1 / 32

ARC-SC-agenda-March-2018

ARC-SC-agenda-March-2018. Authors:. Date: 2018-03-05. Abstract. Agenda for: ARC SC, March 2018, Rosemont, Illinois, USA. IEEE 802.11 Architecture Standing Committee. Agenda March 2018 session Chair: Mark Hamilton (Ruckus/ARRIS) Vice Chair: Joe Levy ( InterDigital ).

fcastaneda
Download Presentation

ARC-SC-agenda-March-2018

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. ARC-SC-agenda-March-2018 Authors: Date: 2018-03-05

  2. Abstract Agenda for: ARC SC, March 2018, Rosemont, Illinois, USA

  3. IEEE 802.11 Architecture Standing Committee Agenda March 2018 session Chair: Mark Hamilton (Ruckus/ARRIS) Vice Chair: Joe Levy (InterDigital)

  4. Tuesday, March 6th, AM2

  5. Attendance, etc. • Reminders to attendees: • Sign in for .11 attendance credit • Noises off • No recordings

  6. Participants, Patents, and Duty to Inform All participants in this meeting have certain obligations under the IEEE-SA Patent Policy. • Participants [Note: Quoted text excerpted from IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws subclause 6.2]: • “Shall inform the IEEE (or cause the IEEE to be informed)” of the identity of each “holder of any potential Essential Patent Claims of which they are personally aware” if the claims are owned or controlled by the participant or the entity the participant is from, employed by, or otherwise represents • “Should inform the IEEE (or cause the IEEE to be informed)” of the identity of “any other holders of potential Essential Patent Claims” (that is, third parties that are not affiliated with the participant, with the participant’s employer, or with anyone else that the participant is from or otherwise represents) • The above does not apply if the patent claim is already the subject of an Accepted Letter of Assurance that applies to the proposed standard(s) under consideration by this group • Early identification of holders of potential Essential Patent Claims is strongly encouraged • No duty to perform a patent search

  7. Patent Related Links All participants should be familiar with their obligations under the IEEE-SA Policies & Procedures for standards development. Patent Policy is stated in these sources: IEEE-SA Standards Boards Bylaws http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/bylaws/sect6-7.html#6 IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/opman/sect6.html#6.3 Material about the patent policy is available at http://standards.ieee.org/about/sasb/patcom/materials.html If you have questions, contact the IEEE-SA Standards Board Patent Committee Administrator at patcom@ieee.org or visit http://standards.ieee.org/about/sasb/patcom/index.html This slide set is available at https://development.standards.ieee.org/myproject/Public/mytools/mob/slideset.ppt

  8. 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

  9. Participation in IEEE 802 Meetings Participation in any IEEE 802 meeting (Sponsor, Sponsor subgroup, Working Group, Working Group subgroup, etc.) is on an individual basis •     Participants in the IEEE standards development individual process shall act based on their qualifications and experience. (https://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/bylaws/sb_bylaws.pdfsection 5.2.1) •    IEEE 802 Working Group membership is by individual; “Working Group members shall participate in the consensus process in a manner consistent with their professional expert opinion as individuals, and not as organizational representatives”. (subclause 4.2.1 “Establishment”, of the IEEE 802 LMSC Working Group Policies and Procedures) •    Participants have an obligation to act and vote as an individual and not under the direction of any other individual or group. A Participant’s obligation to act and vote as an individual applies in all cases, regardless of any external commitments, agreements, contracts, or orders. •    Participants shall not direct the actions or votes of any other member of an IEEE 802 Working Group or retaliate against any other member for their actions or votes within IEEE 802 Working Group meetings, see https://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/bylaws/sb_bylaws.pdf section 5.2.1.3 and the IEEE 802 LMSC Working Group Policies and Procedures, subclause 3.4.1 “Chair”, list item x. By participating in IEEE 802 meetings, you accept these requirements. If you do not agree to these policies then you shall not participate. (Latest revision of IEEE 802 LMSC Working Group Policies and Procedures: http://www.ieee802.org/devdocs.shtml)

  10. 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 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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.

