1 / 68

Agenda for IEEE 802.11 PDED ad hoc meeting in Vancouver in March 2017

Agenda for IEEE 802.11 PDED ad hoc meeting in Vancouver in March 2017. 14 March 2017. Authors:. Welcome to the third F2F meeting of the IEEE 802.11 PDED ad hoc in Vancouver. PDED stands for Preamble Detect Energy Detect PDED is an attempt to encapsulate the goal of the group …

cmiranda
Download Presentation

Agenda for IEEE 802.11 PDED ad hoc meeting in Vancouver in March 2017

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Agenda for IEEE 802.11 PDED ad hoc meetingin Vancouver in March 2017 • 14 March 2017 Authors: Andrew Myles, Cisco

  2. Welcome to the third F2F meeting of the IEEE 802.11 PDED ad hoc in Vancouver • PDED stands for Preamble Detect Energy Detect • PDED is an attempt to encapsulate the goal of the group … • … which is to discuss issues related to the 3GPP RAN1 request to IEEE 802.11 WG to adopt an ED of -72dBm • The IEEE 802.11 PDED ad hoc was formed in September 2016 at the Warsaw interim meeting • Andrew Myles was appointed as Chair • It met in San Antonio (Nov 2016) and Atlanta (Jan 2017) • We will be meeting twice this week in Vancouver (Mar 2017) • Tuesday AM2 • Wednesday PM1 Andrew Myles, Cisco

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

  4. The PDED ad hoc will review the official IEEE-SA patent material for pre-PAR groups • All IEEE-SA standards meetings shall be conducted in compliance with all applicable laws, including antitrust and competition laws. • Don’t discuss the interpretation, validity, or essentiality of patents/patent claims. • Don’t discuss specific license rates, terms, or conditions. • Relative costs, including licensing costs of essential patent claims, of different technical approaches may be discussed in standards development meetings. • Technical considerations remain primary focus • Don’t discuss or engage in the fixing of product prices, allocation of customers, or division of sales markets. • Don’t discuss the status or substance of ongoing or threatened litigation. • Don’t be silent if inappropriate topics are discussed… do formally object. Andrew Myles, Cisco

  5. The PDED ad hoc will review the official IEEE-SA patent material for pre-PAR groups • If you have questions: • Contact the IEEE-SA Standards Board Patent Committee Administrator at patcom@ieee.org • Visit standards.ieee.org/about/sasb/patcom/index.html • See IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, clause 5.3.10 and “Promoting Competition and Innovation: What You Need to Know about the IEEE Standards Association's Antitrust and Competition Policy” for more details. • This slide set is available at: • development.standards.ieee.org/myproject/Public/mytools/mob/slideset.ppt Andrew Myles, Cisco

  6. Links are available to a variety of other useful resources • Link to IEEE Disclosure of Affiliation • http://standards.ieee.org/faqs/affiliationFAQ.html • Links to IEEE Antitrust Guidelines • http://standards.ieee.org/resources/antitrust-guidelines.pdf • Link to IEEE Code of Ethics • http://www.ieee.org/web/membership/ethics/code_ethics.html • Link to IEEE Patent Policy • http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.ppt Andrew Myles, Cisco

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

  8. The PDED ad hoc will consider a proposed agenda • Proposed Agenda • Bureaucratic stuff, including approving minutes • Why was the PDED ad hoc formed … and why is it continuing? • What is happening this week? (in no particular order) • Review activities in 3GPP RAN4 related to testing • Review what has happened so far on the PDED issue • Develop a response to 3GPP RAN1 on the PDED issue • Consider further data (based on simulation and testing?) for future LS’s • Review any relevant comments on the question of ED threshold in EN 301 893 • What are the next steps? • Other business • Any objections to this agenda? Andrew Myles, Cisco

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

  10. Why was the PDED ad hoc formed … … and why is it continuing? Andrew Myles, Cisco

  11. The PDED ad hoc was formed based on several presentations to 802.11 WG and 802.19 WG • Formation documents from Sept 2016 • 19-16-0110-00 described the PDED issue for IEEE 802.19 WG and a variety of possible responses • 11-16-1263-00summarised the PDED issue for the IEEE 802.11 WG and this directly led to the PDED ad hoc formation Andrew Myles, Cisco

