Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

11-10-1102-05-00ac-mu-mimo-adhoc-report-sept-2010

VIEWS: 13 PAGES: 29

									Sept 2010                                                             doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1102r5


                MU-MIMO AdHoc Report Sept 2010
                                       Date: 2010-09-13
Authors:
Name             Affiliations Address                   Phone             email
Brian Hart       Cisco Systems   170 W Tasman Dr,       +1-408-525-3346 brianh@cisco.com
                                 San Jose, CA
                                 95134, USA
Robert Stacey    Intel                                  +1-503-724-0893 robert.j.stacey@intel.com
Sameer Vermani   Qualcomm        5775 Morehouse         +1-858-845-3115 svverman@qualcomm.com
                                 Drive, San Diego,
                                 CA-92121, USA




Submission                                           Slide 1                          Sameer Vermani, Qualcomm
   Sept 2010                              doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1102r5


                  Important IEEE Links

• The following slides in this deck are believed to be the latest
  available, however the source locations are:
• http://standards.ieee.org/faqs/affiliationFAQ.html
• http://standards.ieee.org/resources/antitrust-guidelines.pdf
• http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.ppt
• http://www.ieee.org/portal/cms_docs/about/CoE_poster.pdf

• For summary see 11-07-0660-01-0000-opening-presentation



  Submission                    Slide 2             Sameer Vermani, Qualcomm
Sept 2010                                    doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1102r5


                    Member Affiliation

 • It is defined in the IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws,
   5.2.1.5 as: “An individual is deemed “affiliated” with
   any individual or entity that has been, or will be,
   financially or materially supporting that individual’s
   participation in a particular IEEE standards activity.
   This includes, but is not limited to, his or her employer
   and any individual or entity that has or will have,
   either directly or indirectly, requested, paid for, or
   otherwise sponsored his or her participation.
 • http://standards.ieee.org/faqs/affiliationFAQ.html


Submission                       Slide 3                Sameer Vermani, Qualcomm
Sept 2010                                             doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1102r5


                    Declaration of Affiliation

 • Revision: May 2007 Standards Board Bylaw 5.2.1.1
       – 5.2.1.1 Openness
             • Openness is defined as the quality of being not restricted to a
               particular type or category of participants. All meetings
               involving standards development an all IEEE Sponsor ballots
               shall be open toa all interested parties. Each individual
               participant in IEEE Standards activities shall disclose his or
               her affiliations when requested. A person who knows or
               reasonably should know, that a participant’s disclosure is
               materially incomplete or incorrect should report that fact to the
               Secretary of the IEEE-SA Standards Board and the appropriate
               Sponsors.
       – http://standards.ieee.org/faqs/affiliationFAQ.html

Submission                               Slide 4                 Sameer Vermani, Qualcomm
Sept 2010                                                doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1102r5
                            Affiliation Policy
 • Requirement to declare affiliation at all standards
   development meetings and recorded in the minutes
    – Affiliation not necessarily same as employer
    – Declaration requirement may be familiar to some 802 WGs, though
       WG declaration process may evolve
 • 11. What if I refuse to disclose my affiliation?
       – As outlined in IEEE-SA governance documents, you will lose certain rights.
         In a working group where voting rights are gained through attendance, no
         attendance credit will be granted if affiliation isn’t declared. Similarly, voting
         rights are to be removed if affiliation isn’t declared.
 • Affiliation declaration will be added to Sponsor ballot
 • http://standards.ieee.org/faqs/affiliationFAQ.html




