementation dependent, it                                                        definition is constructed so that a link
                                                        is not reasonable to have the                                                       margin tolerance is not necessary.
                                                        link margin tolerances                                                              (Link margin tolerance can be
                                                        implementation dependent.                                                           included in the link margin itself)

159     Steve                       07      3.2.11   TR The link margin tolerance is      Specify the link margin               Declined    A new definition for link margin has
       Halford                                          left as an implementation         tolerance.                                        been added to 7.3.2.11 and some
                                                        dependent parameter. This is                                                        informative text added to 11.5.4. The
                                                        useless for designing an                                                            definition is constructed so that a link
                                                        optimization algorithm based                                                        margin tolerance is not necessary.
                                                        on tolerance. Some reasonable                                                       (Link margin tolerance can be
                                                        level of tolerance needs to be                                                      included in the link margin itself)
                                                        specified.
174 Oakes, Ivan Tality (UK)         07      3.2.12    T 224 bits (one for each channel)   Make IE variable length to            Declined    Channels beyond 200 would be
                    Ltd                                 is restrictive - suggest          allow channels to be encoded                      outside the scope of the TGh PAR.
                                                        increasing this.                  > 223.
165   Wen-Ping                      07      3.2.12   TR How does AP use the               Possible resolutions - 1. AP          Declined    TGh has intentionally not defined the
       Ying                                             'supported channels' info when    will find a common set of                         algorithms for channel selection. Our
                                                        received from a station? The      channels for channel switch                       intention is to provide a standard set
                                                        treatment is required to avoid    purpose. 2. AP will determine                     of mechanisms that can be used to
                                                        inter-operability.                the channel set based on the                      satisfy regulatory constraints. A
                                                                                          regulatory domain requirement                     sentence added to 7.3.2.12 referring
                                                                                          and will reject the station if the                reader to 11.6.6. See 11.6.6 for a
                                                                                          station cannot support all the                    more detailed description.
                                                                                          channel specified for that
                                                                                          regulatory domain.

169    Hillman,      Advanced       07      3.2.12   TR Why not allow all the channels    Allow all 224 channels to be          Declined    Channels beyond 200 would be
        Garth          Micro                            to be used? This radio            utilized. Provide a mapping                       outside the scope of the TGh PAR.
                      Devices                           measurement tool could be         element to define the channels
                                                        useful for optimizing
                                                        performance for many system
                                                        configurations.
187     Meyer,         AMD          07      3.2.13    T It is implicit mentioned that     Technical clarification needed.      Clarification The text in clause 7.3.2.14, 7.4.1.5,
        Klaus                                           Channel Switch                                                                       11.6.6 specifies that an AP in a BSS
                                                        Announcements is only used                                                           and a STA in an IBSS are allowed to
                                                        by STAs (APs?).                                                                      transmit a Channel Switch
                                                                                                                                             Announcement element. 11.6.6
                                                                                                                                             specifies that a STA in a BSS is not
                                                                                                                                             allowed to transmit a Channel Switch
                                                                                                                                             Announcement element.




                                                                                                                                                                            6/25
TGh letter ballot comments and resolutions                                                                                                     Editors version (unofficial)   4/15/2010




Seq    Name      Company   Clause   Subcl    T Comment                           Suggested Remedy                  LB#36 Resolution
No

189   Wen-Ping              07      3.2.13   TR The text describing the use of Possible resolutions - 1.     Clarification The text has been changed in
       Ying                                     channel switch count is        Clearly indicates that the                  7.3.2.14 to hopefully make the intent
                                                confusing. Also, there is no   counter only has two valid                  clearer, but the text uses a similar
                                                description of how the counter values, 0 or 1, when used in                form to the CP Parameter Set
                                                is used when this element      Action Frame. 2. Explain that               element in the base standard.
                                                appears in Beacon frame.       the counter decrements in
                                                                               Beacon, and when it reaches
                                                                               '0', it has switched to a new
                                                                               channel.
192    Meyer,     AMD       07      3.2.14    E … undertake a measurement It should be clarified that the    Clarification The text has been changed to "a
       Klaus                                    for a specific duration. …     Measurement Request element                 specified measurement".
                                                                               relates only to a single                    "measurement" is singular and so
                                                                               measurement: e.g.: " …                      "single measurement" is probably
                                                                               undertake a single                          unnecessary.
                                                                               measurement for a specific
                                                                               duration. …"
197   Jin-Meng              07      3.2.14   TR The Measurement Request        Modify the Measurement         Declined TGh could not see any significant
         Ho                                     element should be constructed Request element format as                    advantage in the commenters
                                                to contain one or more sets of suggested in the Comment.                   suggestion. The commentor may
                                                (Measurement Token,                                                        choose to present an alternate
                                                Measurement Duration,                                                      proposal with enough information to
                                                Measurement ID,                                                            make a detailed comparison with the
                                                Measurement Request) fields,                                               existing mechanism.
                                                so as to avoid the need of
                                                cancatenating multiple                                                     Straw poll question:
                                                "Measurement Request"                                                      Should we redo the measurement
                                                elements (all of the same                                                  request element as suggested by Jin-
                                                Element ID) in the same                                                    Meng Ho comment on 7.3.2.14?
                                                Measurement Request frame
                                                as defined in Figure 21. There                                             Straw poll results:
                                                will be no ambiguities in                                                  Yes: 0
                                                determining the field                                                      No: 9
                                                boundaries as each of those is                                             Abs: 7
                                                of fixed size (although the
                                                Measure Request field size
                                                may be a function of the
                                                Measurement ID).

199   HungKun               07      3.2.14   TR The first two octets of          Modify the format to share the     Declined   TGh could not see any significant
       Chen                                     measurement request element,     first two octets. In paticular,               advantage in the commenters
                                                element ID and length, are       have only one element ID in                   suggestion. The commentor may
                                                redundant when it has multiple   the beginning and have the                    choose to present an alternate
                                                measurement requests in a        length field cover all                        proposal with enough information to
                                                frame.                           measurement requests.                         make a detailed comparison with the
                                                                                                                               existing mechanism.

                                                                                                                               Straw poll question:
                                                                                                                               Should we redo the measurement
                                                                                                                               request element as suggested by Jin-
                                                                                                                               Meng Ho comment on 7.3.2.14?
                                                                                                                               (similar to this commenters
                                                                                                                               comment)

                                                                                                                               Straw poll results:
                                                                                                                               Yes: 0
                                                                                                                               No: 9
                                                                                                                               Abs: 7




                                                                                                                                                           7/25
TGh letter ballot comments and resolutions                                                                                                                Editors version (unofficial)   4/15/2010




Seq     Name        Company      Clause    Subcl    T Comment                             Suggested Remedy                    LB#36 Resolution
No

198   Kowalski,     Sharp Labs    07      3.2.14       Measruement Duration need          *Make the Measurement                Declined   TGh could not see any significant
        John                                           only be 1 octet if the             Duration field 1 octet instead of               advantage in the commenters
                                                       granularity of the                 2 Octets, and remove the                        suggestion and it appears to limit
                                                       measruement is 2TU as              length field, and fix the                       expansion possibilities in the future.
                                                       opposed to 1 TU. OTOH, if the      Measurement Request to 2                        The commentor may choose to
                                                       OSR field is removed, one          Octets OR                                       present an alternate proposal with
                                                       might be able to fix the length.   * Make the Length Field 1                       enough information to make a
                                                                                          Octet. Keep the Measurement                     detailed comparison with the existing
                                                                                          Duration as 2 Octets. Leave                     mechanism.
                                                                                          the Measurement Request
                                                                                          Variable starting at 2 Octets
                                                                                          for future proofing.

227   Jin-Meng                    07      3.2.15   TR The Measurement Report              Modify the Measurement               Declined   TGh could not see any significant
         Ho                                           element should be constructed       Report element format as                        advantage in the commenters
                                                      to contain one or more sets of      suggested in the Comment.                       suggestion. The commentor may
                                                      (Measurement Token,                                                                 choose to present an alternate
                                                      Measurement Duration,                                                               proposal with enough information to
                                                      Measurement ID,                                                                     make a detailed comparison with the
                                                      Measurement Report) fields,                                                         existing mechanism.
                                                      so as to avoid the need of
                                                      cancatenating multiple                                                              Straw poll question:
                                                      "Measurement Report                                                                 Should we redo the measurement
                                                      elements (all of the same                                                           request element as suggested by Jin-
                                                      Element ID) in the same                                                             Meng Ho comment on 7.3.2.14?
                                                      Measurement Report frame as
                                                      defined in Figure 22. There will                                                    Straw poll results:
                                                      be no ambiguities in                                                                Yes: 0
                                                      determining the field                                                               No: 9
                                                      boundaries as each of those is                                                      Abs: 7
                                                      of fixed size (although the
                                                      Measure Report field size may
                                                      be a function of the
                                                      Measurement ID).
237   Cole, Terry     AMD         07      3.2.15.1 T The foreigh PLCP header field,       Consider if additional               Declined   The scope of this draft is limited to
                                                      unkonwn field, and primary          information is required for a                   5GHz.
                                                      user field... There are some        802.11b device implementing
                                                      issues when applying this to        this basic report on how to
                                                      2.4GHz. I realize that someone      handle or interpret a 802.11g
                                                      may say this spec applied only      messages or energy of the
                                                      to 5GHz but that is not a           various modulation types:
                                                      statement that can be found in      OFDM, CCK-OFDM, and HR
                                                      the document. Does these            PBCC. Consider where the
                                                      statements have clear               information belongs... whether
                                                      meaning to a 802.11b                in 802.11D or 802.11G.
                                                      implementor who received
                                                      802.11g CCK preambles but
                                                      unknown signal fields of
                                                      802.11g (either CCK-OFDM, or
                                                      HR PBCC). Do these
                                                      statements have clear
                                                      meaning to a 802.11b
                                                      implementor who received a
                                                      802.11g OFDM traffic? I
                                                      know that we can just say well
                                                      this standard applies only to
                                                      the existing base documents.
                                                      And I'm very willing to work to
                                                      add the requirement words in
                                                      the 802.11g supplement on
                                                      how to interface with the
                                                      802.11D supplement.




