IEEE 802.24 Vertical Applications TAG Meeting - May 2019 Atlanta, GA, USA

1. 802.24 Vertical Applications TAG May 2019 Atlanta, GA, USA Tim Godfrey, EPRI

2. 802.24 Overview • Officers • TAG Chair: Tim Godfrey • Secretary & TAG Vice Chair: Ben Rolfe • Task Groups • 802.24.1 Smart Grid TG Tim Godfrey • 802.24.2 IoT TG Chris DiMinico • 26 Voting Members • Agenda: 24-19-0011-00 • Meetings for the Week • Tuesday PM2 24 • Wednesday PM2 24.1 • Manual attendance tracking for 802.1 & 802.3 members

3. Agenda – 802.24-19-0011r2 Tim Godfrey, EPRI

4. Guidelines for IEEE-SA 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 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 https://development.standards.ieee.org/myproject/Public/mytools/mob/preparslides.ppt IEEE 802 Executive Committee

5. 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.pdf section 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 ) Slide 5 IEEE 802 Executive Committee

6. Administration • Attendance take on IMAT • Reciprocal rights for most WGs • Web page • http://www.ieee802.org/24 • Mailing list • stds-802-24@listserv.ieee.org • 802-24-voters@listserv.ieee.org (voters list) • Document archive • http://mentor.ieee.org/802.24/documents • IEEE 802 announcement reflector, stds-802-all@listserv.ieee.org • Send email to listserv@listserv.ieee.org with no subject and with the • following 2 lines appearing first in the body of the message Subscribe stds-802-all end Tim Godfrey, EPRI

7. 802.24 TAG • Approve March minutes • 24-19-00010r0 • TAG Action Items from March: • Get latest P2413 draft for private area • Subir Das to provide VR text for TSN White Paper Tim Godfrey, EPRI

8. Liaison Review • P2413 Ludwig Winkel • ATIS TOPS Farrokh Khatibi • Wi-Fi Alliance (Informal) Alan Berkema • IEC SEG8 Patrick Wetterwald (concluding) • IEEE PSCC TF S6 Marc Lacroix • IEEE P2030.5 Bob Heile • Industrial Internet Consortium Wael Diab (status?) assign to Chris D Tim Godfrey, EPRI

9. Radio Regulatory Items • Update from 802.18 – Jay Holcomb • 900 MHz licensed spectrum NPRM (Broadband) • Will be discussed at Open Meeting of FCC • Interference with ISM? no concerns voiced in 802.18, no follow up actions • OFCOM – 2390-2400 MHz consultation • Was turned in. • New for May 2019: 5GAA proposal to convert DSRC UNII4 band to cellular – implications for smart grid or verticals? 802.18 will look at comments • ACMA – 5 year outlook. Harmonization of Australia and North America in 5-6 GHz, and other bands. • Discussion – how can IEEE 802 have a voice in ITU, and specifically WRC. 802.24 would like to provide input if and when the process is established. Tim Godfrey, EPRI

10. Collaboration with 802.21AR/VR Vertical Applications • 'Network Enablers for Seamless HMD-based VR (Virtual Reality)’ • Dillon Seo • Presentation to 802.1 TSN May interim • 802.11be will address AR/VR use cases Tim Godfrey, EPRI

11. Goals for AR/VR collaboration in 802.24 • IEEE 802 can create a community for developing a suite of capabilities suited for this class of applications • Moving the focus from maximizing throughput only to also consider quality of experience and reliability. • Build on 802.24 Low Latency White Paper • Broadly define the set of applications (vertical and otherwise) around bounded / low latency • Look at the VR architecture diagram and consider the appropriate standard for each link. They will be a mix of wireless and wired. • In current white paper, latency limit is 5mS. Combination of wired/wireless. • Some use case may incorporate a WAN. • Existing testing shows challenges exceeding two hops (switches) in a network • IEEE 802 could provide comparable services to what is promised by 5G. • Goals for Low Latency White Paper • Provide input and requirements for other WG’s to refer to. • The goal is that the WG’s would want to support the vertical applications with low latency requirements • 802.11be • 802.1 TSN • 802.15 Proximity Comm 15.3e • White paper should be consistent with existing AR/VR technology, and also anticipate the improvements over the next 5 years • Challenge: embedding computing and rendering into HMD causes other issues with latency, heat, power, etc. • Opportunity for real-time application in cloud. What is the protocol between HMD and cloud? It reduces data transfer. Tim Godfrey, EPRI

