1 / 50

Discussion of straw poll results

Discussion of straw poll results. Andrew Myles 8 November 2001. The straw poll demonstrates that there is significant disagreement within the group that we need to resolve. Yes comments:

barryshaw
Download Presentation

Discussion of straw poll results

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. Discussion of straw poll results Andrew Myles 8 November 2001 Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

  2. The straw poll demonstrates that there is significant disagreement within the group that we need to resolve Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

  3. Yes comments: I might be willing to change my stance if someone suggested a better way to do dynamic TPC, on the grounds its use will reduce interference which is the same goal as the regulations No comments: I don't concur with the description of what this feature provides - it seems to provide power _used_ estimation, which could be determined from a priori knowledge (ie state based information) Dynamic TPC is not required by the ERC. The facility is broken without margin reporting and using the SERVICE field is dangerous Of course 11h facilities could be used for dynamic TPC. However, the draft should not describe this use or provide extra facilities to support it Other comments: Prefer to use MAC level frames. Service field should not be used The group is divided as to whether the SERVICE field should be used to support dynamic TPC Question? 1 Possibility to estimate transmit power needed (Transmitted Power bits in SERVICE field) Needed? Retain? Yes 10 7 Uncertain 0 0 No 5 8 Result? Divided Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

  4. Questions: Do the three people that said this facility is needed but should not be retained want to use MAC frames to support dynamic TPC instead? Do the people who want to retain this facility also want to add a “receive margin” in the SERVICE field? What else is included in thinking See AFM presentation that states, “There are no compelling reasons to include support for dynamic TPC in TGh’s future drafts” Motions: The editor is directed to remove all explicit support for dynamic TPC from the TGh draft The group is divided as to whether the SERVICE field should be used to support dynamic TPC Question? 1 Possibility to estimate transmit power needed (Transmitted Power bits in SERVICE field) Needed? Retain? Yes 10 7 Uncertain 0 0 No 5 8 Result? Divided Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

  5. Yes comments: No comments: Not useful AT ALL I vote to not retain only because of the obvious lack of support for experimental features such as this Other comments: D1.0 only defined reporting, not detection The group tends strongly towards wanting to remove hidden station reporting Question? 2 Hidden station detection and reporting (Hidden station frame & element and their usage) Needed? Retain? Yes 1 1 Uncertain 0 0 No 14 14 Result? Nearly remove Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

  6. Questions: Why did someone believe that hidden station reporting should be retained? Motions: The editor is directed to remove text related to hidden station reporting The group tends strongly towards wanting to remove hidden station reporting Question? 2 Hidden station detection and reporting (Hidden station frame & element and their usage) Needed? Retain? Yes 1 1 Uncertain 0 0 No 14 14 Result? Nearly remove Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

  7. Yes comments: No comments: Other comments: Actually the Power Constraint element, as defined in the D1.0 indicates the mitigation, not the maximum power, for the current channel only. The group is unanimous in wanting to define the local maximum transmit power using the Power Constraint element Question? 3 Indication of the maximum transmit power for the channel currently in use (Power Constraint element) Needed? Retain? Yes 14 14 Uncertain 1 1 No 0 0 Result? Retain Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

  8. Questions: The one uncertain person appears to be confused about the distinction between the local and regulatory maximum transmit powers Motions: None required The group is unanimous in wanting to define the local maximum transmit power using the Power Constraint element Question? 3 Indication of the maximum transmit power for the channel currently in use (Power Constraint element) Needed? Retain? Yes 14 14 Uncertain 1 1 No 0 0 Result? Retain Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

  9. Yes comments: No comments: There is nothing in the ERC doc about transmit capability Other comments: The group is divided as to whether the Power Capability element should be used to indicate maximum power capability Question? 4 Indication of the maximum transmit power the STA is capable of transmitting with (Power Capability element) Needed? Retain? Yes 9 11 Uncertain 1 0 No 5 4 Result? Divided Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

