TGac PHY AdHoc Report

1. TGac PHY AdHoc Report Authors: Date: 2010-05-17 Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

2. March 2010 Abstract • Agenda, Minutes and Motions for the TGac PHY Ad Hoc since November 2009 Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

3. March 2010 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 • Don’t forget attendance check during PHY AdHoc session. Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

4. March 2010 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 Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

5. March 2010 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 Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

6. March 2010 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 Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

7. March 2010 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 Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

8. March 2010 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 Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

9. March 2010 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 Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

10. March 2010 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 Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

11. March 2010 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 Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

12. March 2010 Important Questions about Patents • Are there any patent claim(s)/patent application claim(s) and/or the holder of patent claim(s)/patent application claim(s) that the participant believes may be essential for the use of that standard? • Minute any responses that were given, specifically the patent claim(s)/patent application claim(s) and/or the holder of the patent claim(s)/patent application claim(s) that were identified (if any) and by whom. Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

13. Ad Hoc Operating Rules (1/2) • 11ac selection procedure (11-09-0059r5) 5. b. A straw poll result of >=75% is required within an Ad Hoc to approve the resolution of all or part of an issue and forward that resolved item to the Taskgroup where it becomes a motion that requires >=75% approval to modify the specification framework or the draft specification. c. In the case a consensus can not be reached within an Ad Hoc group (a stalemate that prohibits further progress), the subject is moved to the Taskgroup if an Ad Hoc straw poll vote to move the subject to the Taskgroup achieves >50% approval. March 2010 Slide 13 Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

14. Ad Hoc Operating Rules (2/2) d. A motion passing with >50% in the Taskgroup shall be sufficient to move an issue previously assigned to an Ad Hoc group to any Ad Hoc group. A straw poll vote of >50% is required in an Ad Hoc group to refuse an issue from the Taskgroup. e. An issue may be sent from one Ad Hoc to another if both the sending Ad Hoc and the receiving Ad Hoc approve straw polls for taking the respective actions with >50% approval. A notice should be sent to the reflector indicating the approval of a straw poll to move an issue. f. To be accepted into the TGac Draft specification, proposals from Ad Hoc group require a motion that passes with >=75% Taskgroup approval March 2010 Slide 14 Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

15. March 2010 PHY AdHoc Topics • PHY AdHoc group discussion topics in document 11-09-1175-01-00ac-ad-hoc-groups-scope.ppt: • Pilots • Data tones • Preamble • Enhanced MCS • Sounding • Higher Bandwidth modulation • Parsing and Interleaving • Coding, STBC • Spatial Mapping & Cyclic Delays • Mask, Regulatory, ACI, Sensitivity, etc. - additional possible topics Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

16. March 2010 Running PHY AdHoc Agenda Pages Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

17. March 2010 Interpretive Guide – Text Coloring • Text coloring: • Black = pending agenda item • Red = item partially addressed • Green = item completed • Gray = item not addressed in the session indicated at the top of the slide Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

18. TGac PHY Adhoc May 17-20, 2010 Review Ad Hoc operating rules Review previous activities Review Ad Hoc scope Call for contributions Submissions Next meeting March 2010 Slide 18 Slide 18 Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

19. Submissions • 10/568r0 “Single User MCS Proposal”, Vinko Erceg (Broadcom) • 10/566r1 “Sounding and P Matrix”, Vinko Erceg (Broadcom) • 10/534r0, “Duration in L-SIG”, Youhan Kim (Atheros) • 10/548r0, “80MHz Transmission Flow”, Hongyuan Zhang (Marvell) • 10/549r0, “TGac Preamble Auto Detection Comparisons”, Hongyuan Zhang (Marvell) • 10/550r0, “VHTSIG Considerations”, Hongyuan Zhang (Marvell) • 10/370r1, “80MHz Tone Allocation”, Hongyuan Zhang (Marvell) • 10/578r0, “Preamble Parameters”, Richard Van Nee (Qualcomm) • 10/382r2, “Bit Allocation”, Joonsuk Kim (Broadcom) • 10/588r0, “Power Saving Feature Consideration”, Yujin Noh (LGE) • 10/619r0, “VHT SIG Length”, Yuichi Morioka (Sony) • 10/628r0, “802.11ac Preamble Design”, II-Gu Lee (ETRI) March 2010 Slide 19 Slide 19 Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