  12. The PDED ad hoc was formed to respond to 3GPP RAN1 in relation to the PDED issue • A number of liaisons between IEEE 802 and 3GPP left the PDED issue open as of September 2016 • Mar 2016: IEEE 802 requested (19-16-0037-09 ) that 3GPP RAN1 make LAA more sensitive to 802.11 transmissions, using either PD/ED similar to IEEE 802.11ac or ED of -77dBm • Jun 2016: 3GPP RAN1 rejected (R1-166040) IEEE 802’s request on the basis that they had considerable debate and decided there was not a problem with an ED of -72dBm; they also requested that IEEE 802.11ax adopt the same • Aug 2016: IEEE 802 noted (IEEE 802 liaison to 3GPP RAN) 3GPP RAN1’s simulations (issue 3) were based on invalid assumptions & asked them to use more realistic assumptions; but did not respond to request that 802.11ax adopt an ED of -72dBm • The PDED ad hoc was formed in September 2016 primarily to respond to the 3GPP RAN1 request that 802.11ax adopt an ED of -72dBm Andrew Myles, Cisco

  13. The PDED ad hoc has determined there is a need for ongoing work • In Nov 2016, after sending a response explaining why the 3GPP RAN1 request that 802.11ax adopt ED = -72dBm does not make sense • … it was agreed to continue PDED ad hoc in the short term, with the following goals: • Address any future reply from 3GPP RAN1 • Develop further data (based on simulation and testing?) for future LS’s • Address the question of ED threshold in EN 301 893 that applies to 802.11ax • In Jan 2017, these goals were confirmed by the PDED ad hoc • Note: a reply had been received from 3GPP RAN1 at this time • The IEEE 802.11 WG Chair agreed in Nov 2016 to authorise the continuation of the PDED ad hoc until we “cancelled too many sessions” Andrew Myles, Cisco

  14. What is happening this week? Review activities in 3GPP RAN4 related to testing Andrew Myles, Cisco

  15. The PDED ad hoc will hear a summary of discussions at the recent 3GPP RAN4 meeting • 3GPP RAN4 is undertaking important work to validate the 3GPP RAN1 assertions about LAA coexistence with 802.11 • 3GPP RAN1 noted in a liaison in Nov 2016 that 3GPP RAN4 as decided on the development of a set of coexistence test cases including multi-node tests to verify the coexistence between LAA and IEEE 802.11 devices in various scenarios including testing above and below an ED threshold of -72dBm for LAA devices • A number of IEEE 802 participants attended the 3GPP RAN4 meeting in Athens the week of 13 February 2017 • Stuart Strickland (HPE) has provided the following slides as a report in the conclusions (none!) of the discussions and next steps (unclear!) • The report will provide context for the PDED ad hoc discussion on how to respond to 3GPP RAN1’s liaison to IEEE 802 in Nov 2016 Andrew Myles, Cisco

  16. The PDED ad hoc will hear a summary of discussions at the recent 3GPP RAN4 meeting • The following pages are a “3GPP RAN 4 LAA Coexistence Status” report supplied by Stuart Strickland (Distinguished Technologist, HPE) • Dated 27 Feb 2017 and updated on 12 Mar 2017, following RAN Plenary #75 • Stuart is not in attendance this week and so will be presented by an alternate or the Chair Andrew Myles, Cisco

  17. Purpose & Scope of 3GPP RAN4 Multi-node Testing • Procedures for testing coexistence of LAA with other systems operating in the same band are described in 3GPP TR 36.789 [1] • The purpose of these tests are “to verify that the two systems can coexist when operating in the same unlicensed spectrum.” • The 3GPP WI description that introduced LAA (RP-141664) defined fair coexistence as meaning “that LAA should not impact Wi-Fi services (data, video & voice services) more than an additional Wi-Fi network on the same carrier” [2] • Pass/fail criteria will therefore be based upon a comparison the results of tests of the impact of LAA on Wi-Fi with baseline measurements of the impact of Wi-Fi on Wi-Fi • Functional testing of the LBT coexistence mechanisms specific to LAA, including adherence to the specified ED threshold, maximum channel occupancy time, & minimum idle time, are described elsewhere in 3GPP TR 36.141 [3]