  11. ARC Agenda – March 2018 Tuesday, March 6, AM2 • Administrative: Minutes • IEEE 1588 mapping to IEEE 802.11/802.1ASrev use of FTM update - 11-17/1086r4 • 802 (and 802.1) activities: 802c, 802.1CQ • IETF/802 coordination • TGax approach to subclause 10.2 and Figure 10-1: 11-18/0362r0 • YANG/NETCONF modeling discussions – 11-16/1436r1 Tuesday, March 6, PM2 • “What is an ESS?” (Tues PM2) • MLME-RESET, versus MLME-JOIN and MLME-START • AP/DS/Portal architecture and 802 and GLK concepts - 11-17/0136r2, 11-16/1512r0, 11-16/0720r0, 11-15/0454r0, 11-14/1213r1 (slides 9-11) • Continue the above Wednesday, March 7, AM1 • Investigation of WUR architecture topics; may lead into “split” PHYs (LC, 28 GHz (Phazr)): 11-17/1025r0 (Wed AM1) • Continue the above • Future sessions / SC activities

  12. ARC Minutes • January face-to-face minutes: • 11-18/0224r0

  13. IEEE 1588 mapping to IEEE 802.11/802.1ASrev use of FTM update • Update (Ganesh Venkatesan) • IEEE 1588/802.1AS • 802.1ASrev use of 802.11 FTM: • 11-17/1086r4 (Ganesh Venkatesan)

  14. IEEE 802 activities directly related to IEEE 802.11 ARC • Update (Mark Hamilton) • 802.1Q revision underway, D2.2 Sponsor ballot closed Feb 28. • 100% approval • 1 comment. Editorial. • Roll-in: • IEEE Std 802.1Qcd-2015, IEEE Std 802.1Qca-2015, IEEE Std 802.1Q-2014 Cor 1-2015, IEEE Std 802.1Qbv-2015, IEEE Std 802.1Qbu-2016, IEEE Std 802.1Qbz-2016, IEEE Std 802.1Qci-2017, IEEE Std 802.1Qch-2017 • 802c, and (follow-on) 802.1CQ • Relation to 802.11aq • Other correlations or implications?

  15. IETF/802 coordination • Dorothy Stanley present topics of interest: • Deterministic networks? • Multicast (note: WNG presentation 11-17/1736, also)? • “RFC 8290 and applicability of Flow Control Controlled Delay (FC-CoDel) to Wi-Fi/802.11 systems for reduction of latency and jitter.” • See https://www.ietf.org/blog/blind-men-and-elephant/, the Wi-Fi section, and included references.

  16. TGax architecture topics • TGax approach to subclause 10.2 and Figure 10-1: 11-18/0362r0 • Initially discussed in Sep, 2017 (see 11-17/1220r2 and 11-17/1396r1) • Presentations: • New comments received, and resolutions proposed • 11-18/0362r0

  17. Discussion on YANG/NETCONF models • We have a likely window now to make a MIB change/addition, if any, during REVmd maintenance activities • Scott Mansfield presentation/discussion: • http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2017/yang-parsons-open-source-motivation-1217.pdf • <tbd> • 802.1 work; YANGsters; 802.1Qcc; 802.1Xck; 802.1ABcu • https://yangcatalog.org/; https://1.ieee802.org/yangsters/ • https://github.com/YangModels/yang • UML • IEEE 1588 connection? IETF-802 coordination connection? IEEE 1930 connection? • First/next steps discussion (ARC, or new TIG?) • 802.11k/v stuff? FTM? • Related Submissions: • https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/16/11-16-1436-00-0arc-yang-modelling-and-netconf-protocol-discussion.pptx • www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2016/cc-cummings-REST-0516-v00.pdf (RESTCONF)

  18. Tuesday, March 6th, PM2

  19. What is an ESS? • Current definition depends on the relationship to LLC • “A set of one or more interconnected basic service sets (BSSs) that appears as a single BSS to the logical link control (LLC) layer at any station (STA) associated with one of those BSSs.” • That would mean a 802.1 Bridged LAN (for example) creates an ESS. Probably not what we (802.11) meant. • We probably meant something about transparency of “location of attachment”/”mobility”, from whatever is using the 802.11 MAC • and other entities, necessary to accomplish this? ESS == demarcation of this transparency?? • Is it: • Transparent to whatever upper layer is above 802.11? • Includes entities beyond (above?) 802.11? (Like bridges in the 11ak scenario?) • The APs have to have some common/similar configuration settings? (SSID, at least. Probably other facilities (security, etc.) and policies?) • Changes to Figure 4-1: ‘BSS’s are just STAs. These ovals are BSAs. Also, should we be saying “OBSA”?