20. Tentative TGac Agenda for the Week Monday May 17th, PM1 10/568r0 “Single User MCS Proposal”, Vinko Erceg (Broadcom) 10/566r1 “Sounding and P Matrix”, Vinko Erceg (Broadcom) Tue March 18th, PM2 and PM3 10/370r1, “80MHz Tone Allocation”, Hongyuan Zhang (Marvell) 10/578r0, “Preamble Parameters”, Richard Van Nee (Qualcomm) 10/588r0, “Power Saving Feature Consideration”, Yujin Noh 10/548r0, “80MHz Transmission Flow”, Hongyuan Zhang (Marvell) 10/534r0, “Duration in L-SIG”, Youhan Kim (Atheros) 10/619r0, “VHT SIG Length”, Yuichi Morioka (Sony) 10/550r0, “VHTSIG Considerations”, Hongyuan Zhang (Marvell) 10/382r2, “Bit Allocation”, Joonsuk Kim (Broadcom) Straw Poll was not conducted, deferred for later March 2010 Slide 20 Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

21. Tentative TGac Agenda for the Week Wednesday May 20th, AM1 10/628r0, “802.11ac Preamble Design”, II-Gu Lee (ETRI) 10/549r0, “TGac Preamble Auto Detection Comparisons”, Hongyuan Zhang (Marvell) 10/382r2, “Bit Allocation”, Joonsuk Kim (Broadcom) Straw polls were conducted March 2010 Slide 21 Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

22. March 2010 Straw Poll on SU MCS • Do you support adding the following item into the specification framework document, 11-09/0992? • R3.3.F: The draft specification shall include SU MCS set consisting of modulation and coding levels as defined in Table on slide 9 except MCS 9 for 20 MHz BW. • Yes: 68 • No: 9 • Abs: 8 • It passes to move to task group motion Slide 22 Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

23. Straw Poll on Single LTF Section Do you support adding the following item into the specification framework document, 11-09/0992? R3.2.1.J: All VHT transmissions shall have a preamble which contains a single section of long training fields,  with each long training field multiplied by entries belonging to a single P matrix, to enable channel estimation at the receiver. Yes: 33 No: 15 Abs: 28 It fails to move to task group motion Slide 23 Vinko Erceg et al.

24. Straw Poll on NDP Do you support adding the following item into the specification framework document, 11-09/0992? R3.2.2.C: The draft specification shall include null data packet (NDP) as the only preamble format for sounding PPDUs. Yes: 31 No: 14 Abs: 39 It fails to move to task group motion Slide 24 Vinko Erceg et al.

25. Straw Poll on VHT-LTFs Do you support adding the following item into the specification framework document, 11-09/0992? R3.2.1.K: The long training fields consists of one, two, four, six or eight VHT long training fields (VHT-LTFs) that are necessary for demodulation of the VHT-Data portion of the PPDU or for channel estimation during an NDP packet. Yes: 41 No: 0 Abs: 37 It passes to move to task group motion Slide 25 Vinko Erceg et al.

26. Straw Poll on 4x4 P Matrix Do you support adding the following item into the specification framework document, 11-09/0992? R3.2.1.K: The VHT-LTF mapping matrix P for one, two or four VHT-LTFs shall be the same as defined in 802.11n standard specification (Section 20.3.9.4.6, Eq. (20-27)). Yes: 67 No: 0 Abs: 9 It passes to move to task group motion Slide 26 Vinko Erceg et al.

27. Straw Poll on 6x6 P Matrix Do you support adding the following item into the specification framework document, 11-09/0992? R3.2.1.L: The VHT-LTF mapping matrix P for six VHT-LTFs shall be as defined in slide 4 of 11-10/0566r2. Yes: 42 No: 6 Abs: 29 It passes to move to task group motion Slide 27 Vinko Erceg et al.

28. Straw Poll on 8x8 P Matrix Do you support adding the following item into the specification framework document, 11-09/0992? R3.2.1.L: The VHT-LTF mapping matrix P for eight VHT-LTFs shall be as defined in slide 5 of 11-10/0566r2. Yes: 65 No: 0 Abs: 14 It passes to move to task group motion Slide 28 Vinko Erceg et al.