  10. Questions: Maximum power capability appears to be concerned with performance management ie we can reject STAs that have a low power capability. Could someone explain the relevance of Power Capability to the ERC (99)/23? If we really want to retain this facility then it needs to be fixed. See AFM presentation that concludes: “The current TPC specification relating to the definition of constraints and capabilities is inconsistent and lacking in functionality” Motions: The editor is directed to remove all text related to Power Capability The group is divided as to whether the Power Capability element should be used to indicate maximum power capability Question? 4 Indication of the maximum transmit power the STA is capable of transmitting with (Power Capability element) Needed? Retain? Yes 9 11 Uncertain 1 0 No 5 4 Result? Divided Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

  11. Yes comments: It seems to me that between this item and #3, only one item is really needed and the other one is not. So I chose this one and Uncertain about #3. No comments: Other comments: The group is unanimous in wanting to indicate the regulatory maximum transmit power using the Country element Question? 5 Indication of the maximum transmit power allowed in each channel (Country element) Needed? Retain? Yes 15 15 Uncertain 0 0 No 0 0 Result? Retain Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

  12. Questions: The one comment appears to be based on confusion about the distinction between the local and regulatory maximum transmit powers Motions: None required The group is unanimous in wanting to indicate the regulatory maximum transmit power using the Country element Question? 5 Indication of the maximum transmit power allowed in each channel (Country element) Needed? Retain? Yes 15 15 Uncertain 0 0 No 0 0 Result? Retain Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

  13. Yes comments: TGh should not limit the use of TPC or DFS. Useful applications should be allowed (twice) No comments: There is nothing in the ERC doc about range control Of course 11h facilities could be used for range control. However, the draft should not describe this use or provide extra facilities to support it. Other comments: The group is divided on whether 802.11h features should be used for range control Question? 6 Possible use of any of the features for range control Needed? Retain? Yes 10 10 Uncertain 1 1 No 4 4 Result? Divided Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

  14. Questions: Range control is clearly possible using the Power Constraint element - does it really require explicit description in the text? The answer to this question hinges on how ERC (99)/23 is read (particular “notes b”) – there are two possible interpretations: It is concerned with interference between HIPERLAN systems as well as between HIPERLAN and licensed systems It is only concerned with interference between HIPERLAN and licensed systems Motions: The editor is directed to remove all text that describe the use of facilities for the purpose of range control The editor is directed to ensure the text does not disallow the use of the facilities for the purpose of range control The group is divided on whether 802.11h features should be used for range control Question? 6 Possible use of any of the features for range control Needed? Retain? Yes 10 10 Uncertain 1 1 No 4 4 Result? Divided Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

  15. Yes comments: No comments: There is nothing in the ERC about channel selection for performance optimisation Of course 11h facilities could be used for channel selection optimisation. However, the draft should not describe this use or provide extra facilities to support it One could would need to be careful not to break the uniform spreading rules when selecting channels for performance reasons Other comments: Again, this "feature" is the opening sentence for the whole DFS section, reflecting the draft approach to DFS; which is yet another reason for my suspicion towards all DFS mechanisms The group is divided on whether channel may be selected to optimise performance Question? 7 Use of DFS to "select the best channel for performance reasons" (either at the start-up phase or during the "normal operation") Needed? Retain? Yes 12 12 Uncertain 0 0 No 3 3 Result? Divided Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

  16. Questions: Where does ERC (99)/23 mention channel selection for performance optimisation? Where does ERC (99)/23 imply the need for channel selection for performance optimisation? Is there a possibility that selecting channels for performance reasons could break uniform spreading rules? Could the person who is “suspicious” expand on their concerns? Motions: The editor is directed to remove all text that describes channel selection for performance reasons The editor is directed to ensure the text does not disallow the use of performance criteria for channel selection The group is divided on whether channel may be selected to optimise performance Question? 7 Use of DFS to "select the best channel for performance reasons" (either at the start-up phase or during the "normal operation") Needed? Retain? Yes 12 12 Uncertain 0 0 No 3 3 Result? Divided Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

  17. Yes comments: This promotes ERC 93 goal of spectrum spreading This could help to avoid co-channel operation with other system. No comments: There is nothing in the ERC about overlapping BSS avoidance. Of course 11h facilities could be used for overlap avoidance. However, the draft should not describe this use or provide extra facilities to support it. Other comments: The group is divided on whether DFS facilities should be defined to avoid overlapping BSSs Question? 8 Use of DFS to avoid overlapping BSSs Needed? Retain? Yes 12 12 Uncertain 0 0 No 3 3 Result? Divided Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