  18. Testbed Topology • All tests will be performed using a relatively simple network topology • It uses two pairs of network and user equipment devices, where: • Nodes A and C represent the “victim system” • Nodes B and D represent the “aggressor system.” Link A-B (I1) Node A Node B Link A-C (S1) Link B-D (S2) Link A-D (I3) Link B-C (I2) Node C Node D Link C-D (I4) Note: Link C-D (I4),shown above, is not defined in the current draft of TR 36.789

  19. Agreements Reached and Open Issues (prior to RAN4#82)[4] • Device Parameter Setting • Modifications to default settings to ensure repeatability and representative behavior may be needed; specific modifications remained an item for further study • Purpose of Testing Wi-Fi as Aggressor System • To help 3GPP validate LAA and enhancements of system performance; no pass/fail criteria shall be applied for Wi-Fi • …

  20. Agreements Reached and Open Issues (prior to RAN4#82)[4] • … • Traffic Types • Aggressor system shall carry best effort downlink UDP traffic (full buffer or finite load, tbd) in every test scenario • Test scenarios shall be defined in which the victim system carries best effort downlink UDP traffic (full buffer or finite load, tbd) and bidirectional voice traffic • Whether tests should be defined in which the aggressor system carries mixed voice and best effort traffic remained unresolved • …

  21. Agreements Reached and Open Issues (prior to RAN4#82)[4] • … • Pass/Fail Criteria: • Various proposals have been made to compare test results to the mean, median, or 25/50/75%ile of the baseline CDF, with 10% tolerance or possibly further relaxation at lower signals levels; no agreement had been reached • Test Levels: • Each test scenario shall be tested at two signal levels, one above and one below the LAA ED threshold of -72dBm (20MHz) • Specific test levels, whether these apply to wanted traffic (S1 & S2), interfering signals (I1, I2, I3 & I4), or both, and how to determine an appropriate relationship between wanted traffic and interfering signals remained unresolved • …

  22. Agreements Reached and Open Issues (prior to RAN4#82)[4] • … • Timeframe for Completion of Study Item: • Decision taken in 3GPP RAN Plenary in December to extend the deadline for completion of the LAA Coexistence Test Specification until the next RAN Plenary in March 2017 with expectation that all open issues would be resolved at RAN4#82 in February 2017. [5] • At the 3GPP RAN Plenary in March, the RAN4 chair reported that the study item was 30% complete, the deadline was again extended until June 2017, and one hour was allocated at each of the next two RAN4 WG meetings in April and May 2017. If, in the judgement of the RAN4 chair, sufficient progress has not been made after the April meeting, an additional ad hoc meeting may be scheduled [16][17] [18] [19]

  23. Outcome of RAN4#82 Meeting[6] • Device Parameter Setting • No discussion. Specific modifications to default settings to ensure repeatability and representative behavior remain an item for further study. • Purpose of Testing Wi-Fi as Aggressor System • Huawei, Ericsson, Qualcomm, and Nokia proposed that future consideration be given to applying pass/fail criteria IEEE 802.11ax devices. [7] • HPE reiterated previous objections that 3GPP RAN was not the proper forum in which to propose conformance tests for IEEE 802.11 equipment. • Huawei withdrew the proposal. • …

  24. Outcome of RAN4#82 Meeting[6] • … • Traffic Types • Ericsson, Qualcomm, Huawei, Nokia, Alcatel-Lucent Shanghai Bell, Skyworks, AT&T, and Verizon proposed specific scenarios in which the aggressor system would carry aggressor and victim systems would carry voice or best effort traffic. [8] • Broadcom suggested that scenarios in which the aggressor system carried mixed voice and best effort traffic also be included. • Ericsson withdrew the proposal. • …