29. Straw Poll on DC Tone Allocation • Do you support to add to the specification frame work document (IEEE 802.11-09/0992r9) • 3.x Data Formats • 3.x.2 OFDM Modulation:  The draft specification shall have 3 DC tones at (0, ±1) in 80MHz VHT data field. • Yes: 21 • No: 15 • Abstain: 4 • It fails to move to task group motion

30. Straw Poll on DC Tone Allocation (Repeat) • Do you support to add to the specification frame work document (IEEE 802.11-09/0992r9) • 3.x Data Formats • 3.x.2 OFDM Modulation:  The draft specification shall have 3 DC tones at (0, ±1) in 80MHz VHT data field. • Yes: 31 • No: 0 • Abstain: 12 • It passes to move to task group motion

31. Straw Poll on Null Tones at Edges • Do you support to add to the specification frame work document (IEEE 802.11-09/0992r9) • 3.x Data Formats • 3.x.2 OFDM Modulation:  The draft specification shall have 5 null tones at the upper tone edges (tone indices 123, 124, 125, 126, 127) and 6 null tones at the lower tone edges (tone indices -128, -127, -126, -125, -124, -123) of the 80MHz VHT data. • Yes: 24 • No: 4 • Abstain: 14 • It passes to move to task group motion

32. Straw Poll on Pilot Tones • Do you support to add to the specification frame work document (IEEE 802.11-09/0992r9) • 3.x Data Formats • 3.x.1 Pilot Subcarriers:  The draft specification shall have 8 pilot tones, with the positions {±103, ±75, ±39, ±11}, for 80MHz VHT data. • Yes: 29 • No: 6 • Abstain: 11 • It passes to move to task group motion

33. Straw Poll on L-STF Do you support adding to the specification framework document (IEEE 802.11-09/0992r9) 3.2.x L-STF definition: The 20 MHz L-STF pattern in the VHT preamble is as defined in 20.3.9.3.3 of Std 802.11n-2009. Yes: 38 No: 0 Abs: 0 It passes to move to task group motion Slide 33

34. Straw Poll on L-LTF Do you support adding to the specification framework document (IEEE 802.11-09/0992r9) 3.2.x: The 20 MHz L-LTF pattern in the VHT preamble is as defined in 20.3.9.3.4 of Std 802.11n-2009. Yes: 37 No: 0 Abs: 0 It passes to move to task group motion Slide 34

35. Straw Poll on Cyclic Shift Do you support adding to the specification framework document (IEEE 802.11-09/0992r9) 3.2.x: The CSD (Cyclic Shift Diversity) values for up to 4 antennas in L-STF, L-LTF, and L-SIG are the same as the CSD values for the non-HT portion of the packet defined in Table 20-8 of Std 802.11n-2009. Yes: 36 No: 0 Abs: 0 It passes to move to task group motion Slide 35

36. Straw Poll on Cyclic Shift Do you support adding to the specification framework document (IEEE 802.11-09/0992r9) 3.2.x: The CSD (Cyclic Shift Diversity) values for up to 4 antennas in VHT-SIG-A are the same as the CSD values for the non-HT portion of the packet defined in Table 20-8 of Std 802.11n-2009. Yes: 38 No: 0 Abs: 0 It passes to move to task group motion Slide 36

37. Straw Poll on L-STF Do you support adding to the specification framework document (IEEE 802.11-09/0992r9) 3.2.x: The number of subcarriers and subcarrier positions of L-STF are the same as those of the 20 MHz 11n L-STF in each 20 MHz subchannel. Yes: 38 No: 0 Abs: 0 It passes to move to task group motion Slide 37

38. Straw Poll on VHT-STF(Postponed) Do you support adding to the specification framework document (IEEE 802.11-09/0992r9) 3.2.x: The number of subcarriers and subcarrier positions of VHT-STF are the same as those of the 20 MHz 11n L-STF in each 20 MHz subchannel Yes: No: Abs: It passes to move to task group motion Slide 38