  18. Questions: Can uniform channel spreading sufficient for regulatory approval be implemented without BSS overlap detection? It is claimed BSS overlap detection assists avoidance of interference between HIPERLANs. This is true, but is this relevant when attempting to satisfy ERC (99)/23, which is only concerned with interference with licensed users? Motions: The editor is directed to remove all text that describes BSS overlap detection mechanisms The editor is directed to ensure the text does not disallow the use of measurements for BSS overlap detection The group is divided on whether DFS facilities should be defined to avoid overlapping BSSs Question? 8 Use of DFS to avoid overlapping BSSs Needed? Retain? Yes 12 12 Uncertain 0 0 No 3 3 Result? Divided Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

  19. Yes comments: Detecting other BSSs is useful in the sense that if ALL energy in a channel is from other BSSs one can conclude there is no licensed user in the channel. This would give characteristics of the interference source, which might make easier to avoid the interference This promotes ERC 93 goal of spectrum spreading. No comments: This facility is not needed if we can identify all licensed users by other means. Other comments: The group is tending towards retaining facilities are needed to detect other BSSs Question? 9 Detection of other BSSs (Generally, details in questions 16-19) Needed? Retain? Yes 12 12 Uncertain 1 1 No 2 2 Result? Nearly retain Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

  20. Questions: Why does the existence of another BSS indicate that a licensed user is not also operating in the band? Wouldn’t it be more useful to know that all (and not at least some) transmissions were from another BSS? Can’t uniform channel spreading sufficient for regulatory approval be implemented without BSS detection? Why is easy avoidance of interference, given the interference source is another BSS, relevant to ERC (99)/23? Motions: None yet The group is tending towards retaining facilities are needed to detect other BSSs Question? 9 Detection of other BSSs (Generally, details in questions 16-19) Needed? Retain? Yes 12 12 Uncertain 1 1 No 2 2 Result? Nearly retain Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

  21. Yes comments: No comments: RSSI statistics do a better job. Not enough information for radar detection. We may need some other reports instead. Other comments: While the CCA stuff could be useful, it is not clear how the mechanism works to detect licensed users The group is divided on whether CCA measurements are useful Question? 10 Measurement of CCA Busy Periods (Generally, details in questions 20-21) Needed? Retain? Yes 6 6 Uncertain 2 2 No 7 7 Result? Divided Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

  22. Questions: Could someone explain the gory details of how CCA busy period measurement may be used to detect licensed users? Are CCA busy period measurements sufficient to detect licensed users? When are CCA busy period measurements not useful to detect licensed users? Is there are better way to do the same job? Will this require chip spins for existing implementations? Motions: The editor is directed to remove all text that describes CCA measurement mechanisms The group is divided on whether CCA measurements are useful Question? 10 Measurement of CCA Busy Periods (Generally, details in questions 20-21) Needed? Retain? Yes 6 6 Uncertain 2 2 No 7 7 Result? Divided Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

  23. Yes comments: I read this question as the general question of whether to measure signal strength, where perhaps not all measurements are needed, per the detailed questions below This is required to accurately assess the interference environment No comments: Other comments: While the RSSI stats could be useful, it is not clear how the mechanism works to detect licensed users The group is unanimous in wanting to retain some received signal strength statistics Question? 11 Measurement of received signal strength statistics (Generally, details in questions 15 and 22-23) Needed? Retain? Yes 13 14 Uncertain 2 1 No 0 0 Result? Retain Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

  24. Questions: Has anyone detailed the algorithms required to detect licensed users based on the received signal strength statistics? Motions: None yet The group is unanimous in wanting to retain some received signal strength statistics Question? 11 Measurement of received signal strength statistics (Generally, details in questions 15 and 22-23) Needed? Retain? Yes 13 14 Uncertain 2 1 No 0 0 Result? Retain Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