Submission                                Slide 5                     Sameer Vermani, Qualcomm
    Sept 2010                                                        doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1102r5
Highlights of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on
                 Patents in Standards
–     Participants have a duty to tell the IEEE if they know (based on personal awareness) of potentially
      Essential Patent Claims they or their employer own
–     Participants are encouraged to tell the IEEE if they know of potentially Essential Patent Claims owned
      by others
       • This encouragement is particularly strong as the third party may not be a participant in the
         standards process
–     Working Group required to request assurance
–     Early assurance is encouraged
–     Terms of assurance shall be either:
       • Reasonable and nondiscriminatory, with or without monetary compensation; or,
       • A statement of non-assertion of patent rights
–     Assurances
       •   Shall be provided on the IEEE-SA Standards Board approved LOA form
       •   May optionally include not-to-exceed rates, terms, and conditions
       •   Shall not be circumvented through sale or transfer of patents
       •   Shall be brought to the attention of any future assignees or transferees
       •   Shall apply to Affiliates unless explicitly excluded
       •   Are irrevocable once submitted and accepted
       •   Shall be supplemented if Submitter becomes aware of other potential Essential Patent Claims
–     A “Blanket Letter of Assurance” may be provided at the option of the patent holder
–     A patent holder has no duty to perform a patent search
–     Full policy available at http://standards.ieee.org/guides/bylaws/sect6-7.html#6                          1
    Submission                                      Slide 6                         Sameer Vermani, Qualcomm
   Sept 2010                                                                        doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1102r5
              IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards
6.2 Policy

 IEEE standards may be drafted in terms that include the use of Essential Patent Claims. If the IEEE receives notice that a [Proposed]
 IEEE Standard may require the use of a potential Essential Patent Claim, the IEEE shall request licensing assurance, on the IEEE
 Standards Board approved Letter of Assurance form, from the patent holder or patent applicant. The IEEE shall request this
 assurance without coercion.

 The Submitter of the Letter of Assurance may, after Reasonable and Good Faith Inquiry, indicate it is not aware of any Patent
 Claims that the Submitter may own, control, or have the ability to license that might be or become Essential Patent Claims. If the
 patent holder or patent applicant provides an assurance, it should do so as soon as reasonably feasible in the standards development
 process. This assurance shall be provided prior to the Standards Board’s approval of the standard. This assurance shall be provided
 prior to a reaffirmation if the IEEE receives notice of a potential Essential Patent Claim after the standard’s approval or a prior
 reaffirmation. An asserted potential Essential Patent Claim for which an assurance cannot be obtained (e.g., a Letter of Assurance is
 not provided or the Letter of Assurance indicates that assurance is not being provided) shall be referred to the Patent Committee.

 A Letter of Assurance shall be either:

   a) A general disclaimer to the effect that the Submitter without conditions will not enforce any
     present or future Essential Patent Claims against any person or entity making, using, selling,
     offering to sell, importing, distributing, or implementing a compliant implementation of the
     standard; or
   b) A statement that a license for a compliant implementation of the standard will be made
     available to an unrestricted number of applicants on a worldwide basis without compensation or
     under reasonable rates, with reasonable terms and conditions that are demonstrably free of any
     unfair discrimination. At its sole option, the Submitter may provide with its assurance any of the
     following: (i) a not-to-exceed license fee or rate commitment, (ii) a sample license agreement,
     or (iii) one or more material licensing terms.
                                                                                                                                         2
   Submission                                                  Slide 7                                 Sameer Vermani, Qualcomm
 Sept 2010                                                                  doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1102r5

              IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards
Copies of an Accepted LOA may be provided to the working group, but shall not be discussed, at any standards
working group meeting.

The Submitter and all Affiliates (other than those Affiliates excluded in a Letter of Assurance) shall not assign or
otherwise transfer any rights in any Essential Patent Claims that are the subject of such Letter of Assurance that
they hold, control, or have the ability to license with the intent of circumventing or negating any of the
representations and commitments made in such Letter of Assurance.

The Submitter of a Letter of Assurance shall agree (a) to provide notice of a Letter of Assurance either through a
Statement of Encumbrance or by binding any assignee or transferee to the terms of such Letter of Assurance; and
(b) to require its assignee or transferee to (i) agree to similarly provide such notice and (ii) to bind its assignees or
transferees to agree to provide such notice as described in (a) and (b).

This assurance shall apply to the Submitter and its Affiliates except those Affiliates the Submitter specifically
excludes on the relevant Letter of Assurance.