  25. Outcome of RAN4#82 Meeting[6] • … • Pass/Fail Criteria • Huawei, Qualcomm, Ericsson, Nokia, and Skyworks proposed that the median baseline throughput with 10% tolerance be adopted as the pass/fail criteria for throughput tests. [9] • HPE reminded participants of the rationale for comparing normalized baseline performance with test results at several points and offered text adapted from the WFA LTE-U coexistence test plan to describe how such comparisons could be made without increasing test time or complexity. • Huawei withdrew the proposal • …

  26. Outcome of RAN4#82 Meeting (continued)[6] • … • Test Levels • Qualcomm, Ericsson, and Verizon reiterated previous proposals to set interfering signals (I1 & I2) 15dB lower than wanted traffic (S1) at all test levels. [10] • Nokia, Alcatel-Lucent Shanghai Bell, Skyworks, and Verizon presented a simulation study in support of this position. [11] • Broadcom, Cable Labs, HPE, and Marvell presented simulation studies supporting an alternative proposal to conduct below-ED tests with all signals at the same level and above-ED tests with interfering signals 10dB lower than wanted traffic. [12] • HPE presented results of field studies in support of this position. [13] • No agreement reached • …

  27. Outcome of RAN4#82 Meeting (continued)[6] • … • Test Time & Complexity: • Ericsson, Nokia, Alcatel-Lucent Shanghai Bell, Qualcomm & Huawei asserted that RSSI measurement uncertainty and variations among equipment vendors would make it difficult to obtain repeatable results, particularly at lower signal levels, that automation would be impossible in some cases, that test would be time consuming and that, therefore, “RAN4 coexistence tests should focus on compliance to the channel access mechanism (LBT parameters) defined in functional testing of LBT coexistence mechanisms”. [14] • WFA presented data from the execution of its Wi-Fi/LTE-U coexistence test plan, including the initial commissioning of coexistence test beds at CETECOM & AT4 Wireless, generation of Wi-Fi baseline reference data, and coexistence testing of LTE-U equipment. • …

  28. Outcome of RAN4#82 Meeting (continued)[6] • … • Based on this experience, WFA concluded that full testing could be completed in approximately one week and that additional optimization was possible to further reduce test time. [15] • General agreement that test time and complexity should be considered in specifying multi-node tests, but no specific proposals considered or adopted. • …

  29. Outcome of RAN4#82 Meeting (continued)[6] • … • Outlook • Time previously allocated for completion of the LAA coexistence test plan has been consumed • No agreement has been reached on any open issue • All text proposals introduced in RAN4#82 were withdrawn • No “Way Forward” agreed • RAN has extended the deadline until June 2017 and allocated one hour for discussion at each of the next two RAN4 WG meetings

  30. Comparison of Test Level Proposals

  31. References • [1] 3GPP TR 36.789 v0.0.3, “Multi-node tests for Licensed-Assisted Access (LAA)” • [2] 3GPP RP-141664, “Study on Licensed-Assisted Access using LTE” • [3] 3GPP TR 36.141, “E-UTRA BS conformance testing,” Release 13 (Chapter 9) • [4] 3GPP R4-1610947, “Ad-hoc minutes: Rel-13 LAA co-existence testing” • [5] 3GPP RP-162143, “TSG RAN WG4 Status Report: Study on multi-node testing for LAA” • [6] 3GPP R4-1702300, “RAN4#82 Evening Ad Hoc Meeting Report” • [7] 3GPP R4-1701227, “On the need for inclusion of future Wi-Fi system” • [8] 3GPP R4-1701625, “Traffic test cases related to multi-node tests for Rel-13 LAA” • [9] 3GPP R4-1701228, “On pass/fail criterion” • …