12. Discussion • What are the key requirements for QoE for AR/VR? • Are latency and jitter separate? • Motion to Photon latency – 20mS Upper Bound • Jitter doesn’t really matter if latency bound is met • Dillon: Need for this work in IEEE 802 is based on prohibitive cost of serving these applications over commercial cellular • Consider an IEEE 802 scenario using existing standards: • 802.1 TSN with 10G Ethernet, and 802.11ac, ad, or ax • Identify gaps and contribute to 802.11be as a proposed requirement. • Need to ensure that TSN end-to-end mechanisms can be adopted into 802.11 • 802.21 scenario with moving train – between heterogeneous networks Tim Godfrey, EPRI

13. Goals for AR/VR collaboration in 802.24 • AR/VR is an identified vertical application for Smart Grid (electric utilities) for field force, safety, and training • 802.24 will liaise to other WGs if they develop amendments to their standards to support low latency. • The low-latency white paper will provide input on requirements to WGs • Vertical Application areas can provide input on specific use cases • Include representatives from related activities in other WG’s • 802.24 will provide a venue for collaboration (joint meetings) at Plenary Tim Godfrey, EPRI

14. Next Steps • 802.21 to provide text contributions • Goal is to have the real time white paper by 2020? • Bring together various working groups to solve issues for VR and performance. • Application space is driven by ever increasing resolution. Target HDMI 1.2 specification. Resolution and frame rate drive data rate. Can it be compressed? • This can be seen as alternative to 5G approaches, but standards-based and lower cost to use. • Show how Wi-Fi technology can provide an equally good or better result and performance (bandwidth and low jitter and low latency) • Map identified uses cases on to various IEEE 802 standards. Tim Godfrey, EPRI

15. Wednesday 802.24TAG Tim Godfrey, EPRI

16. Liaison with IEC SEG8 • Scope of SEG8: • Assess, provide an overview and prioritization of the evolution of technical development and standardization in the field of communication technologies and architectures • The report includes aspects relevant to both Smart Grid and IoT. • New Document shared in 802.24 Private Area • IEC_SEG8_Deliverable 3_Market Trend_Meeting_Review_010419_v3_clean.pdf • Final Opportunity to review and comment as SEG8 is finishing in next few months • No specific comments to reply to SEG8 Tim Godfrey, EPRI

17. P2413 Liaison • P2413-D0.4.6.pdf currently in Sponsor Ballot • Available in 802.24 Private Area Tim Godfrey, EPRI

18. ATIS TOPS Liaison • 802.24 provided comments to ATIS in document • 802.24-19-0004r2 (IoT_Characteristics_Matrix.xlsx) • ATIS expressed thanks to the 802.24 TAG for comments on the IoT Matrix. • There was one follow up question for the TAG: • We did have one question regarding the notes provided for the Smart Transmission grid category. Could you help us understand the comment “this category mixes several applications with differing requirements and characteristics”? • Clarified in discussion that there are sensor applications and teleprotection applications Tim Godfrey, EPRI

19. ATIS TOPS • Discussion and response Tim Godfrey, EPRI

20. “Low latency” White Paper • Achieving low latency with IEEE 802 standards • Including wired and wireless communications • An alternative (or complement) to 5G URLLC • A set of vertical applications enabled by low latency • The challenges of reliable low latency in unlicensed spectrum. • Adapting TSN’s “FRER” feature • Adapting 802 wireless to licensed spectrum? • Operating over multiple bands or channels? • Special cases for high data rates for immersive video • Oliver Holland to lead white paper development • Current Draft 802.24-19-0003r1 Tim Godfrey, EPRI

21. “Low latency” White Paper • AR/VR • Take 802.21 white paper, dissect use cases and requirements. • Goal for white paper • Influence 802.11be or other groups working in low-latency areas • Outreach to other standard groups • Action Plan after May meeting: • Dillon will take 802.21 white paper “21-18-0061-04-0000-a-white-paper-on-use-cases-and-requirements-for-supporting-hmd-based-vr-applications” and use as source text for next revision of White Paper draft “24-19-0003-03-0000-low-latency-communication-white-paper” • Check with Alan Jones to see if there is an interest in creating a contribution based in RTA TIG output. • Tim will take some use cases from TSN white paper for utility applications • Consider a section to distinguish between latency and jitter implications. • Low latency also has implications on reliability, predictability, etc • Notes captured into draft: Current Draft 802.24-19-0003r2 Tim Godfrey, EPRI