If, after providing a Letter of Assurance to the IEEE, the Submitter becomes aware of additional Patent Claim(s)
not already covered by an existing Letter of Assurance that are owned, controlled, or licensable by the Submitter
that may be or become Essential Patent Claim(s) for the same IEEE Standard but are not the subject of an existing
Letter of Assurance, then such Submitter shall submit a Letter of Assurance stating its position regarding
enforcement or licensing of such Patent Claims. For the purposes of this commitment, the Submitter is deemed to
be aware if any of the following individuals who are from, employed by, or otherwise represent the Submitter have
personal knowledge of additional potential Essential Patent Claims, owned or controlled by the Submitter, related
to a [Proposed] IEEE Standard and not already the subject of a previously submitted Letter of Assurance: (a) past
or present participants in the development of the [Proposed] IEEE Standard, or (b) the individual executing the
previously submitted Letter of Assurance.
                                                                                                                            3
 Submission                                              Slide 8                             Sameer Vermani, Qualcomm
 Sept 2010                                                                doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1102r5

      IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards
The assurance is irrevocable once submitted and accepted and shall apply, at a minimum, from the date of the
standard's approval to the date of the standard's withdrawal.

The IEEE is not responsible for identifying Essential Patent Claims for which a license may be required, for
conducting inquiries into the legal validity or scope of those Patent Claims, or for determining whether any
licensing terms or conditions are reasonable or non-discriminatory.

Nothing in this policy shall be interpreted as giving rise to a duty to conduct a patent search. No license is implied
by the submission of a Letter of Assurance.

In order for IEEE’s patent policy to function efficiently, individuals participating in the standards development
process: (a) shall inform the IEEE (or cause the IEEE to be informed) of the holder of any potential Essential
Patent Claims of which they are personally aware and that are not already the subject of an existing Letter of
Assurance, owned or controlled by the participant or the entity the participant is from, employed by, or otherwise
represents; and (b) should inform the IEEE (or cause the IEEE to be informed) of any other holders of such
potential Essential Patent Claims that are not already the subject of an existing Letter of Assurance.




                                                                                                                         4
 Submission                                            Slide 9                            Sameer Vermani, Qualcomm
Sept 2010                                                                                        doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1102r5

             Other Guidelines for IEEE WG Meetings
• All IEEE-SA standards meetings shall be conducted in compliance with all applicable laws,
  including antitrust and competition laws.
• Don’t discuss the interpretation, validity, or essentiality of patents/patent claims.
• Don’t discuss specific license rates, terms, or conditions.
    –   Relative costs, including licensing costs of essential patent claims, of different technical approaches
        may be discussed in standards development meetings.
             • Technical considerations remain primary focus
• Don’t discuss fixing product prices, allocation of customers, or dividing sales markets.
• Don’t discuss the status or substance of ongoing or threatened litigation.
• Don’t be silent if inappropriate topics are discussed… do formally object.


                                          ---------------------------------------------------------------
   If you have questions, contact the IEEE-SA Standards Board Patent Committee Administrator at patcom@ieee.org or visit
                                           http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/index.html

See IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, clause 5.3.10 and “Promoting Competition and Innovation: What You Need to
                Know about the IEEE Standards Association's Antitrust and Competition Policy” for more details.

                        This slide set is available at http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.ppt
                                                                                                                                       5
Submission                                                        Slide 10                                  Sameer Vermani, Qualcomm
Sept 2010                                               doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1102r5


         Call for Potentially Essential Patents
 • If anyone in this meeting is personally aware of the
   holder of any patent claims that are potentially
   essential to implementation of the proposed standard(s)
   under consideration by this group and that are not
   already the subject of an Accepted Letter of Assurance:
       – Either speak up now or
       – Provide the chair of this group with the identity of the holder(s) of any and
         all such claims as soon as possible or
       – Cause an LOA to be submitted




Submission                               Slide 11                   Sameer Vermani, Qualcomm
Sept 2010                                                                 doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1102r5


                     Rules for MU-MIMO Adhoc
 •    Straw poll outcomes will be recorded
       –     In particular, for straw poll votes to bring an issue to the task group, such as the resolution of an
             issue, or the failure to resolve an issue
 •    Email concerning TGac MU-MIMO adhoc will be sent to the TGac reflector with
      the subject beginning with MU-MIMO ADHOC (or MU-MIMO Adhoc)
 •    >=75% straw poll result is required to forward an item to the task group for a
      binding motion vote
 •    >50% straw poll result is required to move an issue from the MU-MIMO adhoc to
      the task group for further debate
       –     Only after at least one failed MU-MIMO adhoc vote to forward an item to the task group for a
             binding motion vote
 •    >50% straw poll result is required to move an issue from the MU-MIMO adhoc to
      another adhoc for further debate
 •    >50% straw poll result required to refuse an issue that is being moved from
      another adhoc into the group
 •    For further details, please see
       –     11-09-0059r5 (see also 11-09-1282r0, 11-09-1181-00-00ac-ad-hoc-lifecycle.ppt)