                                                                                                                                                                          8/25
TGh letter ballot comments and resolutions                                                                                                        Editors version (unofficial)   4/15/2010




Seq     Name        Company    Clause    Subcl    T Comment                         Suggested Remedy                  LB#36 Resolution
No

248 Ciotti, Frank   LinCom      07      3.2.15.1 TR The presence of Foreign PLCP Remove Foreign PLCP Header            Declined   An engineering decision has been
                    Wireless                        Header does not tell the AP   bit in basic report                             made to include "foreign OFDM
                                                    whether or not there are                                                      preamble" bit for purposes of
                                                    primary users in the channel.                                                 understanding what is operating in
                                                                                                                                  the channel
249    Meyer,         AMD       07      3.2.15.1 TR The algorithm to detect a       The algorithm is outside the       Declined   All the DFS facilites have been build
       Klaus                                        primary user is outside the     scope but the text should refer               upon the requirements defined in
                                                    scope of this standard …        to the considered requirements                Harmonized Standard EN 301 893
                                                                                    in order to detect primary                    and ITU-R working document.
                                                                                    users.The term 'primary user'                 Procedures described in clauses
                                                                                    needs to be defined.                          11.6.3 and 11.6.4 are fully aligned
                                                                                                                                  with the requirements in those two
                                                                                                                                  documents. Both of the documents
                                                                                                                                  have been added to the list of
                                                                                                                                  normative references. Thus there is
                                                                                                                                  no need for informative annex to
                                                                                                                                  describe how the requirements could
                                                                                                                                  be met. Actual radar detection
                                                                                                                                  function is based on signal
                                                                                                                                  processing and has been left open as
                                                                                                                                  also indicated in the ITU-R
                                                                                                                                  document.
                                                                                                                                  * Term radar used instead of primary
                                                                                                                                  user
                                                                                                                                  * Add references to appropriate
                                                                                                                                  documents and standards where
                                                                                                                                  radar detection is specified
257   Wen-Ping                  07      3.2.15.2 TR Need to specify the CCA      Uses the prevailing CCA               Declined   Refer to 17.3.10.5 in base standard
       Ying                                         algorithm used in reporting  algorithm of the measuring                       where CCA algorithm is defined. The
                                                    CCA busy fraction.           station, or specify energy                       fraction is defined in 7.3.2.15.2
                                                                                 detection rule or valid
                                                                                 preamble/PLCP header.
364    Hillman,     Advanced    07      3.2.15.3 TR How are these absolute power Define a calibration system           Declined   New text in 7.3.2.16.3 might make
        Garth         Micro                         numbers calibrated to make a other than to make the                           things clearer.
                     Devices                        multi-vendor BSS viable      tolerance equal to the size of
                                                                                 the band.
300   HungKun                   07       3.2.16 E It would be much clear adding Add a figure to show the               Declined   Editor tried several times to draw a
       Chen                                         a figure to show the meaning meaning of the quiet                             figure to illustrate the relations of all
                                                    of the quiet parameters.     parameters.                                      the quiet parameters, but finally it
                                                                                                                                  proved to be impossible to provide
                                                                                                                                  one which would cause no
                                                                                                                                  misinterpretations.
311    Meyer,         AMD       07      3.2.16    E Only the range of the Quiet      Add the missing information.      Declined   The range of the other fields are not
       Klaus                                        Offset field is specified. The                                                restricted because they may take any
                                                    range of Quiet Duration field is                                              value that can be expressed within
                                                    missing and it is not stated                                                  the field.
                                                    whether or not a quiet period
                                                    has to be finished within one
                                                    beacon period.
304    Darwin                   07      3.2.16    T There needs to be a way to       Coordinate with/ seek advice      Declined   This is only one way of launching a
       Engwer                                       authenticate quiet elements to from TGi.                                      denial of service attack. It is not
                                                    prevent them from being used                                                  possible to stop local denial of
                                                    as DoS attacks on the WLAN.                                                   service attacks.

307    Partho                   07      3.2.16    T Why is the quiet period field   Remove the quiet period field.     Declined   The Quiet Period field allows STAs to
       Mishra                                       required in the Quiet element ?                                               predict the schedule of quite periods
                                                    It does not seem there is any                                                 into the future. This is particularly
                                                    use for it.                                                                   useful if a few Beacons are lost.




                                                                                                                                                                  9/25
TGh letter ballot comments and resolutions                                                                                                        Editors version (unofficial)   4/15/2010




Seq    Name       Company   Clause   Subcl    T Comment                             Suggested Remedy                 LB#36 Resolution
No

308 Chris Ware               07      3.2.16   T The ITU working document on         Address the existence of          Declined    The regulations do not require us to
                                                DFS (8A-9B/TEMP/81-E, dated         potential timing problems with                match timing of quiet periods to
                                                04/09/02) lists the radar signal    the Quiet period and the                      RADAR pulses. Note that RADAR
                                                detection criteria; one of which    normal operation of the MAC                   detection can occur during quiet
                                                is that the pulse repetition rate   protocol.                                     periods, SIFS and normal reception.
                                                ranges from 20 to 4000 pps.
                                                This is equivalent to pulse
                                                period range of 50 to 0.25 ms,
                                                respectively. At the lowest end,
                                                there would be a pulse every
                                                50 ms. The 802.11 standard
                                                allows the beacon interval to
                                                be set anywhere from 1 ms to
                                                2000 ms.Therefore, depending
                                                upon a particular
                                                implementation and (to a
                                                certain extent) on the
                                                prevailing operational
                                                conditions, the interference
                                                detection process (as it is
                                                currently described) may not
                                                be efficient enough to meet the
                                                ERC requirements.


661    Michael               07      3.2.16   TR The Quiet element (Sec                                              Clarification The quiet interval is simply a
      Hoghooghi                                  7.3.2.16) is a mechanism by                                                       mechanism that may be used to
                                                 which WLAN inserts quiet                                                          make an area "quieter" and thus
                                                 periods in which                                                                  make it easier to detect a radar.
                                                 measurements for emissions
                                                 by the primary users are                                                         However, it is not possible to
                                                 made. The ITU working                                                            completely quieten an area because
                                                 document on DFS (8A-                                                             the AP does not have control over
                                                 9B/TEMP/81-E, dated                                                              neighbouring BSS's. It is also not
                                                 04/09/02) lists the radar signal                                                 possible to align the quiet interval
                                                 detection criteria; one of them                                                  with the radar transmission.
                                                 is that the pulse repetition rate
                                                 ranges from 20 to 4000pps.                                                       Therefore, the radar detection
                                                 This is equivalent to pulse                                                      mechanisms have to work during
                                                 period range of 50 to 0.25ms,                                                    normal operation anyway. Typically
                                                 respectively. At the lowest                                                      radar detection will occur during
                                                 end, there would be a pulse                                                      normal operation (will only detect
                                                 every 50ms. Typical value of                                                     loud radars), SIFS (will detect soft
                                                 time duration between two                                                        radars) and quiet intervals (will detect
                                                 consecutive TBTT (beacon                                                         soft radars).
                                                 interval) is 100ms. The 802.11
                                                 standard allows the beacon
                                                 interval to be set anywhere
                                                 from 1 ms to 2000 ms., but
                                                 that it can only be configured.
                                                 Therefore, depending upon a
                                                 particular implementation and
                                                 (to a certain extent) on the
                                                 prevailing operational
                                                 conditions, the interference
                                                 detection process (as it is)
                                                 may not be efficient or speedy
317    Meyer,      AMD       07      3.2.17    E to meet the ERC needs as well Add the missing information
                                                 Figure 20: Definition (range,                                        Declined    This notation is commonly used in
       Klaus                                     type) of n is missing.                                                           the base standard.




                                                                                                                                                                 10/25
TGh letter ballot comments and resolutions                                                                                                                Editors version (unofficial)   4/15/2010




Seq     Name        Company       Clause   Subcl    T Comment                              Suggested Remedy                   LB#36 Resolution
No

118   Moreton,        Synad        07      3.2.8    T The Local Power Constraint           Make the Local Power                Declined    If the local maximum transmit power
       Mike         Technologie                       field is defined as a value          Constraint field an absolute                    in the Power Constraint element was
                       s Ltd.                         relative to the value indicated      power level.                                    an absolute power level it would still
                                                      in the Country IE. In general,                                                       need to be linked to regulatory
                                                      this sort of linking between                                                         maximum power in the Country
                                                      elements is a bad thing, and                                                         element to ensure it was always less.
                                                      may also reduce                                                                      This design choice was a deliberate
                                                      performance.                                                                         decision by TGh.