39. Straw Poll on Subcarriers for L-LTF, L-SIG, and VHT-SIG-A Do you support adding to the specification framework document (IEEE 802.11-09/0992r9) 3.2.x: The number of subcarriers and pilots, including subcarrier positions, of L-LTF, L-SIG, and VHT-SIG-A are the same as those for the 20 MHz 11n L-LTF and L-SIG in each 20 MHz subchannel. Yes: 38 No: 0 Abs: 0 It passes to move to task group motion Slide 39

40. Straw Poll on Subcarriers for VHT-LTF and VHT-DATA in 20 and 40 MHz Do you support adding to the specification framework document (IEEE 802.11-09/0992r9) 3.2.x: The number of subcarriers and pilots, including subcarrier positions, of VHT-LTF and VHT-DATA symbols in 20 and 40 MHz channels are the same as those for 11n HT-LTF and HT-DATA in 20 and 40 MHz channels. Yes: 35 No: 0 Abs: 3 It passes to move to task group motion Slide 40

41. Straw Poll on Length Field • Do you support adding the following item into the specification framework document, 11-09/0992? • R3.2.X: The number of OFDM symbols in a VHT packet shall be computed using the length field in L-SIG. • Yes: 15 • No: 18 • Abstain: 5 • It fails to move to task group motion May 2010 Slide 41 Youhan Kim, et al.

42. Straw Poll on VHT-SIG-A Autodetect (1) Do you support to do the following insertion to the specification frame work document (IEEE 802.11-09/0992r9) R3.2.1.G: The 1st symbol of VHT-SIG-A shall be BPSK modulated. The subsequent symbol of VHT-SIG-A shall be 90-degree rotated BPSK (QBPSK) modulated on the data subcarriers whose indices are 4n+1, 4n+2, 4n+3 and BPSK modulated on the data subcarriers whose indices are 4n (n=0,1,2,..11) for VHT auto-detect. Yes: 33 No: 34 Abstain: 11 It fails to move to task group motion Slide 42 Il-Gu Lee et al.

43. Straw Poll on VHT-SIG-A Autodetect (2) • Do you support to do the following changes to the specification frame work document (IEEE 802.11-09/0992r9) • R3.2.1.G: The 1st symbol of VHT-SIG-A shall be BPSK modulated. The subsequent symbol(s) second symbol of VHT-SIG-A shall be 90-degree rotated BPSK (QBPSK) modulated on its data tones for VHT auto-detect. • Yes: 36 • No: 29 • Abstain: 11 • It fails to move to task group motion

44. Straw Poll on Smoothing Bit • Do you support excluding smoothing bit in VHT-SIG and stating this in the spec framework document, 11-09-0992? • Yes: 54 • No: 5 • Abs: 11 • It passes to move to task group motion

45. Straw Poll on Non-sounding Bit • Do you support excluding non-sounding bit in VHT-SIG and stating this in the spec framework document, 11-09-0992? • Yes: 38 • No: 11 • Abs: 24 • It passes to move to task group motion

46. Straw Poll on a Specific GroupID Value • Do you support the specific usage of a GroupID value of zero as described in Slide 6 of 11-10-0382r2 and stating this in the spec framework document, 11-09-0992? • Yes: 47 • No: 0 • Abs: 21 • It passes to move to task group motion

47. Straw Poll on Bits for GroupID Field(Postponed) • Do you support 6 bits for GroupID field (i.e., y=6 in slide 6) and stating this in the spec framework document, 11-09-0992? • Yes: • No: • Abs: • It xx to move to task group motion

48. Straw Poll on MCS field- Old Business - • Do you support allowing only the same modulation and the same coding rate and coding type across all streams belonging to each user for multi user case as well, and stating this in the spec framework document, 11-09-0992? • Yes: 51 • No: 2 • Abs: 5 • It passes to move to task group motion

49. Straw Poll on STBC Bit- Old Business - • Do you support to have one bit to indicate STBC mode (Alamouti scheme) and stating this in the spec framework document, 11-09-0992? • Yes: 57 • No: 0 • Abs: 4 • It passes to move to task group motion

50. Straw Poll on Autodetect • Do you support bringing Autodect decision into TG? • Yes: 38 • No: 26 • Abs: 12 • It passes to move to task group motion (50% threshold met)