Submission                                             Slide 12                           Sameer Vermani, Qualcomm
Sept 2010                                                doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1102r5


                       Agenda for Sept 2010
 •    Call the meeting to Order
 •    IEEE P&P
       – Affiliation policy
          • Reviewed by TGac chair during opening block (must be done within conf calls)
       – IEEE Patent policy review
          • Reviewed by TGac chair during opening block (must be done within conf calls)
       – Call for Potentially Essential Patents
          • Reviewed by TGac chair during opening block (must be done within conf calls)
 •    Review Ad Hoc operating rules
 •    Approve telecon minutes (no telecons held)
 •    Technical presentations
 •    Conference Call timings



Submission                                Slide 13                    Sameer Vermani, Qualcomm
Sept 2010                                                                     doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1102r5


                                            Submissions

 •    Tuesday AM1
       –     10/1105, “Explicit Sounding and Feedback”, Hongyuan Zhang (Marvell) (Joint session with PHY AdHoc)
       –     10/1131, “Time-Domain CSI Compression Schemes for Explicit BF in MU-MIMO”, Yusuke Asai (NTT)
       –     10/1091, “Protocol for SU and MU Sounding Feedback”, Simone Merlin (Qualcomm)


 •    Wednesday PM1
       –     10/1055, “PSMP-BASED MU-MIMO Communications”, James Wang (MediaTek)
       –     10/1067, “Multiple CTSs in MU-MIMO transmission”, Tian Kaibo (ZTE)
       –     10/1124, “Multi RTS Proposal”, Yuichi Morioka (Sony Corporation)
       –     10/1092, “ACK protocol and backoff procedure for MU-MIMO”, Simone Merlin (Qualcomm)
       –     10/1114r0, “Channel dimension reduction proposal”, Nir Shapira (Celeno)

 •    Thursday AM2
       –     Strawpolls for 10/1114r1, “Channel dimension reduction proposal”, Nir Shapira (Celeno)
       –     10/1113r0, “ Doubling number of VHT-LTFs”, Nir Shapira (Celeno)
       –     10/1119r1, “On DL Precoding for 11ac”, Vish Ponnampalam (MediaTek)




Submission                                               Slide 14                              Sameer Vermani, Qualcomm
                                                   doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1102r5

     Straw poll 1 on sounding protocol (intended to
                  move to TG motion)
 •    Do you accept to add to the TGac spec framework document the sounding
      frame exchange protocol as defined in slides 3 and 4 of doc. 10/1091r0 ?

       –     Y-26
       –     N- 0
       –     A-3


       Result : Passed




Submission
                                                   doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1102r5

     Straw poll 2 on sounding protocol (intended to
                  move to TG motion)
 •    Do you accept to add to the TGac spec framework document the frame
      formats for NDPA, Poll and Sounding Feedback frames, as defined in slide 5
      of doc. 10/1091r0 ?

       –     Y-26
       –     N- 0
       –     A-2


      Result: Passed




Submission
Sept 2010                               doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1102r5


                   Strawpoll 3 (10/1124r2)

 • Do you agree that MAC Protection (NAV setting
   through Duration/ID Field in the MAC Header) does
   not work in most cases for DL SDMA Data Frames?
       – Yes: 30
       – No: 0
       – Abs: 3




Submission                   Slide 17             Sameer Vermani, Qualcomm
Sept 2010                               doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1102r5


                   Strawpoll 4 (10/1124r2)

 • Do you agree that Multi RTS should be considered
   further as an additional protection mechanism for
   11ac?
       – Yes: 17
       – No: 2
       – Abs: 16




Submission                   Slide 18             Sameer Vermani, Qualcomm
Sept 2010                                 doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1102r5


                   Strawpoll 5 (10/1092r0)