  32. References • … • [10] 3GPP R4-1701607, “SIR operating point for multi-node tests” • [11] 3GPP R4-1701766, “SIR simulation results” • [12] 3GPP R4-1701862, “SIR proposals for multi-node tests” • [13] 3GPP R4-1701879, “Further Implications of Wi-Fi Field Measurements for Multi-Node Testing” • [14] 3GPP R4-1701628, “On test complexity and time requirements for multi-node tests in Rel-13 LAA” • [15] 3GPP R4-1700841, “Wi-Fi / LTE Coexistence Testing Effort” • [16] 3GPP RP-170009, “Status Report RAN4 WG to TSG-RAN#75” • [17] 3GPP RP-170301, “Status Report to TSG on study on multi-node testing for LAA” • [18] 3GPP RP170721, “Way Forward on RAN4 Multi-node tests SI” • [18] 3GPP RP-170726, “Comments on RAN4 Multi-Node Test for LAA Status”

  33. What is happening this week? Review what has happened so far on the PDED issue Andrew Myles, Cisco

  34. IEEE 802 responded to 3GPP RAN1 in Nov 2016, rejecting its ED request & making a PD request • IEEE 802’s liaison in November 2016 (developed by the PDED ad hoc) explained why the 3GPP RAN1 request that 802.11ax adopt ED = -72dBm does not make sense • In particular, IEEE 802’s liaison noted such a change would cause 802.11ax devices to have a channel access disadvantage relative to: • Deployed 802.11a/n/ac devices using ED = -62dBm • LAA devices not using PD = -82dBm • The IEEE 802 liaison concluded by requesting that 3GPP RAN1 • Consider explicitly defining support for PD-based channel access in a future release of LAA specification • The IEEE 802 liaison also asked 3GPP RAN1 to • Indicate its interest in a continued dialog towards a future framework for efficient sharing of the 5 GHz band Andrew Myles, Cisco

  35. 3GPP RAN1 replied to IEEE 802 in Nov 2016, rejecting the IEEE 802 request that LAA use PD in the future • After the IEEE 802’s meeting in Nov 2016, 3GPP RAN1 provided a response (see issues 13 & 14) to PDED ad hoc’sliaison that: • Rejected the request to consider use of PD in LAA in the future • Deferred the request to continue a dialog on coexistence issues • 3GPP RAN1 did not respond to the material in the IEEE 802 liaison explaining why the use of ED of -72dBm would cause IEEE 802.11ax devices to have a channel access disadvantage relative to: • Deployed 802.11a/n/ac devices • Future LAA devices Andrew Myles, Cisco

  36. In parallel to the PDED discussion, in July 2016 IEEE 802 expressed a concern about LAA simulation validity • Summary of IEEE 802 liaision (issue 3) to 3GPP RAN1 in Jul 2016 • IEEE 802 noted their March 2016 suggestion that the LAA either detect 802.11 networks with a similar level of sensitivity to that with which 802.11 devices can detect each other or use an ED of -77dBm or lower • IEEE 802 noted that 3GPP RAN1 responded in June 2016 to the March 2016 LS by asserting simulations showed that ED of -72dBm will ensure fair coexistence between LAA and Wi-Fi • IEEE 802 expressed a concern in their July 2016 that the assertion relied upon simulations are not realistic because they used median RSSIs higher than typically found in actual indoor deployments • IEEE 802 went on to request that 3GPP RAN1 reconsider its assertion about fair coexistence between LAA and Wi-Fi in a configuration that has a larger percentage of weak 802.11 links than what is currently assumed in the 3GPP indoor model Andrew Myles, Cisco

  37. In Nov 2017, 3GPP RAN1 reiterated their confidence in the use of ED using a threshold of -72 dBm • Summary of 3GPP RAN1 response 3 liaisedto IEEE 802 in Nov 2016 • 3GPP RAN1 reiterated that ED based coexistence using a level of -72 dBm was agreed in 3GPP after considerable debate and with wide participation of stakeholders of both LAA and IEEE 802.11 technologies • 3GPP RAN1 noted that the use of PD was considered • Note: … and rejected • 3GPP RAN1 asserted that discussions considered both indoor and outdoor scenarios • Note: … in simulations • 3GPP RAN1 noted while default ED in LAA is -72dBm (UE with max tx power of 23dBm), a mechanism has been defined to allow the eNB to configure a different value in UE, and appropriate values will be studied in RAN4 • … Andrew Myles, Cisco