121 Oakes, Ivan Tality (UK)        07      3.2.8    T 1st channel number is only 8         Increase First Channel              Declined    The channel specification convention
                    Ltd                               bits - 11a already encodes           Number to 16 bits.                              was defined by 802.11d, which limits
                                                      channels up to 161. Suggest                                                          the channel number to 8 bits.
                                                      reserving 16 bits to allow for                                                       However, the Power Constraint
                                                      channel numbers > 255                                                                element now only describes the
                                                                                                                                           constraint for the current channel.

107    Darwin                      07      3.2.8    TR The Power Constraint info           Eliminate the Power Constraint      Declined    The Power Constraint element
       Engwer                                          element duplicates info already     info element definition and                     describes the offset from the
                                                       present in the Country Info         usage; use the (already                         maximum power specified in the
                                                       element (per 802.11d).              defined) country info element                   Country element rather than
                                                                                           instead.                                        duplicating the information.
649 Ciotti, Frank    LinCom        07      3.2.8    TR Need to define the dynamic          Define transmit power control       Declined    * A maximum is already defined by
                     Wireless                          range for transmit power            (TPC) dynamic range from                        the regulatory maximums in the
                                                       control (TPC).                      min(maximum device transmit                     countries in which the STA is
                                                                                           power, 30dBm) to -15dBm in                      operating
                                                                                           3dB step.                                       * There is no need to define a
                                                                                                                                           minimum as any AP advertising a
                                                                                                                                           very low local maximum transmit
                                                                                                                                           power will get no STA's associating;
                                                                                                                                           this is no in the interests of the AP
                                                                                                                                           and will thus force more sensible
                                                                                                                                           behaviour
                                                                                                                                           * There is no need to define the step
                                                                                                                                           size because the regulations only
                                                                                                                                           care that you do no exceed a
                                                                                                                                           maximum, not how close you can get
                                                                                                                                           to it.
115 Diepstraten,      Agere        07      3.2.8    TR I assume the channel numer          Give more precise definition of     No longer   The channel specification convention
       Wim           Systems                           relates to the channel definition   the encoding of the Number of        relevant   was defined by 802.11d. However,
                                                       in table 88. Please reference.      Channels field, and its relation                the Power Constraint element now
                                                       The "Number of Channels"            to table 88.                                    only describes the constraint for the
                                                       conventions must be made                                                            current channel.
                                                       more clear. Is this the number
                                                       of consequtive channel                                                              The TGh editor wil communicate
                                                       numbers refered to in Table                                                         your comments regarding 802.11d to
                                                       88, or is it in steps of 5 MHz.                                                     the former TGd chair. TGh has
                                                       Should each separate band be                                                        raised this an issue in the past.
                                                       started with its own triplet?

116   Moreton,        Synad        07      3.2.8,   T The country IE, power                (1) Specify that ranges             No longer   The channel specification convention
       Mike         Technologie            3.2.9,     constraint IE, and power             inclusive of invalid channels        relevant   was defined by 802.11d. However,
                       s Ltd.               11d       capability IE definitions are        can be sent, and that invalid                   the Power Constraint element and
                                                      inefficient for 11a. All three       channels within ranges must                     the Power Capability element now
                                                      provide a mechanism to               be ignored on receipt.                          only describe the constraint or
                                                      specify values for a range of        However, this is fraught with                   capability for the current channel.
                                                      channels, but as 11a channel         danger for future
                                                      numbers increment by four for        incompatibilities.                              The TGh editor wil communicate
                                                      each channel, these                  (2) The proper fix: include a                   your comments regarding 802.11d to
                                                      mechanisms will never get            mechanism to specify the                        the former TGd chair. TGh has
                                                      used in 11a. As 11h is               logical channel range (e.g.                     raised this an issue in the past.
                                                      currently limited to 11a, this       "11a", "11b") and then use
                                                      facility is of no use.               logical, contiguous channel
                                                                                           numbers rather than the
                                                                                           physical channel numbers.




                                                                                                                                                                        11/25
TGh letter ballot comments and resolutions                                                                                                          Editors version (unofficial)   4/15/2010




Seq    Name       Company       Clause   Subcl    T Comment                            Suggested Remedy                LB#36 Resolution
No

130   Rosdahl,   Micro Linear    07      3.2.9     E The Power Capability Element      Change "First Channel            No longer   The Power Capability element now
        Jon                                          has a triplet field name of       Number" to "Channel Number"       relevant   only describes the capability for the
                                                     "First Channel Number". I think                                                current channel.
                                                     that it would be better to
                                                     simplify this to "Channel
                                                     Number". The second triple
                                                     and beyond could cause
                                                     confusion with the current
                                                     name.
123   HungKun                    07      3.2.9    TR Power capability is not           Remove 7.3.2.9 and other text    Declined    A straw poll decided to add a
       Chen                                          necessary and useless. All we     associated with the power                    minimum power capability to make
                                                     need is "The STAs shall not       capability element.                          the element more useful.
                                                     transmit with a power higher
                                                     than the local maximum                                                         Straw poll question:
                                                     transmit power".                                                               Should we:
                                                                                                                                    [a] eliminate the power capability
                                                                                                                                    element (7.3.2.9)
                                                                                                                                    [b] add a dynamic range (minimum
                                                                                                                                    power capability)
                                                                                                                                    [c] leave it as it is?

                                                                                                                                    Straw poll results:
                                                                                                                                    [a] 2
                                                                                                                                    [b] 13
                                                                                                                                    [c] 1
135 Oakes, Ivan Tality (UK)      07      3.2.9    TR Channel encoding is limited       Increase encoding to 16 bits     Declined    The channel specification convention
                    Ltd                                                                                                             was defined by 802.11d, which limits
                                                                                                                                    the channel number to 8 bits.
                                                                                                                                    However, the Power Capability
                                                                                                                                    element now only describes the
                                                                                                                                    capability for the current channel.

124   Moreton,     Synad         07      3.2.9,   T The only conceivable use of       Remove Power Capability IE,       Declined    A straw poll decided to add a
       Mike      Technologie             3.1.7,     the "Power Capability" IE is to reason code 10, and status                      minimum power capability to make
                    s Ltd.               3.1.8      reject of association because code 20.                                          the element more useful.
                                                    their maximum transmit power
                                                    level is too low. This seems to                                                 Straw poll question:
                                                    be too unlikely an event to                                                     Should we:
                                                    justify a whole new information                                                 [a] eliminate the power capability
                                                    element and a new reason and                                                    element (7.3.2.9)
                                                    status code (especially as the                                                  [b] add a dynamic range (minimum
                                                    supported channels will be                                                      power capability)
                                                    passed in any case). It's                                                       [c] leave it as it is?
                                                    difficult to see how addition of
                                                    this facility is justified by the                                               Straw poll results:
                                                    PAR.                                                                            [a] 2
                                                                                                                                    [b] 13
                                                                                                                                    [c] 1
323    Meyer,       AMD          07       4.1     E … transmitted by a STA… ->         Change to: "… transmitted by     Declined    Using the term STA to refer to both
       Klaus                                        Measurement Requests can           an AP or a STA…"                             APs and mobile clients (STAs) is
                                                    also be sent by APs.                                                            consistent with the usage defined
                                                                                                                                    and established in the base standard.
                                                                                                                                    It is confusing but it is not TGh's
                                                                                                                                    place to change those definitions and
                                                                                                                                    uses.
321   Darwin                     07       4.1     T There needs to be a way to    Coordinate with/ seek advice          Declined    TGh defines frames for spectrum
      Engwer                                        authenticate measurement      from TGi.                                         management. These frames can be
                                                    requests to prevent them from                                                   encrypted and authenticated just as
                                                    being used as DoS attacks on                                                    any other 802.11 frame. To define
                                                    the WLAN.                                                                       new or specific to TGh security
                                                                                                                                    mechanisms would be beyond the
                                                                                                                                    scope of its PAR. TGi is defining
                                                                                                                                    security mechanisms for uni-cast,
                                                                                                                                    broadcast, and management frames.
                                                                                                                                    There is no reason TGi cannot be
                                                                                                                                    used to secure the frames defined in
                                                                                                                                    TGh.




                                                                                                                                                                  12/25
TGh letter ballot comments and resolutions                                                                                                            Editors version (unofficial)   4/15/2010




Seq     Name        Company    Clause    Subcl     T Comment                            Suggested Remedy                  LB#36 Resolution
No

320   Jin-Meng                  07        4.1      TR The Measurement Request           Move the contents of multiple      Declined    There is nothing in the base standard
         Ho                                           frame should not be               measurement requests into a                    that disallows multiple elements with
                                                      constructed to contain multiple   single Measurement Request                     the same element ID. In practice this
                                                      elements of the same Element      element so that only one                       is useful for requesting multiple
                                                      ID.                               Measurement Request element                    measurements that must be done
                                                                                        appears in a Measurement                       simultaneously.
                                                                                        Request frame.