  25. Yes comments: Mechanism is used to get STA's out of channels with licensed users No comments: Other comments: The group is unanimous in wanting to retain the channel switch announcement Question? 12 Indication of the new frequency channel and switching time (Channel Switch Announcement element) Needed? Retain? Yes 15 15 Uncertain 0 0 No 0 0 Result? Retain Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

  26. Questions: Motions: None The group is unanimous in wanting to retain the channel switch announcement Question? 12 Indication of the new frequency channel and switching time (Channel Switch Announcement element) Needed? Retain? Yes 15 15 Uncertain 0 0 No 0 0 Result? Retain Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

  27. Yes comments: No comments: There is nothing in the ERC about detecting selecting channels based on capability. In fact, in some cases such channel selection schemes will break the uniform channel spreading rule Other comments: The group is tending towards retaining the supported channels element Question? 13 Indication of the channels a STA is capable of operating in (Supported Channels element) Needed? Retain? Yes 13 13 Uncertain 0 0 No 2 2 Result? Nearly retain Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

  28. Questions: AFM withdraws negative vote (now 14-0-1) Can the other “no” voter expand on his “no” vote Motions: None yet The group is tending towards retaining the supported channels element Question? 13 Indication of the channels a STA is capable of operating in (Supported Channels element) Needed? Retain? Yes 13 13 Uncertain 0 0 No 2 2 Result? Nearly retain Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

  29. Yes comments: No comments: This facility only appears to be in the draft to parallel Hiperlan2 facilities. Other comments: The purpose for this facility is unclear Isn't this TPC? The group is tending towards retaining the power level adjustment in the channel measurement report Question? 14 Indication of the maximum transmit power for the channel currently in use (Power Level Adjustment in the Channel Measurement Report) Needed? Retain? Yes 13 13 Uncertain 1 1 No 1 1 Result? Nearly retain Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

  30. Questions: What is this facility used for? How is this facility related to European regulations? Motions None yet The group is tending towards retaining the power level adjustment in the channel measurement report Question? 14 Indication of the maximum transmit power for the channel currently in use (Power Level Adjustment in the Channel Measurement Report) Needed? Retain? Yes 13 13 Uncertain 1 1 No 1 1 Result? Nearly retain Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

  31. Yes comments: This is necessary to help calibrate RSSI levels. It will enhance accuracy when measurements are made by different STAs No comments: This facility only appears to be in the draft to parallel Hiperlan2 facilities Other comments: The purpose for this facility is unclear The group is divided on whether the energy during PLCP of most recent own Beacon is useful Question? 15 Indication of the energy during the PLCP preamble of the most recent Beacon received from the current AP (Own Beacon RSSI in Channel Measurement Report) Needed? Retain? Yes 9 11 Uncertain 0 0 No 6 4 Result? Divided Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

  32. Questions: How are the “calibrate RSSI levels” useful for detecting licensed users? What is this field used for in Hiperlan2? Will this require chip spins for existing implementations? Motions: The editor is directed to remove all text that describes energy measurements during a PLCP header of most recent Beacon The group is divided on whether the energy during PLCP of most recent own Beacon is useful Question? 15 Indication of the energy during the PLCP preamble of the most recent Beacon received from the current AP (Own Beacon RSSI in Channel Measurement Report) Needed? Retain? Yes 9 11 Uncertain 0 0 No 6 4 Result? Divided Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

  33. Yes comments: Helps determine if other 802.11a interference is present No comments: The detection of at least one valid MAC header tells you nothing about whether a licensed user is operating in the band Other comments: The group is divided on whether the BSS bit is useful Question? 16 Indication of at least one valid MAC Header detected (BSS bit in Measurement Summary field) Needed? Retain? Yes 10 10 Uncertain 1 1 No 4 4 Result? Divided Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

  34. Questions: How do we determine the difference between a licensed user and two 11a systems colliding? If we can’t distinguish between them, does this mean that we can only operate in a clear channel? What doe this say about the capacity of 11a? Motions: The group is divided on whether the BSS bit is useful Question? 16 Indication of at least one valid MAC Header detected (BSS bit in Measurement Summary field) Needed? Retain? Yes 10 10 Uncertain 1 1 No 4 4 Result? Divided Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