 • Do you accept to add to the TGac spec framework document the
   rule stating that
      “In a downlink MU PPDU, at most one A-MPDU is
      allowed to contain one or more MPDUs that solicit an
      immediate response”
       – Yes: 40
       – No: 0
       – Abs: 4


 • Result: Pass


Submission                     Slide 19             Sameer Vermani, Qualcomm
Sept 2010                                 doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1102r5


               Strawpoll 6 (10/1092r0)

 • Do you accept to add to the TGac spec framework document the
   backoff procedure for MU-MIMO as described on slide 11 of
   10/1092r0?
    – Yes: 43
    – No: 0
    – Abs: 5


 • Result: Pass




Submission                     Slide 20             Sameer Vermani, Qualcomm
September 2010                        doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1102r5


                    Straw Poll 7 (10/1114r1)
  • Do you support adding the following sentence to the
    Specifications Framework document: “A sounding
    responder shall have the ability to reduce (in a TBD
    manner) the receive-side feedback dimension of its
    MIMO channel with explicit MU-MIMO feedback”?
        – Yes: 25
        – No: 0
        – Abs: 17


  • Result: Pass



Submission                                                              Slide 21
                                          Nir Shapira et al, Celeno Communications
September 2010                        doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1102r5


                    Straw Poll 8 (10/1114r1)
  • Do you support enabling the AP to allocate the
    maximum explicit feedback dimension for each user in
    MU-MIMO operation?
        – Yes: 3
        – No: 5
        – Abs: 12


  • Result: Fail




Submission                                                              Slide 22
                                          Nir Shapira et al, Celeno Communications
September 2010                        doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1102r5


               Straw Poll 8-1 (10/1114r1)
  • Do you support enabling the AP to allocate the explicit
    feedback dimension for each user in MU-MIMO
    operation?
        – Yes: 2
        – No: 10
        – Abs: 24


  • Result: Fail




Submission                                                              Slide 23
                                          Nir Shapira et al, Celeno Communications
September 2010                      doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1102r5


               Straw Poll 8-2 (10/1114r1)
  • Do you support enabling the AP to recommend the
    explicit feedback dimension for each user in MU-
    MIMO operation?
        – Yes: 9
        – No: 6
        – Abs: 27


  • Result: Fail




Submission                                                            Slide 24
                                        Nir Shapira et al, Celeno Communications
September 2010                        doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1102r5


                    Straw Poll 9 (10/1114r1)
  • Do you support adding TBD dimension allocation
    information per user in MU-MIMO operation to the
    NDPA frame, and update the Specifications
    Framework document accordingly?
        – Yes: 1
        – No: 4
        – Abs: 30


  • Result: Fail




Submission                                                              Slide 25
                                          Nir Shapira et al, Celeno Communications
September 2010                      doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1102r5

                 Straw Poll 10 (10/1113r0)

  • Do you support adding a bit in SigA to control the
    doubling of VHT-LTFs, that is mandatory to receive?
        – Yes: 1
        – No: 15
        – Abs: 30


  • Result: Fail




Submission                                                            Slide 26
                                        Nir Shapira et al, Celeno Communications
September 2010                       doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1102r5

             Straw Poll 11 (related to 10/1119r1)

  • Would you support further investigation of non-linear
    precoding techniques for 802.11ac?
        – Yes: 18
        – No: 5
        – Abs: 30


  • Result: Passes (but not SFD)




Submission                                                             Slide 27
                                         Nir Shapira et al, Celeno Communications
Sept 2010                             doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1102r5


             Conference Call Timings

 • Based on input from the AdHoc groups, the conference
   call schedule is to be finalized during Thursday PM 1
   (before adjourning the TGac meeting)

 • MU-MIMO ad hoc does not request a dedicated MU-
   MIMO telecon before the next November IEEE
   meeting from TGac




Submission                 Slide 28             Sameer Vermani, Qualcomm
Sept 2010                                         doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1102r5


  Straw Poll on zzz (intended to move to TG motion)

 • Do you support to xxx and to edit the spec framework
   document, 11-xx-yyyy, accordingly?
       – Yes
       – No
       – Abs

       – It fails/passes to move to task group motion




Submission                           Slide 29               Sameer Vermani, Qualcomm

								
To top