330   Jin-Meng                  07        4.2      TR The Measurement Report            Move the contents of multiple      Declined    * There is nothing in the base
         Ho                                           frame should not be               measurement reports into a                     standard that disallows multiple
                                                      constructed to contain multiple   single Measurement Report                      elements with the same element ID
                                                      elements of the same Element      element so that only one                       * This is useful for reporting the
                                                      ID.                               Measurement Report element                     results of measurements that were
                                                                                        appears in a Measurement                       performed simultaneaously.
                                                                                        Report frame.
352 Ciotti, Frank   LinCom      07      Figure 2   T Clarification: Need to clarify     Clarify 7.3.2.8 to specify the     No longer   Only power constraints for the
                    Wireless                         whether STA should always          number of channels/sub-bands        relevant   current channel are now reported.
                                                     include the power constraints      STA has to report.
                                                     for other supported sub-bands
                                                     in beacon if
                                                     dott11SpectrumManagementC
                                                     apabilityEnabled is true.
353 Ciotti, Frank   LinCom      07      Figure 3   T Clarification: Need to clarify     Clarify section 7.3.29 to          No longer   Only power capability for the current
                    Wireless                         whether STA should always          specify power capability for        relevant   channel are now reported.
                                                     include maximum power              each supported channel
                                                     capability for each channel that
                                                     is capable of supporting in
                                                     each association/re-
                                                     association request.
437    Martin                   11         5         These two sentances are            Change text from -                 No longer   This section has been significantly
      Lefkowitz                                      appear to be meaningless. But      "STAs shall use the TPC             relevant   altered to be clearer, more specific,
                                                     I do not believe they are.         procedures defined in this                     and take into account the interactions
                                                                                        clause if and only if the                      between 11h capable STAs and
                                                                                        boolean MIB attribute                          legacy STAs. Please review the new
                                                                                        dot11SpectrumManagementEn                      section 11.5
                                                                                        abled is true.
                                                                                        dot11SpectrumManagementEn
                                                                                        abled shall be set true when
                                                                                        TPC is required by regulatory
                                                                                        authorities. It may also be set
                                                                                        true in other circumstances."
                                                                                        To -
                                                                                        "STAs shall use the TPC
                                                                                        procedures defined in this
                                                                                        clause if and only if the
                                                                                        boolean MIB attribute
                                                                                        dot11SpectrumManagementEn
                                                                                        abled is true.
                                                                                        dot11SpectrumManagementEn
                                                                                        abled must be set true when
                                                                                        TPC is required by regulatory
                                                                                        authorities.
                                                                                        dot11SpectrumManagementEn
                                                                                        abled may be set to true for
                                                                                        other enironmental, or
                                                                                        implementation, specific
                                                                                        purposes."

667   Srikanth                  11         6       T There is no procedure              Specify a recommended              Declined    DFS procedures specified and
      Gummadi                                        specified for DFS in this draft.   procedure/practice                             described in 11.6, and specifically
                                                     This might lead to market                                                         those in subclauses 11.6.2, 11.6.3
                                                     confusion and problem in                                                          and 11.6.4, are written in a manner
                                                     determining compliance with                                                       which does give detailed guidelines
                                                     802.11h.                                                                          (i.e. requirements) for
                                                                                                                                       implementation. Thus there is no
                                                                                                                                       need for any further procedural
                                                                                                                                       description.




                                                                                                                                                                    13/25
TGh letter ballot comments and resolutions                                                                                                         Editors version (unofficial)   4/15/2010




Seq    Name       Company    Clause   Subcl   T Comment                             Suggested Remedy                LB#36 Resolution
No

673 Chris Ware    Motorola    11       6      T Why has DFS operation               Consider comments within the     Declined     There is nothing in the draft that
                                                across an ESS not been              draft which indicate that DFS                 prevents sharing of information
                                                considered? There may be the        information may be shared                     among APs in an ESS. However,
                                                potential to share real-time        amoungst AP's in an ESS.                      cooperation between AP's is beyond
                                                knowledge of detected radar                                                       the scope of the PAR, and in fact
                                                signals across the network and                                                    beyond the scope of 802.11. It is felt
                                                improve detection efficiency.                                                     that the improvement in radar
                                                                                                                                  detection capability with inter-AP
                                                                                                                                  communication would be limited, is
                                                                                                                                  not required by regulators, and could
                                                                                                                                  only be a recommended practice.

664    Michael                11       6      TR Why the DFS operation under                                         Declined     There is nothing in the draft that
      Hoghooghi                                  the ESS (Extended Service                                                        prevents sharing of information
                                                 Set) scenario is not considered                                                  among APs in an ESS. However,
                                                 for standardization? There                                                       cooperation between AP's is beyond
                                                 may be potential to share real-                                                  the scope of the PAR, and in fact
                                                 time knowledge-base on                                                           beyond the scope of 802.11. It is felt
                                                 detected radar signals and                                                       that the improvement in radar
                                                 extract operational efficiency.                                                  detection capability with inter-AP
                                                                                                                                  communication would be limited, is
                                                                                                                                  not required by regulators, and could
                                                                                                                                  only be a recommended practice.

665    Michael                11       6      TR In a situation, where there are                                     Declined     * There is no way to wake up the
      Hoghooghi                                  STA(s) in (deep) sleep mode                                                      STAs in a BSS
                                                 and due to radar signal                                                          * The STAs each have an individual
                                                 detection the channel needs to                                                   responsibility to detect primary users.
                                                 be evacuated, the numbers                                                        Thus, a STA waking up will also have
                                                 (although not firmed up), listed                                                 to look for radars within a period that
                                                 under the section on                                                             satisfies the regulations (it might also
                                                 Behavioral Criteria in the                                                       notice that the AP is no longer
                                                 above referenced ITU DFS                                                         around)
                                                 requirements document,                                                           * To the extent that STAs in power
                                                 maybe out of reach? Sleeping                                                     save do wake before the channel
                                                 modes are allowed to extend                                                      switch must take place, they will
                                                 for much longer periods than                                                     learn of it since they wake to hear the
                                                 even the largest (time                                                           beacon, and the channel switch
                                                 constraint) number listed                                                        information is included in the beacon.
                                                 (against Channel Move Time).
                                                 Interoperability and
                                                 mobility/roaming
                                                 considerations (perhaps)
                                                 mandate that the AP (in BSS)
                                                 should wake up all clients in
                                                 sleep mode as should the
                                                 acting "master" (in the IBSS
                                                 mode) do, to vacate the (radar)
                                                 channel.
663    Michael                11       6.1    TR It is worth considering how the                                    Clarification The quiet interval is simply a
      Hoghooghi                                  freedom to implement different                                                   mechanism that may be used to
                                                 detection algorithms, while                                                      make an area "quieter" and thus
                                                 complying to the specified                                                       make it easier to detect a primary
                                                 features of the Quiet element                                                    user. In this sense, its definition is
                                                 radar signal detection method,                                                   orthoganal to detection algorithm.
                                                 will impact the interoperability
                                                 from the angle of mobility and                                                   The task group does not believe that
                                                 roaming.                                                                         the algorithm used to detect radar
                                                                                                                                  will effect interoperability, mobility, or
                                                                                                                                  roaming. When a radar is detected,
                                                                                                                                  by any method, a channel switch
                                                                                                                                  announcement is created that should
                                                                                                                                  allow all STAs to move together to a
                                                                                                                                  new channel. It does matter who or
                                                                                                                                  how the radar was detected.




                                                                                                                                                                  14/25
TGh letter ballot comments and resolutions                                                                                                         Editors version (unofficial)   4/15/2010




Seq     Name        Company   Clause   Subcl   T Comment                             Suggested Remedy                   LB#36 Resolution
No

662    Michael                 11       6.1    TR Sec 11.6.1, last paragraph.                                            Declined   While there might be benefit from
      Hoghooghi                                   There seems to be no flexibility                                                  changing the quiet interval over time
                                                  allowed in the IBSS mode to                                                       in an IBSS, it is not required by the
                                                  change the length and location                                                    regulators and involves significant
                                                  of the Quiet Period during the                                                    complexity and chance for failure in
                                                  beacon interval. In view of the                                                   the IBSS case. For simplicity, the
                                                  situations discussed in the                                                       quiet interval was chosen to be
                                                  previous item [1], such                                                           constant in IBSSs.
                                                  inflexibility will result in
                                                  inefficiency. In other words,
                                                  (almost) full length Quiet
                                                  period in one or two (preferably
                                                  consecutive) beacon intervals,
                                                  followed by much smaller
                                                  sliding windows of Quiet
                                                  periods in the later beacon
                                                  intervals, would be a desirable
                                                  compromise between detection
                                                  efficiency and operational
                                                  efficiency.


628   Bill Carney              11       6.6    T In an IBSS with mobile STAs,        It seems that for IBSS, there is    Declined   The identity of the Beacon generator
                                                 (i.e. hidden node issues) the       no need for a DFS owner per                    changes constantly and is relatively
                                                 logic that says eventually there    se. THe DFS owner can be                       uncertain at any point in time. In
                                                 will be one DFS owner is            whoever is generating the                      contrast, the DFS owner identity will
                                                 faulty. The same logic that         beacon. A request, or                          propagate throughout an IBSS over
                                                 performs IBSS beacon                measurement report, can be                     time so that it is well known. TGh
                                                 generation should be used.          broadcast (once a beacon                       has made and engineering decision
                                                                                     interval) until the beacon                     that the latter is more acceptable.
                                                                                     generator/DFS owner performs
                                                                                     the desired action. Backoff                    Of course, if the DFS Owner leaves
                                                                                     times can be implemented to                    the IBSS any subsequent organised
                                                                                     avoid race conditons for acting                channel change process wil fail but
                                                                                     as DFS owner.                                  the mechanism is only intended as a
                                                                                                                                    heauristic.