  35. Yes comments: No comments: The detection of at least one QBSS tells you nothing about whether a licensed user is operating in the band QBSS cannot be used because it is currently part of the 11e draft Relies on completion of TGe. This is too risky. Other comments: The group is divided on whether the QBSS bit is useful Question? 17 Indication of at least one BSS found running in QBSS mode (QBSS bit in Measurement Summary field) Needed? Retain? Yes 6 4 Uncertain 0 0 No 9 11 Result? Divided Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

  36. Questions: Can someone please explain why this is a useful feature to satisfy ERC (99)/23? Motions: The editor is directed to remove all text that describes the use of the QBSS bit The group is divided on whether the QBSS bit is useful Question? 17 Indication of at least one BSS found running in QBSS mode (QBSS bit in Measurement Summary field) Needed? Retain? Yes 6 4 Uncertain 0 0 No 9 11 Result? Divided Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

  37. Yes comments: Helps determine if another AP is on the channel No comments: The detection of at least one ToDs or FromDs tells you nothing about whether licensed user is operating in the band Other comments: The group is divided on whether the FromDS and ToDs bits are needed Question? 18 Indication of at least one frame with FromDS or ToDS set (Respective bits in Measurement Summary field) Needed? Retain? Yes 7 7 Uncertain 1 1 No 7 7 Result? Divided Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

  38. Questions: Why is the existence of an AP (specifically) relevant to satisfying ERC (99)/23? Motions: The editor is directed to remove all text that describes the FromDs and ToDs bits The group is divided on whether the FromDS and ToDs bits are needed Question? 18 Indication of at least one frame with FromDS or ToDS set (Respective bits in Measurement Summary field) Needed? Retain? Yes 7 7 Uncertain 1 1 No 7 7 Result? Divided Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

  39. Yes comments: Assists DFS algorithms in avoiding interference. Without these kind of details how would one go about obtaining the required info for DFS? Assists DFS algorithms in avoiding interference Promotes goal of ERC 93 of spectrum spreading over all channels. AP will be able to identify the interference source so that they can negotiate the appropriate power or channel changes with other APs. It would help to avoid co-channel operation with other WLAN system.(ERC(99)/23) No comments: The existence of another BSS does not tell you whether or not a licensed user is operating in the channel Other comments: The group is divided on whether BSS sets are needed Question? 19 Detailed information about a BSS operating on a channel (BSS Sets) Needed? Retain? Yes 6 6 Uncertain 0 0 No 9 9 Result? Divided Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

  40. Questions: Is interference with other WLAN systems relevant to satisfying ERC (99)/23? Can’t the uniform spreading requirement be satisfied without detailed BSS set information? Motions: The editor is directed to remove all text that describes BSS sets The group is divided on whether BSS sets are needed Question? 19 Detailed information about a BSS operating on a channel (BSS Sets) Needed? Retain? Yes 6 6 Uncertain 0 0 No 9 9 Result? Divided Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

  41. Yes comments: No comments: While the periodicity bit could be useful, it is not clear if the mechanism works to detect licensed users Creates the illusion of being able to detect radars. Better method required. Not sure if it is enough to detect Radar. Other comments: The group is divided on whether the periodicity bit is needed Question? 20 Indication of periodic behaviour of CCA during the measurement period (Periodicity bit in Measurement Summary field) Needed? Retain? Yes 6 6 Uncertain 2 1 No 7 8 Result? Divided Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

  42. Questions: Could someone explain the gory details of how the periodicity measurement may be used to detect licensed users? Are the periodicity measurements sufficient to detect licensed users? When are periodicity measurements not useful to detect licensed users? Is there are better way to do the same job? Motions: The editor is directed to remove all text that describes the periodicity bit The group is divided on whether the periodicity bit is needed Question? 20 Indication of periodic behaviour of CCA during the measurement period (Periodicity bit in Measurement Summary field) Needed? Retain? Yes 6 6 Uncertain 2 1 No 7 8 Result? Divided Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

  43. Yes comments: No comments: These are unnecessary. RSSI statistics do a better job. Not sure if it is enough to detect Radar. Other comments: While the CCA stuff bit could be useful, it is not clear how the mechanism works to detect licensed users The group is divided on whether CCA characteristics are useful Question? 21 Representation of the characteristics of the CCA during the measurement period: Busy Fraction, Busy Duration and Busy Interval (Extended CCA Report) Needed? Retain? Yes 5 5 Uncertain 1 1 No 9 9 Result? Divided Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