  20. What is an ESS? (Continued) • Current definition depends on the relationship to LLC • “A set of one or more interconnected basic service sets (BSSs) that appears as a single BSS to the logical link control (LLC) layer at any station (STA) associated with one of those BSSs.” • We probably meant something about transparency of “location of attachment”/”mobility”, from whatever is using the 802.11 MAC 802 Services • includes other entities, necessary to accomplish this? (EAP Auth Service? Bridges (11ak)? ANQP, etc?)ESS boundary == demarcation of this transparency?? Yes, + common domain of “mobility” that works, including security, policy, etc., necessary for mobility that actually works. • Is it: • Transparent to whatever upper layer is above 802.11? No, boundary may be higher than that • Includes entities beyond (above?) 802.11? (Like bridges in the 11ak scenario?) Yes, as needed • The APs have to have some common/similar configuration settings? (SSID, at least. Probably other facilities (security, etc.) and policies?) Yes. • Changes to Figure 4-1: ‘BSS’s are just STAs. These ovals are BSAs. Also, should we be saying “OBSA”?

  21. What is an ESS? – Direction? Straw proposal - ESS is: [Edit this list, per discussion] Set of one of more basic services sets (BSSs) Appears as a single logical network, to layers above the ESS boundary The boundary might be above 802 (above Layer 2), or might be within Layer 2 (the MAC SAP, etc.) The boundary must exist/be clear for participating end stations (see 802 O&A), and external devices that can interwork with the participating end stations Provides transparency of “location of attachment” / “mobility”, as seen by layers above the ESS boundary, on both participating end stations and external end stations. Includes all entities necessary to provide the services and transparency required. Has a common domain of mobility and a common security and policies and configuration necessary to deliver the transparency from mobility.

  22. ESS and HESS? What is an HESS (from the term “HESSID”)? “Homogenous [sic] extended service set (ESS)” Is an HESS a type of ESS, or a separate (perhaps similar) concept? MSGCF has an “ESSIdentifier”, which is the concatenation of SSID and HESSID. Why/when do we need both? Is this related to an SSPN? No not really – the SSPN is independent of any HESSID assignment. SSPN is a destination where I am being taken to. See Figure R-2. (Also, in figure R-2 and Figure 4-8, the AAA server/client look to be in the data path – this doesn’t make sense. Ans, why are the BSSs not labeled BSSs?)

  23. HESS concepts(not necessarily what 802.11 says, now) • HESS purpose is to support 802.21 and/or WFA Passpoint/Hotspot 2.0 • HESS is either/both consistent authentication, or equivalent access • HESS is identifiable by HESSID, which is globally unique (MAC Address); identifies the SP (but perhaps not one-to-one) • HESS can/cannot span different ESSs or SSIDs • Corollary: Which (if either) of these is related to 802.11 handoff? • Homogenous is misspelled • Discuss off-line with WFA experts, 802.21 experts…

  24. MLME-RESET, versus MLME-JOIN and MLME-START Topic out of REVmd: • No apparent requirement for an “initial” MLME-RESET, in 802.11. So, what is the initial state? • Many MIB attributes describe taking effect at next MLME-JOIN or MLME-START. • MLME-JOIN occurs at each BSS transition • MLME-START occurs at less well-defined points, seems to require an MLME-RESET first • Do these attributes really take effect at these points, or at the MLME-RESET? • How about other state information, such as security association, block ack agreements, etc., etc.?