                                                                                                                                                                 15/25
TGh letter ballot comments and resolutions                                                                                                       Editors version (unofficial)   4/15/2010




Seq    Name       Company   Clause   Subcl   T Comment                            Suggested Remedy                 LB#36 Resolution
No

609    Martin                11       6.6      In an IBSS, with STAs moving       It appears to me that in an       Declined     * After a switch the draft specifies
      Lefkowitz                                (i.e. hidden node issues) the      IBSS there is no need for a                    that each STA shall assume that it is
                                               logic that says eventually there   DFS owner persay. THe DFS                      the DFS Owner. At each TBTT, the
                                               will be one DFS owner is           owner can be whoever is                        STAs execute the distributed Beacon
                                               faulty. The same logic that        generating the beacon. A                       protocol, which causes zero or more
                                               performs IBSS beacon               request, or measurement                        Beacons to be received at each STA.
                                               generation should be used.         report, can be broadcast (once                 The STA receiving each Beacon uses
                                                                                  a beacon interval )until the                   the DFS Owner as specified in the
                                                                                  beacon generator/DFS owner                     IBSS DFS element.
                                                                                  performs the desired action.                   * In most cases, the statistical nature
                                                                                  Backoff times can be                           of the distributed Beacon protocol will
                                                                                  implemented to avoid race                      cause all the STAs to quickly come
                                                                                  conditons for acting as DFS                    to a common view as to the identity
                                                                                  owner.                                         of a single DFS Owner.
                                                                                                                                 * The proof of this claim is that in
                                                                                                                                 each cycle of the distributed Beacon
                                                                                                                                 protocol with a fixed set of STAs
                                                                                                                                 there is zero probability of the
                                                                                                                                 number of DFS Owners increasing, a
                                                                                                                                 non zero probability of the number of
                                                                                                                                 DFS Owners stayiong the same and
                                                                                                                                 a non zero probability of the number
                                                                                                                                 of DFS Owners decreasing towards a
                                                                                                                                 minimum of one
                                                                                                                                 * GIven the statistical nature of the
                                                                                                                                 distributed Beacon process it is
                                                                                                                                 possible to construct scenarios in
                                                                                                                                 which convergance does not occur.
                                                                                                                                 However, they these scenarios are
                                                                                                                                 unlikely to occur.
                                                                                                                                 * If they do occur, the only effect is
                                                                                                                                 that the STAs in the IBSS will
444    Martin                11       5        "Similarly, an AP with the         Create a MIB variable truth                    Section 11.5 and 11.6 have same
                                                                                                                   Clarification probably not all move to the been
      Lefkowitz                                boolean MIB attribute              value that when set indicates                  substantially changed. The actions
                                               dot11SpectrumManagementEn          that the AP will not                           regarding association are now more
                                               abled set equal to true shall      associate/reassociate STA's                    clearly defined. Please check the
                                               not associate 785 or               without TPC.                                   new text in sections 11.5 and 11.6
                                               reassociate a STA unless the
                                               Spectrum Management bit is
                                               set equal to 1 in the Capability
                                               Information 786 field in
                                               Association and Reassociation
                                               Requests received from the
                                               STA. 787" and An AP may
                                               reject an association or
                                               reassociation request from a
                                               STA if it considers the STA’s
                                               maximum 794 transmit power
                                               capability is unacceptable or a
                                               transmit power capability is not
                                               provided. 795". These two
                                               statements conflict. Accoring
                                               to the first statement the AP
                                               "shall not" accept an
                                               association. The second
                                               statement says it may reject".
                                               These two statements imply
                                               different things. I think this
                                               should be implementation
                                               specific, and the may
                                               statement is the appropriate
                                               one.




                                                                                                                                                               16/25
TGh letter ballot comments and resolutions                                                                                                     Editors version (unofficial)   4/15/2010




Seq    Name       Company   Clause    Subcl    T Comment                        Suggested Remedy                   LB#36 Resolution
No

504   Darwin                 11        6.1     T There needs to be some        Coordinate with/ seek advice         Declined   TGh defines frames for spectrum
      Engwer                                     security mechanism to prevent from TGi.                                       management. These frames can be
                                                 the quieting mechanism from                                                   encrypted and authenticated just as
                                                 being used as a DoS attack on                                                 any other 802.11 frame. To define
                                                 the WLAN.                                                                     new or specific to TGh security
                                                                                                                               mechanisms would be beyond the
                                                                                                                               scope of its PAR. TGi is defining
                                                                                                                               security mechanisms for uni-cast,
                                                                                                                               broadcast, and management frames.
                                                                                                                               There is no reason TGi cannot be
                                                                                                                               used to secure the frames defined in
                                                                                                                               TGh.
527   Darwin                 11        6.2     T There needs to be some        Coordinate with/ seek advice         Declined   TGh defines frames for spectrum
      Engwer                                     security mechanism to prevent from TGi.                                       management. These frames can be
                                                 the channel testing mechanism                                                 encrypted and authenticated just as
                                                 from being used as a DoS                                                      any other 802.11 frame. To define
                                                 attack on the WLAN.                                                           new or specific to TGh security
                                                                                                                               mechanisms would be beyond the
                                                                                                                               scope of its PAR. TGi is defining
                                                                                                                               security mechanisms for uni-cast,
                                                                                                                               broadcast, and management frames.
                                                                                                                               There is no reason TGi cannot be
                                                                                                                               used to secure the frames defined in
                                                                                                                               TGh.
559    Martin                11        6.5       11.6.5 Requesting and          Add Timout value to DFS             Declined   The Measurement Requests specify
      Lefkowitz                                  reporting of measurements.     request.                                       a time at which the measurement
                                                 There should be a timeout                                                     should be undertaken. This is
                                                 associated with the                                                           necessary to coordinate
                                                 measurement procedure. This                                                   measurements and insure that
                                                 will allow a STA to defer                                                     measurements fit into QoS
                                                 measurements until an                                                         mechanisms being defined in TGe.
                                                 appropriate time.
630   Darwin                 17      3.8.3.3   E Channel Center Frequencies     Values shown as "5,180 MHz"         Declined   The formatting is the same as in the
      Engwer                                     column is misformatted.        should be formatted as "5.180                  base standard.
                                                                                MHz".
390   Jin-Meng               10      3.11.1.2 TR The Channel Measurement        Modify the Measurement              Declined   TGh could not see any significant
         Ho                                      Request Set should be          Request element to contain                     advantage in the commenters
                                                 contained in a single          multiple measurement                           suggestion. The commentor may
                                                 Measurement Request            requests as suggested earlier,                 choose to present an alternate
                                                 element, as noted earlier by   and delete the word "each" that                proposal with enough information to
                                                 this commenter.                appears twice in the last row of               make a detailed comparison with the
                                                                                the table.                                     existing mechanism.

                                                                                                                               Straw poll question:
                                                                                                                               Should we redo the measurement
                                                                                                                               request element as suggested by Jin-
                                                                                                                               Meng Ho comment on 7.3.2.14?

                                                                                                                               Straw poll results:
                                                                                                                               Yes: 0
                                                                                                                               No: 9
                                                                                                                               Abs: 7




                                                                                                                                                           17/25
TGh letter ballot comments and resolutions                                                                                                    Editors version (unofficial)   4/15/2010




Seq    Name      Company   Clause    Subcl    T Comment                        Suggested Remedy                   LB#36 Resolution
No

390   Jin-Meng              10      3.11.1.2 TR The Channel Measurement        Modify the Measurement              Declined   TGh could not see any significant
         Ho                                     Request Set should be          Request element to contain                     advantage in the commenters
                                                contained in a single          multiple measurement                           suggestion. The commentor may
                                                Measurement Request            requests as suggested earlier,                 choose to present an alternate
                                                element, as noted earlier by   and delete the word "each" that                proposal with enough information to
                                                this commenter.                appears twice in the last row of               make a detailed comparison with the
                                                                               the table.                                     existing mechanism.

                                                                                                                              Straw poll question:
                                                                                                                              Should we redo the measurement
                                                                                                                              request element as suggested by Jin-
                                                                                                                              Meng Ho comment on 7.3.2.14?

                                                                                                                              Straw poll results:
                                                                                                                              Yes: 0
                                                                                                                              No: 9
                                                                                                                              Abs: 7

391   Jin-Meng              10      3.11.1.2 TR The Channel Measurement        Modify the Measurement              Declined   TGh could not see any significant
         Ho                                     Report Set should be           Report element to contain                      advantage in the commenters
                                                contained in a single          multiple measurement reports                   suggestion. The commentor may
                                                Measurement Report element,    as suggested earlier, and                      choose to present an alternate
                                                as noted earlier by this       delete the word "each" that                    proposal with enough information to
                                                commenter.                     appears twice in the last row of               make a detailed comparison with the
                                                                               the table.                                     existing mechanism.

                                                                                                                              Straw poll question:
                                                                                                                              Should we redo the measurement
                                                                                                                              request element as suggested by Jin-
                                                                                                                              Meng Ho comment on 7.3.2.14?

                                                                                                                              Straw poll results:
                                                                                                                              Yes: 0
                                                                                                                              No: 9
                                                                                                                              Abs: 7

401   Jin-Meng              10      3.11.3.2 TR The Channel Measurement        Modify the Measurement              Declined   TGh could not see any significant
         Ho                                     Request Set should be          Request element to contain                     advantage in the commenters
                                                contained in a single          multiple measurement                           suggestion. The commentor may
                                                Measurement Request            requests as suggested earlier,                 choose to present an alternate
                                                element, as noted earlier by   and delete the word "each" that                proposal with enough information to
                                                this commenter.                appears twice in the last row of               make a detailed comparison with the
                                                                               the table.                                     existing mechanism.

                                                                                                                              Straw poll question:
                                                                                                                              Should we redo the measurement
                                                                                                                              request element as suggested by Jin-
                                                                                                                              Meng Ho comment on 7.3.2.14?