  38. In Nov 2017, 3GPP RAN1 reiterated their confidence in the use of ED using a threshold of -72 dBm • Summary of 3GPP RAN1 response 3 liaisedto IEEE 802 in Nov 2016 • … • 3GPP RAN1 noted that ETSI BRAN had agreed on the same ED threshold of -72dBm in the draft of EN 301 893 • Aside: this is only max value for regulatory purposes, not necessarily the “right” value • 3GPP RAN1 stated that it was undesirable to widen the asymmetry between the ED threshold of LAA (-72dBm) and 802.11 (-62dBm) • … Andrew Myles, Cisco

  39. In Nov 2017, 3GPP RAN1 reiterated their confidence in the use of ED using a threshold of -72 dBm • Summary of 3GPP RAN1 response 3 liaisedto IEEE 802 in Nov 2016 • … • 3GPP RAN1 noted that 3GPP RAN4 has decided on the development of a set of coexistence test cases including multi-node tests to verify the coexistence between LAA and IEEE 802.11 devices in various scenarios including testing above and below an ED threshold of -72dBm for LAA devices • 3GPP RAN1 noted LAA device may use mechanisms in addition to ED • Note: it is rumoured at least one vendor is implementing PD • 3GPP RAN1 noted equipment would be tested to ensure fair coexistence between LAA and 802.11 systems • Note: it is not clear who will do the testing, or if it will be mandatory Andrew Myles, Cisco

  40. The PDED ad hoc discussed a possible response to 3GPP RAN1 on the PDED issue in Jan 2017 • In Jan 2017, the PDED ad hoc reviewed 3GPP RAN1’s response to both issue 3 and issue13 and three options were discussed for next steps • Continue disagreeing via “liaison ping pong” • Ignore the response and don’t send anything • Agree to disagree in a final note • Some argued for option 2 … • “We should stop this. We should focus on improving our technology. We are wasting time for things that we could spend improving 802.11” (from minutes) • … while others argued for option 3 • Ignoring may suggest we accept all aspects of the response • It is important to document the disagreement for possible future use in other forums Andrew Myles, Cisco

  41. The PDED ad hoc agreed in Jan 2017 to consider a “agree to disagree” response to RAN1 in Mar 2017 • A straw poll narrowly gave a preference to option 3 (“agree to disagree”) • Straw poll result: 0/6/7 • The Chair volunteered to draft a possible liaison based on a very rough draft shown in Jan 2017 • Acknowledge that 3GPP RAN1 are committed to coexistence based on LAA using an ED threshold of -72dBm • Reiterate that IEEE 802 intend to base coexistence on an ED threshold of -62dBm and a PD threshold of -82dBm, based on current practice • Note that while IEEE 802 would prefer LAA used a similar mechanism, IEEE 802 will at this time accept 3GPP RAN1 assertions in multiple LS’s that fair coexistence can be achieved with LAA & Wi-Fi using differing mechanisms • Note that IEEE 802 will interpret 3GPP RANs lack of objection to the reasons Wi-Fi can’t use an ED of -72dBm as acceptance of IEEE 802’s position Andrew Myles, Cisco

  42. What is happening this week? Develop a response to 3GPP RAN1 on the PDED issue Andrew Myles, Cisco

  43. The PDED ad hoc will review a proposed “agree to disagree” liaison to 3GPP RAN1 • A proposed “agree to disagree” liaison has been developed off line • Proposed text is in separate Word file see 11-17-0292-00 • It does not actually use the “agree to disagree” language • The proposed liaison covers issues 3 and 13 • The ad hoc should tell IEEE 802.19 WG that they do not need to cover these issues in any response from them Andrew Myles, Cisco