  25. AP/DS/Portal architecture and 802 concepts • Presentations on architectural description(s) • https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/17/11-17-0136-02-0arc-bridging-architecture-considerations.docx • Reference presentations (previously reviewed, current status of thinking): • https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/14/11-14-1213-01-0arc-ap-arch-concepts-and-distribution-system-access.pptx • https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/13/11-13-0115-15-0arc-considerations-on-ap-architectural-models.doc • https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/14/11-14-0497-03-0arc-802-11-portal-and-802-1ac-convergence-function.pptx • https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/14/11-14-0562-05-00ak-802-11ak-and-802-1ac-convergence-function.pptx • https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/15/11-15-0454-00-0arc-some-more-ds-architecture-concepts.pptx • https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/16/11-16-0720-00-0arc-stacked-architecture-discussion.pptx

  26. Wednesday, March 7th, AM1

  27. TGba architecture topics • Investigation of TGba (WUR) architecture topics • may lead into discussion of other “split” PHYs (LC, 28 GHz (Phazr)) • Presentations: • 11-17/1025r0 • Also see following slides • TGba is still maturing, through the SFD process. Targeted March session to continue substantive discussions (?)

  28. TGba architecture comments/answers to questions in 11-17/1025 (from July 10 TGba) Yes, fully independent PHY Probably independent MAC? Always co-located with AP or non-AP STA – a “companion” radio No MAC Address (?) WUR MAC (assuming it is independent) does need to coordinate with the main MAC. Main MAC negotiates a WUR ID on WUR’s behalf, for example. And, power on/off needs to be coordinated between them – might be through higher layer entity, though (?) WUR does not associate to the BSS (it doesn’t have a MAC Address) WUR only runs in 2.4/5 GHz. But, can work with all PHYs (maybe?) Mesh, IBSS, OCB uses are TBD in the future, not now

  29. TGba architecture new questions (from July 12 ARC) Does every WUR stack have an individual “ID” (“WUR address”)? Or, could a given WUR stack be only addressed using a “group ID” in some scenarios? How are WUR ID’s made globally unique, or are they? What about overlapping WUR coverage? Prevented using the same solution as security protections? Prevented through selection of different sub-carriers? How does the WUR stack become aware of ongoing NAV protections? RX doesn’t need to know. What about the TXr? For protection – how much of a legacy frame header is sent? Just PHY header? Some MAC header (addresses? NAV? Etc) Is there any sharing (necessarily, as part of the design, not implementation choice) of RF front-end? What happens when the Main stack wakes up? Does it still have an association? Is it in some power save state (which)? “Yes, fully independent PHY” – is that for the RX side, or the TX side? What about error recovery? STA goes out of range? What if the AP changes (DFS, ITS, etc)?

  30. TGba architecture potential assumptions (from July 12 ARC) How does the WUR stack become aware of ongoing NAV protections? RX doesn’t need to know. The master’s Main stack runs the usual medium access, and wait until it has a TXop, then triggers the WUR to TX. On the RXr, only one stack (WUR or Main) are active at a given point in time. When the Main stack wakes up, it still has an association and is in a power save state (a new “WUR” power save state). The Main stack TXs, which is the indication that the wakeup was successful and completed. There are 100% RX WURs, at the sleeping node. There are TXrs, on the master node, and these are therefore (potentially) different architecturally. The WUR “wakeup” frame does not NAV protect to cover the sleeping device’s Main radio waking up and TXing. Review 11-17/972 to confirm/before proceeding on the above

  31. ARC Future Activities & sessions • ARC SC meets when a specific focused task is requested of the SC for which the is sufficient volunteer interest. • Continue work on architectural models, and liaison with TGs in development of their architecture as appropriate • Consider YANG/NETCONF • Investigation of WUR architecture topics; may lead into “split” PHYs (LC, 28 GHz (Phazr)) • Will also follow 802.1/802.11 activities on links, bridging, and MAC Service definition – “What is an ESS?”, for example • MLME-RESET, versus MLME-JOIN and MLME-START • Monitor/report on IETF/802 activities, as needed • Monitor/report on IEEE 1588 activities and 802.1ASrev use of FTM, as needed If you have ANY other topic that you would like ARC SC to consider, contact the SC chair.

  32. Planning for May 2018 • Plan for three individual meeting slots • Usual slot on Wed AM1 • Another 2 slots for standalone ARC work (Monday/Tuesday?) • Plus Joint sessions: TGba? • Individuals interested in ARC work are encouraged to also attend AANI SC sessions • Teleconferences: • Schedule with 10 days notice

More Related