                                                                                                                              Straw poll results:
                                                                                                                              Yes: 0
                                                                                                                              No: 9
                                                                                                                              Abs: 7




                                                                                                                                                          18/25
TGh letter ballot comments and resolutions                                                                                                               Editors version (unofficial)   4/15/2010




Seq    Name       Company       Clause   Subcl    T Comment                            Suggested Remedy                   LB#36 Resolution
No

423   Jin-Meng                   10      3.13.3.2 TR The Channel Measurement           Modify the Measurement              Declined     TGh could not see any significant
         Ho                                          Report Set should be              Report element to contain                        advantage in the commenters
                                                     contained in a single             multiple measurement reports                     suggestion. The commentor may
                                                     Measurement Report element,       as suggested earlier, and                        choose to present an alternate
                                                     as noted earlier by this          delete the word "each" that                      proposal with enough information to
                                                     commenter.                        appears twice in the last row of                 make a detailed comparison with the
                                                                                       the table.                                       existing mechanism.

                                                                                                                                        Straw poll question:
                                                                                                                                        Should we redo the measurement
                                                                                                                                        request element as suggested by Jin-
                                                                                                                                        Meng Ho comment on 7.3.2.14?

                                                                                                                                        Straw poll results:
                                                                                                                                        Yes: 0
                                                                                                                                        No: 9
                                                                                                                                        Abs: 7

375    Partho                    10       3.2.2   E Should this be MLME-               Change confirm to request           Declined     No this is confirm - BSS description
       Mishra                                       SCAN.confirm or request ?                                                           is returned in confirm.

485    Graham                    11        6.6    T DFS in IBSS mode when                                                 Clarification An IBSS is a difficult configuration
       melville                                     changing channel doesn't                                                            because there is no guarantee that
                                                    adequately allow for what                                                           any STA can hear any other STA at
                                                    happens if not all stations hear                                                    any point in time after the start.
                                                    the channel change                                                                  Therefore the algorithm provided is
                                                                                                                                        only intended as a heauristic that
                                                                                                                                        attempts to get everyone to the same
                                                                                                                                        alternative channel. If it fails then the
                                                                                                                                        regulations are still respected (which
                                                                                                                                        i our primary goal) because we
                                                                                                                                        assume that each STA is still
                                                                                                                                        individually responsible for satisfying
                                                                                                                                        the regulations.

486   Bob Beach                  11        6.6    T Its is not clear how a channel     Define a mechanism that             Declined     An IBSS is a difficult configuration
                                                    switch operates in IBSS mode.      ensures channel switches are                     because there is no guarantee that
                                                    What is the mechanism to           heard by all stations in an                      any STA can hear any other STA at
                                                    ensure that another station in     IBSS                                             any point in time after the start.
                                                    the IBSS hears the channel                                                          Therefore the algorithm provided is
                                                    switch? There is also some                                                          only intended as a heauristic that
                                                    comflict between TGh and TGi                                                        attempts to get everyone to the same
                                                    relative to coordination                                                            alternative channel. If it fails then the
                                                    activities within an IBSS. TGh                                                      regulations are still respected (which
                                                    has the first station that sends                                                    i our primary goal) because we
                                                    out a beacon perform the                                                            assume that each STA is still
                                                    action while TGi has the last                                                       individually responsible for satisfying
                                                    station.                                                                            the regulations.

439   Moreton,      Synad        11         5     T There is a requirement on a    Remove the words "For the               Declined     After discussing with the commenter
       Mike       Technologie                       STA not to associate "for the  purposes of TPC".                                    the group decided to keep the words
                     s Ltd.                         purpose of TPC" given certain                                                       in since they make the description
                                                    circumstances. A STA is either                                                      clear. Further, the description has
                                                    associated or not, it can't be                                                      been extended a lot in new clause
                                                    associted for some purposes,                                                        11.5.
                                                    and not others.




                                                                                                                                                                        19/25
TGh letter ballot comments and resolutions                                                                                                                Editors version (unofficial)   4/15/2010




Seq     Name        Company       Clause   Subcl      T Comment                              Suggested Remedy                  LB#36 Resolution
No

429    Amann,       SpectraLink    11         5       TR If my interpretation is correct,    Provide additional normative       Declined   Text in 11.5.2 already specifies a
        Keith       Corporation                          an STA is not supposed to           text regarding how active                     STA must know the regulations for a
                                                         exceed the regulatory and local     scanning can be performed                     channel before actively scanning.
                                                         maximum output transmit             BEFORE any information
                                                         power levels. However, if an        regarding the maximum output
                                                         STA is using active probing to      power has been "discovered".
                                                         acquire the system, but has
                                                         not heard a beacon or probe
                                                         response, how is it supposed
                                                         to get the maximum output
                                                         power levels? This seems like
                                                         a chicken and egg problem
                                                         unless the station is forced to
                                                         use some passive mechanism
                                                         to locate the BSS.


431     Steve                      11         5       TR The draft states that TPC is        Specify that TPC is not            Declined   ERC 99/23 requires TPC across
       Halford                                           required. TPC is not required       required for operation in the                 whole band and TGh PAR requires
                                                         for operation in the 5.15-5.25      lower 100 MHz band                            TGh to comply with 99/23
                                                         GHz band.
432     Mark                       11         5       TR It is my understanding that         Modify the draft to state that     Declined   ERC 99/23 requires TPC across
       Webster                                           TPC is not required in the 5.15-    TPC is not required in the                    whole band and TGh PAR requires
                                                         5.25 GHz band.                      bottom 100 MHz band.                          TGh to comply with 99/23
436    Hillman,     Advanced       11         5       TR I could not agree with the          Specify a calibration procedure    Declined   Channel mapping and calibration are
        Garth         Micro                              statement "may be useful for        (self or system) and a flexible               outside the scope of TGh's PAR.
                     Devices                             other purposes, such as             channel mapping mechanism.
                                                         interference reduction, range
                                                         control and power
                                                         optimization". In short this is a
                                                         neat tool. I feel it would be
                                                         enhanced with some form of a
                                                         calibration procedure (self or
                                                         system) and a flexible channel
                                                         mapping mechanism.

455   Cole, Terry      AMD         11        5.2      E The term mitigation                  Please describe what a             Declined   Please read the ERC 99/23
                                                        requirmeent is no doubt clear        mitigation requirement is (not                document, which is referenced in
                                                        to those who have developed          define the mitigation                         11.5. This term is not defined very
                                                        the document.                        requirements -- that's the                    well in the ERC document but it is
                                                                                             regulatory bodys' jobs), since                not up to TGh to second guess the
                                                                                             the meaning is not simply the                 regulators.
                                                                                             ordinary use of the words form
                                                                                             the dictionary.
459     Meyer,         AMD         11        5.2      E Definition of or reference to        Add the missing information.       Declined   Please read the ERC 99/23
        Klaus                                           mitigation requirements is                                                         document. This term is not defined
                                                        missing. Also information is                                                       very well but the ERC definition must
                                                        not included on when an                                                            be used. Please refer to our
                                                        average mitigation has to be                                                       reference on draft text line 765.
                                                        taken into account.
454    Hillman,     Advanced       11      5.2, 5.3   T I am not clear on the definition Add a statement defining or                  Please read the ERC 99/23
                                                                                                                                Declined
        Garth         Micro                             of 'average mitigation           giving an example of an                      document, which is referenced in
                     Devices                            requirements'                    'average mitigation                          11.5. This term is not defined very
                                                                                         requirement'                                 well in the ERC document but it is
                                                                                                                                      not up to TGh to second guess the
                                                                                                                                      regulators.
466     Partho                     11        5.3      T Why are STAs and APs          It would be better to clarify why Clarification The AP and non-AP STA are treated
        Mishra                                          treated differently ? That is it is different if it needs to be or            differently because the the AP
                                                        STAs can only transmit up to both AP and STA should have                      potentially has more global view of
                                                        local max power level whereas the same limits.                                network operation and might be able
                                                        APs can transmit upto                                                         to achieve "average mitigation" over
                                                        regulatory max power level                                                    a macro area so that it can doing
                                                                                                                                      things like transmit Beacons or other
                                                                                                                                      management frames at very high
                                                                                                                                      powers while still satisfying the
                                                                                                                                      regulations.




                                                                                                                                                                        20/25
TGh letter ballot comments and resolutions                                                                                                              Editors version (unofficial)   4/15/2010




Seq     Name         Company       Clause   Subcl   T Comment                             Suggested Remedy                  LB#36 Resolution
No

467    Smart,       Micro Linear    11       5.3    TR Change the word "must" to          Change the word "must" to          No longer   The wording has changed
       Kevin        Corporation                        "shall"                            "shall"                             relevant   sigbificantly

472    Green,          Intel        11       5.4     E It could be more clear which       Please clarify that the first      Declined
        Evan                                           portions of this subclause is      paragraph is informative and
                                                       informative vs normative           the following two are
                                                       (required).                        normative.
473    Hillman,      Advanced       11       5.4    TR My usual comment on how are        Define a calibration procedure     Declined    A calibration procedure is out of
        Garth          Micro                           these power values calibrated                                                     scope of the TGh PAR. It is up to the
                      Devices                          in a heterogeneous BSS?                                                           implementer, not the standard, to
                                                       Clearly I am not a radio guy                                                      provide values within the defined
                                                       and maybe this is an                                                              tolerances.
                                                       impossible request but ...