  44. The PDED ad hoc will review a proposed “agree to disagree” liaison to 3GPP RAN1 • Main messages in proposed LS to 3GPP • IEEE 802 & 3GPP RAN1 have continued to disagree on various issues related to LAA’s ED threshold and its effect on LAA/802.11 coexistence • Summarises the various liaisons on the topic • This section is quite long (but factual) but the timeline summary will make it easier for all stakeholders (IEEE 802, 3GPP and others) to understand the historical context without ploughing through multiple documents • In the interest of resolving these outstanding issues, IEEE 802 requests that 3GPP continue to work with IEEE 802 to gather additional evidence relating to LAA/802.11 coexistence • Summarises the outstanding issues at a very high level • Focuses on the need to gather new evidence • Asks 3GPP to continue working with IEEE 802 to gather new evidence • … Andrew Myles, Cisco

  45. The PDED ad hoc will review a proposed “agree to disagree” liaison to 3GPP RAN1 • Main messages in proposed LS to 3GPP • … • IEEE 802 was encouraged by 3GPP’s commitment to gather additional evidence by validating LAA/802.11 coexistence characteristics using test plans developed by 3GPP RAN4 • Highlights RAN1 commitment to do testing in RAN4 to gather new evidence, particularly both above and below LAA ED threshold of -72dBm • IEEE 802 is now concerned that 3GPP may not undertake the promised LAA/802.11 coexistence tests before LAA’s deployment • Highlights the lack of progress in RAN4 • Notes the risks if tests are not completed and executed • … Andrew Myles, Cisco

  46. The PDED ad hoc will review a proposed “agree to disagree” liaison to 3GPP RAN1 • Main messages in proposed LS to 3GPP • … • IEEE 802 therefore requests that 3GPP reconfirm its previous commitment to validate LAA/ 802.11 coexistence using tests developed in 3GPP RAN4 before LAA’s deployment • Requests a reconfirmation of the commitment • Asks some practical questions about the testing, such as: • Date of completion of test plans • Plans for execution of tests • Process of review of results • Process for subsequent spec changes? • … Andrew Myles, Cisco

  47. The PDED ad hoc will review a proposed “agree to disagree” liaison to 3GPP RAN1 • Main messages in proposed LS to 3GPP • … • IEEE 802 also requests that 3GPP clarify its plans for other testing of LAA’s channel access mechanisms that may be relevant to LAA/802.11 coexistence • Asks 3GPP to describe the scope of its other testing in the context of 802.11 coexistence • Alternatively, in the absence of availability of timely 3GPP RAN4 testing, IEEE 802 requests 3GPP provide its perspective on extending the Wi-Fi Alliance LTE-U tests to LAA • Raises the possibility of extending (without supporting it) the WFA LTE-U/802.11 coexistence testing to cover LAA • Note that it is legitimate to discuss this because the WFA test plan is public Andrew Myles, Cisco

  48. The PDED ad hoc will review a proposed “agree to disagree” liaison to 3GPP RAN1 • See proposed liaison in 11-17-0292-01-0000 Andrew Myles, Cisco

  49. What is happening this week? Consider further data(based on simulation & testing?)for future LS’s Andrew Myles, Cisco

  50. Simulations provided one basis of the IEEE 802.11 PDED ad hoc recommendation in Nov 2016 • During the teleconferences in late 2016 it was suggested that IEEE 802.11 PDED should undertake its own simulations • Yuichi Morioka (Sony) responded to this suggestion at the San Antonio meeting in Nov 2016 by simulating the case of 802.11ax using an ED of -72dBm and legacy 802.11 using an ED of -62dBm • Title: “Simulations on the effects of changing the ED threshold from a system performance perspective” - 11-16-1451-00 • Yuichi proposed to reject 3GPP RAN1’s request to change 802.11’s ED threshold from -62dBm to -72dBm • As it is not realistic to change legacy STAs behaviour, we analysed case B) “some 802.11 STA uses ED of -72dBm”, where 802.11ax STAs use the new threshold” • In this coexistence scenario, performance of 802.11ax STAs significantly degrade, hence the request to change all new 802.11 STAs to adopt the new threshold should be rejected Andrew Myles, Cisco

More Related