  44. Questions: Could someone explain the details of how the CCA characteristics may be used to detect licensed users? Are the CCA characteristics sufficient to detect licensed users? When are CCA characteristics not useful to detect licensed users? Is there are better way to do the same job? Motions: The editor is directed to remove all text that describes the CCA characteristics The group is divided on whether CCA characteristics are useful Question? 21 Representation of the characteristics of the CCA during the measurement period: Busy Fraction, Busy Duration and Busy Interval (Extended CCA Report) Needed? Retain? Yes 5 5 Uncertain 1 1 No 9 9 Result? Divided Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

  45. Yes comments: This provides a comprehensive measurement of all interference that is needed in DFS implementation Comprehensive measurement of all interference is needed No comments: The signal level is probably needed, but the histograms are probably not. So I guess the answer to the item as a whole is N, but I am not sure I understand Histograms fully. Other comments: While the RSSI stats could be useful, it is not clear how the mechanism works to detect licensed users The group needs clarification before accepting the use of Total RSSRI histograms Question? 22 Record and indicate the received signal levels during the measurement period (Total RSSRI Histogram) Needed? Retain? Yes 12 12 Uncertain 2 2 No 1 1 Result? Nearly retain Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

  46. Questions: Can anyone specify exactly what we are looking for when measuring the Total RSSI? What is special about the histogram structure? Motions: None The group needs clarification before accepting the use of Total RSSRI histograms Question? 22 Record and indicate the received signal levels during the measurement period (Total RSSRI Histogram) Needed? Retain? Yes 12 12 Uncertain 2 2 No 1 1 Result? Nearly retain Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

  47. Yes comments: Helps detect fringe interference of other 802.11a systems. Promotes goal of ERC 93 of spectrum spreading over all channels No comments: Other comments: While the unknown RSSI stats could be useful, it is not clear how the mechanism works to detect licensed users The group is divided on the use of the Unknown RSSI histogram Question? 23 Record and indicate the received signal levels for the PPDUs with a correct PLCP header but an incorrect CRC during the measurement period (Unknown RSSRI) Needed? Retain? Yes 7 5 Uncertain 1 1 No 7 9 Result? Divided Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

  48. Questions: Does anyone have any comments that support the “no” case, which seems to have lots of support? Can anyone specify exactly what we are looking for when measuring the Unknown RSSI and what it indicates? Can the Unknown RSSI distinguish between a collision with another 11a systems and a collision with a licensed user? It is claimed that the use if Unknown RSSI histogram supports channel spreading. How? Motions: None The group is divided on the use of the Unknown RSSI histogram Question? 23 Record and indicate the received signal levels for the PPDUs with a correct PLCP header but an incorrect CRC during the measurement period (Unknown RSSRI) Needed? Retain? Yes 7 5 Uncertain 1 1 No 7 9 Result? Divided Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

  49. Yes comments: Helps detect non-802.11 systems like Hiperlan/2. Helps detect Hiperlan/2 systems. No comments: The existence of at least one foreign preamble does not tell you whether or not a licensed user is operating in the channel. Other comments: The group is divided on whether the ForeignPLCPHeader bit is needed Question? 24 Indication of at least one PLCP preamble with an invalid Signal field detected (ForeignPLCPHeader bit in Measurement Summary field) Needed? Retain? Yes 8 18 Uncertain 1 0 No 6 7 Result? Divided Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

  50. Questions: Why does the existence of at least one foreign PLCP header indicate that a licensed user is not also operating in the band? Wouldn’t it be more useful to know that all (and not at least some) transmissions were from a foreign (unlicensed) user? Motions: None yet The group is divided on whether the ForeignPLCPHeader bit is needed Question? 24 Indication of at least one PLCP preamble with an invalid Signal field detected (ForeignPLCPHeader bit in Measurement Summary field) Needed? Retain? Yes 8 18 Uncertain 1 0 No 6 7 Result? Divided Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

More Related