474    Yeong-                       11       5.4    TR Lack of descriptions for           Please describe the                Declined    Optimization methods are out of
      Chang Maa                                        optimization methods.              optimization methods                           scope of TGh standard.
475    Yeong-                       11       5.4    TR Lack of standardization for        Please address these               Declined    Optimization methods are out of
      Chang Maa                                        optimization methods leads to      implications for lack of                       scope of TGh standard.
                                                       interoperability issues?           optimization standardization.
477     Steve                       11       5.4    TR It appears that independent        Either do not allow IBSS mode      Declined    A similar problem to that highlighted
       Halford                                         transmit power optimization is     with transmit power                            by the commenter is also possible in
                                                       allowed in IBSS mode. Since        optimization or develop a more                 a BSS because the optimisation
                                                       the power control algorithms       standardized approach to                       algorithms in each STA are not
                                                       are independent, this will         transmit power optimization.                   specified to be dependent.
                                                       greatly increase the                                                              Regardless, a standardized approach
                                                       occurrence of hidden nodes.                                                       to "transmit power optimization" is
                                                                                                                                         not required by regulators.

487     Steve                       11       6      TR The draft states that DFS is       Specify that DFS is not            Declined    According to ERC/(99)/23 DFS is
       Halford                                         required. DFS is not required      required for operation in the                  required.
                                                       for operation in the 5.15 - 5.25   lower 100 MHz band.
                                                       GHz band.
488     Mark                        11       6      TR It is my understanding that        Modify the draft to state that     Declined    According to ERC/(99)/23 DFS is
       Webster                                         TPC is not required in the 5.15-   DFS is not required in the                     required.
                                                       5.25 GHz band.                     bottom 100 MHz band.
491    Hillman,      Advanced       11       6      TR I could not agree more with the    Facilitate this by specifying a    Declined    The mapping suggested is beyong
        Garth          Micro                           comment "The procedures            channel mapping mechanism                      the scope of TGh's PAR
                      Devices                          may also satisfy comparable
                                                       needs in other regulatory
                                                       domains and may be useful for
                                                       other purposes".
512 Ciotti, Frank    LinCom         11       6.1     T Quiet Channels for Testing:        Specify the procedure for   Clarification The quieting mechanism and the
                     Wireless                          Need to clarify which STA(s) or    channel measurement/channel               measuring mechanisms are
                                                       all STA(s) in the BSS need to      measurement report during                 orthoganal (ie a STA may or may not
                                                       perform channel                    quiet channel testing.                    measure during a quiet time, a STA
                                                       measurements during quiet                                                    may or may not measure during a
                                                       period.                                                                      non-quiet time) and are described as
                                                                                                                                    such in 11.6.1 and 11.6.5

495 Chris Ware                      11       6.1    T There seems to be no flexibility    Possibly a full length Quiet       Declined    The quiet periods are only intended
                                                      allowed in the IBSS mode to         period of one or two                           ongoing measurement and not the
                                                      change the length and location      (preferably consecutive)                       initial period of measurement.
                                                      of the Quiet Period once the        beacon intervals on creation of
                                                      IBSS has been created. In           the IBSS, followed by much
                                                      view of the previous comment,       smaller sliding windows of
                                                      such inflexibility will be very     Quiet periods in the later
                                                      inefficient.                        beacon intervals, would be a
                                                                                          desirable compromise between
                                                                                          detection efficiency and
                                                                                          operational efficiency in an
                                                                                          IBSS.




                                                                                                                                                                      21/25
TGh letter ballot comments and resolutions                                                                                                            Editors version (unofficial)   4/15/2010




Seq    Name      Company       Clause   Subcl   T Comment                              Suggested Remedy                   LB#36 Resolution
No

497   Partho                    11       6.1    T Is there any way to stop             DFS for iBSS procedure and          Declined    There is no way to stop scheduling
      Mishra                                      scheduling quiet periods in an       mechanisms need to reworked                     quiet periods in an IBSS. While not
                                                  IBSS ?                                                                               ideal, this is a compromise solution
                                                                                                                                       to avoid having to define a complex
                                                                                                                                       protocol give an STA the authority to
                                                                                                                                       make the changes to the quiet
                                                                                                                                       period.
498   Partho                    11       6.1    T How do you ensure quiet              DFS for iBSS procedure and          Declined    It is not possible to guarantee quiet
      Mishra                                      periods in an IBSS ?                 mechanisms need to reworked                     periods are quiet. This is the case
                                                                                                                                       even in a BSS
503   Moreton,     Synad        11       6.1    T It's not clear whether the AP        (1) Limit quiet period to finish    Declined    The draft is clear in stating that
       Mike      Technologie                      should still send beacons if         before the next TBTT (2) Say                    nothing can be sent in a quiet period.
                    s Ltd.                        they overlap with the quiet          that the AP should send the                     It is intended any Beacons are sent
                                                  period (e.g. due to a quiet          beacon even if transmission is                  after the quiet period.
                                                  period lasting more than a           delayed enough to overlap with
                                                  beacon interval, or due to the       the start of the quiet period.
                                                  previous beacon being
                                                  delayed).
509   Hillman,    Advanced      11       6.1    T Which subclause?                     indicate the subclause 9.????       No longer   The paragraph has been rewritten to
       Garth        Micro                                                                                                   relevant   remove the direct reference to "dwell
                   Devices                                                                                                             time" in clause 9.
496   HungKun                   11       6.1    TR Clarify that if the STA starting    Add text to clarify that if the     Declined    The STA starting the IBSS has no
       Chen                                        an IBSS is allowed to modify        STA starting an IBSS is                         special status once the IBSS is
                                                   the quiet periods after the first   allowed to modify the quiet                     started. Indeed, it does not even
                                                   one issued.                         periods after the first one                     need to remain for the IBSS to
                                                                                       issued.                                         continue operation. Thus, it does not
                                                                                                                                       make sense to allow the STA starting
                                                                                                                                       the IBSS to make changes in the
                                                                                                                                       future.

                                                                                                                                       Some people have suggested a
                                                                                                                                       scheme whereby one STA is elected
                                                                                                                                       as a central coordinator (and is
                                                                                                                                       replaced when it leaves). However,
                                                                                                                                       such a protocol is very complex and
                                                                                                                                       is probably unnecessary for an IBSS.

499   HungKun                   11       6.1    TR The use of Quiet period would       Remove the quiet operation.              In the case where there are
                                                                                                                           Declined
       Chen                                        make STAs from other BSSs                                                    overlapping BSS's it is true that other
                                                   measuring current channel                                                    BSS's may transmit in the quiet
                                                   think the channel is clean.                                                  period. However, the quiet period
                                                                                                                                was never intended to be entirely
                                                                                                                                quiet; rather it was intended as a
                                                                                                                                heauristic mecahnism to remove
                                                                                                                                most of the loud transmitters in the
                                                                                                                                local area to make it easier to detect
                                                                                                                                radars.
508   Green,      Advanced      11       6.1    TR where is clause 9?            reference clause 9 text           No longer The paragraph has been rewritten to
      Patrick       Micro                                                                                           relevant    remove the direct reference to "dwell
                   Devices                                                                                                      time" in clause 9. However, clause 9
                                                                                                                                is in the base standard
544   Partho                    11       6.3     T How is this used ? It seems   Mechanism/behaviour              Clarification An STA must not send a
      Mishra                                       inconsistent with basic       specified in this section has to               management frame of any sort
                                                   reporting and channel         be well co-ordinated with what                 dot11MaxManagementOperationsPer
                                                   switching. Does this mean the is described in sections related               iod after it either detects a radar in
                                                   STA can respond to Channel    to basic reporting and channel                 the channel or accepts another STA
                                                   measurement requests from     switching                                      has detected a radar in the channel.
                                                   an AP only if received and                                                   The wording of the clause has been
                                                   responded to within                                                          expanded to say this more clearly. It
                                                   dot11MaxManagementOperati                                                    is not a requirement (and nor is it
                                                   onsPeriod ?                                                                  stated) that measurement requests
                                                                                                                                are responded to within
                                                                                                                                dot11MaxManagementOperationsPer
                                                                                                                                iod.




                                                                                                                                                                    22/25
TGh letter ballot comments and resolutions                                                                                                          Editors version (unofficial)   4/15/2010




Seq     Name        Company    Clause   Subcl   T Comment                           Suggested Remedy                 LB#36 Resolution
No

554 Ciotti, Frank   LinCom      11       6.4    TR A STA shall use any method to    Allow for other measurement      Clarification * The Basic Report reports the
                    Wireless                       detect primary users operating   methods to detect primary                      precence of a radar
                                                   in a channel that satisfies      users, or specify
                                                   regulatory requirements. If      methods/procedures to detect
                                                   STA may use any method to        primary users. Explain the
                                                   detect primary users, then it    usefulness of those
                                                   may use any method               measurement methods and
                                                   (including channel               how they can assist the AP in
                                                   measurements, etc) to help it    assessing whether there are
                                                   assess the channel conditions.   primary users in the channel
                                                   Then why is Basic Report for
                                                   channel measurement
                                                   mandatory? How does the
                                                   Basic Report help the AP to
                                                   determine whether there are
                                                   primary users?

562    Meyer,        AMD        11       6.5    E    … a STA may request other    Change to: " … an AP/STA           Clarification STA, according to the base standard,
       Klaus                                        STAs … could cause the        may request other STAs …"                        includes APs
                                                    impression that Measurement
                                                    Requests can only be
                                                    generated by STAs. APs might
                                                    also generate those requests.

560    Partho                   11       6.5    T It is unclear what is expected    Clarify what happens with        Clarification In general, as stated in 11.6.6, any
       Mishra                                     of an AP or STA with respect      regards to measurements in                     STA may request any other STA to
                                                  to measurements in the IBSS       the following scenarios ? 1)                   make a measurement. The receiving
                                                  or BSS ?                          BSS - AP (DFS owner) , STA                     STA is free to choose to undertake
                                                                                    2) iBSS - STA (DFS owner),                     the measurement or not (with
                                                                                    STA                                            exception of mandatory
                                                                                                                                   measurements)
574    Green,         Intel     11       6.5    T less than is not quite correct... Change ending of final            Declined "less than" works too because this is
        Evan                                                                        sentence in this paragraph to:                 a definition.
                                                                                    "... any required channel
                                                                                    switches take less than or
                                                                                    equal to
                                                                                    dot11ChannelSwitchTime per
                                                                                    switch."
602 Ciotti, Frank   LinCom      11       6.6    T Clarification. "If an AP in a     Answer the question above.       Clarification The AP in a BSS or STA in an IBSS
                    Wireless                      BSS or a STA in an IBSS                                                          may use any algorithm they like to
                                                  would like the other STAs in its                                                 choose another channel. Choosing a
                                                  BSS or IBSS to move to the                                                       common channel for all the STAs is
                                                  new channel, then a channel                                                      only one possibility. If it cannot be
                                                  should be selected that is                                                       achieved for whatever reason then
                                                  supported by all other STAs."                                                    the AP must choose another channel
                                                  Not clear what the AP needs to                                                   using another algorithm. A
                                                  do if there's not channel                                                        clarification has been added to the
                                                  satisfies the above statement?                                                   text that notes it may not always be
                                                                                                                                   possible to choose a common
                                                                                                                                   channel (if this is even desired). It is
                                                                                                                                   not necessary to say what the AP or
                                                                                                                                   STA should do in this case because
                                                                                                                                   it is never claimed that the selection
                                                                                                                                   of a common channel is required.

619    Partho                   11       6.6    T With reference to paragraph 2 Please change 'channel should Clarification The use of "should" was intended to
       Mishra                                     it should not be made            be selected' to 'channel may             imply an option with a
                                                  mandatory for the AP or DFS be selected'                                  recommendation, where as "may" is
                                                  owner in an IBSS to select a                                              a little too optional
                                                  channel supported by all other
                                                  STAs - ie. It should be optional




                                                                                                                                                                  23/25
TGh letter ballot comments and resolutions                                                                                                              Editors version (unofficial)   4/15/2010




Seq    Name       Company       Clause   Subcl   T Comment                            Suggested Remedy                    LB#36 Resolution
No

624   Jie Liang                  11       6.6    T The switching of the channels      Need further study in the     Clarification Further study is always required.
                                                   has significant effects on         stability of an ESS with many               However, stability is ensured by
                                                   stability of the networks.         BSS in proximity when channel               vendors implementing sensible radar
                                                   Especially when many               switch is used.                             detection mechanisms that can
                                                   overlapping BSS exist. What if                                                 distinguish between radars and other
                                                   two or three BSS jumps to the                                                  noise. Typically the detection
                                                   same channel, and the                                                          mechanism will look for multiple
                                                   measure of the channel                                                         characteristic pulses above a certain
                                                   becomes worse, and they                                                        power level. STAs will look for these
                                                   decide to hop to another                                                       pulses during SIFS (mostly quiet),
                                                   channel, and that may impact                                                   during quiet periods (often quiet, but
                                                   other BSS in the proximity of                                                  sometimes not due to overlapping
                                                   the hopping BSS. The stability                                                 BSSs) and during packet reception
                                                   issue has not bee                                                              (not quiet by definition).
                                                   demonstrated and thoroughly
                                                   considered.
608   Srikanth                   11       6.6    T It is possible for any STA to      Try to get away from DFS             Declined     For channel switching to occur in an
      Gummadi                                      assume role of DFS owner and       owner paradigm (I am not sure                     organised manner it is necessary for
                                                   this leads into a problem of       how to do it or if it is possible                 there to be only a single DFS Owner.
                                                   multiple owners. Having a DFS      to do so).                                        Mostly this will be true. If it is not
                                                   owner makes it look more like                                                        then at least we satisfy the
                                                   an AP, and goes against the                                                          regulations by leaving the channel
                                                   nature of IBSS.
626    Partho                    11       6.6    T DFS owner or co-ordinator          The Tgi and Tge groups also          Declined     The mechanism in the draft is not
       Mishra                                      function in iBSS - Selection or    have requirements for a co-                       intended to have the reliability most
                                                   protocol to choose co-ordinator    ordinator in a iBSS. It may be                    likely required by other TG's and thus
                                                                                      useful to co-ordinate with these                  our mechanism is simpler than they
                                                                                      groups to see if 3 different                      will probably require.
                                                                                      mechanisms can be avoided to
                                                                                      chose/elect a co-ordinator
                                                                                      among STAs in an iBSS

611   Vu, Toan      Symbol       11       6.6    TR If a channel switch in an IBSS                                        Clarification * After a switch the draft specifies
                  Technologie                       is announced and a station                                                          that each STA shall assume that it is
                    s, Inc.                         has not heard it The draft                                                          the DFS Owner. At each TBTT, the
                                                    proposes that the STA shall                                                         STAs execute the distributed Beacon
                                                    assume the role of the DFS                                                          protocol, which causes zero or more
                                                    owner resulting in multiple                                                         Beacons to be received at each STA.
                                                    DFS owners. The draft states                                                        The STA receiving each Beacon uses
                                                    that over time, the IBSS will                                                       the DFS Owner as specified in the
                                                    converge to a single DFS                                                            IBSS DFS element.
                                                    owner. It is not clear how this                                                     * In most cases, the statistical nature
                                                    is achieved.                                                                        of the distributed Beacon protocol will
                                                                                                                                        cause all the STAs to quickly come
                                                                                                                                        to a common view as to the identity
                                                                                                                                        of a single DFS Owner.
                                                                                                                                        * The proof of this claim is that in
                                                                                                                                        each cycle of the distributed Beacon
                                                                                                                                        protocol with a fixed set of STAs
                                                                                                                                        there is zero probability of the
                                                                                                                                        number of DFS Owners increasing, a
                                                                                                                                        non zero probability of the number of
                                                                                                                                        DFS Owners stayiong the same and
                                                                                                                                        a non zero probability of the number
                                                                                                                                        of DFS Owners decreasing towards a
                                                                                                                                        minimum of one
                                                                                                                                        * GIven the statistical nature of the
                                                                                                                                        distributed Beacon process it is
                                                                                                                                        possible to construct scenarios in
                                                                                                                                        which convergance does not occur.
                                                                                                                                        However, they these scenarios are
                                                                                                                                        unlikely to occur.
                                                                                                                                        * If they do occur, the only effect is
                                                                                                                                        that the STAs in the IBSS will
                                                                                                                                        probably not all move to the same




                                                                                                                                                                      24/25
TGh letter ballot comments and resolutions                                                                                                              Editors version (unofficial)   4/15/2010




Seq     Name        Company       Clause   Subcl   T Comment                              Suggested Remedy                  LB#36 Resolution
No

604     Albert                     11       6.6    TR There is no requirement for         I recognize that this is one of    Declined   The scenario outlined in the
        Garrett                                       replicating the channel switch      the more challenging areas of                 comment is possible. However, if the
                                                      announcement in iBSS. In            the spectrum management                       remaining STAs can also detect
                                                      such a mode, there is a real        problem and that alot of work                 radar then they must also vacate the
                                                      possibility for clusters of users   has been done to resolve the                  channel within a period starting from
                                                      connected as a common               issue, but I still fear this is               when the radar was detected,
                                                      network by only a few STAs.         deficient. Of course, I have no               regardless of the correct operation or
                                                      The potential exists for one        remedy right now. Sorry.                      otherwise of the Channel Switch
                                                      cluster to vacate a channel                                                       Announcement mechanism.
                                                      suddenly occuppied by a
                                                      primary users, while another                                                      The Channel Switch Announcement
                                                      cluster part of the same iBSS                                                     mechanism is a heauristic that
                                                      misses the switch                                                                 attempts to move all the STAs to the
                                                      announcement. This second                                                         same new channel. In some
                                                      cluster would continue                                                            circumsatances it will fail. However,
                                                      operation until some STA took                                                     if this is the case the the worst thing
                                                      over as owner, coordinated a                                                      that can occur is that not all STAs in
                                                      switch and announced.                                                             the IBSS move to the same new
                                                      Assuming the regulatory                                                           channel. This is not necesarily a
                                                      agencies will be interested in                                                    great situation in terms of 802.11
                                                      requiring a time to vacate, I                                                     performance but it satisfies the
                                                      am not confident that this                                                        regulations as long as all the STAs
                                                      method is sufficient.                                                             leave the current channel.


617   Batra, Anuj      Texas       11       6.6    TR No DFS mechanism specified          Need to specify both               Declined   * There is no need to define when to
                    Instruments                       for when to stop using a            mechanisms.                                   stop using a channel beyond that it
                                                      channel or how to choose a                                                        must satisfy regulatory constraints.
                                                      new channel.                                                                      To do so would be beyond the scope
                                                                                                                                        of TGh's PAR.
                                                                                                                                        * There is no need to define how to
                                                                                                                                        choose a new channel beyond that it
                                                                                                                                        must satisfy regulatory constraints.
                                                                                                                                        To do so would be beyond the scope
                                                                                                                                        of TGh's PAR.




                                                                                                                                                                       25/25

								
To top