22. “Network Integration” action item • Define the value and differentiation of the IEEE 802 architecture in the context of vertical markets • How is IEEE 802 better suited to deployment in the communication infrastructure of private enterprise, industry, and the individual user?  • Compared to network architectures oriented towards service providers • The IEEE 802 architecture enables networks that are like Ethernet: Well understood, mature, predictable. A “cleaner” integration of disparate technologies under the common architecture and addressing. Tim Godfrey, EPRI

23. Review of 802.1CF in this context • Introductory Presentation • Max Riegel “Thoughts on IEEE 802 network integration with respect to P802.1CF” 24-18-0026r0 • Discussion • Based on many discussions of the place of 802.11 in 5G. • 5G SC • Conclusions – AANI integrating 802.11 into 5G domain. Nothing corresponding in 3GPP • Industry connections – NENDICA • Flexible Factory IoT, Data Center Bridging • What’s missing – a picture of 802 as a peer to 5G • 5G promises they will do “everything” • But, they don’t define any wired standards, but they support them • 5G requires an extensive PLMN to support it. • It is designed to help the cellular operator grow their market • Verticals might not want an operator in the middle of their network • However, private 4G or 5G networks are possible • Value proposition: 802 networks are customer-owned • Example – Santa Clara Emergency services issues Tim Godfrey, EPRI

24. Discussion • Is there a need for an IEEE 802 activity for improving provisioning: • Security • Network Health • Better sharing and coexistence in spectrum • What can IEEE 802 do to enable “SD-WAN” types of services for the heterogeneous network in a vertical? • Application-sensitive provisioning • What is the role of edge computing? • What is the IEEE 802 analogy for 5G Network Slices? • Slices to be adapted to the set of application requirements Tim Godfrey, EPRI

25. Points For Whitepaper Outline • IEEE 802 is a transport network • IEEE 802 is Layer 2 • 3GPP RAN is layer 3 only, Layer 2 is not available • Direct support of IPv4 and IPv6 or pure layer 2 protocols • Trade-off between flexibility (L2) and scalability (L3) • Routing provides path to higher scale • Smaller scale provide more flexibility • Smaller scale provides opportunity for real-time • IEEE 802 can route via L3 when needed. 3GPP cannot offer L2 • IEEE 802 can also offer L2 routing when appropriate (e.g. 802.15.10) • Not an alternative to L3 routing, but there to address a different problem Tim Godfrey, EPRI

26. Points For Whitepaper Outline • 802 does not provide as many means control a specific end device and it’s traffic on a path. • There are some management facilities in some standards • 3GPP networks provide more tools for subscriber management • 802 provides local networks that may be (but don’t have to be) connected into an Internet. • Operator networks are focused on services for single devices, while 802 networks support and include multiple devices (networks of networks) – devices can communicate with each other as well as with other networks Tim Godfrey, EPRI

27. Points For Whitepaper Outline: Re: Non-802 wireless IoT networks • Commercial, proprietary IoT services • They don’t have an ethernet like L2. The system does not have the concept of a LAN. It is terminal to central “gateway” only. Star topology only. • Similar to LTE UE to UE traffic that must route through core. (DTD Proximity services have addressed that to some extent) • 5G URLLC, and MMTC. • IEEE 802 has already developed TSN in wired, and now being developed for wireless. • Latency is impossible to guarantee in unlicensed, shared spectrum. However it can be highly optimized by the MAC layer. • IEEE 802 has a history and internal coordination of coexistence between different standards operating in unlicensed spectrum. 3GPP is oriented towards exclusively licensed spectrum, “sharing” is a foreign concept. • 3GPP has a common strategy for the three use cases. IEEE 802 has a common architecture, but not a common business strategy. • License exempt can provide higher economic value per MHz of spectrum. • See WFA economic value. Cisco Visual Networking Index. Wi-Fi carries more data than all cellular spectrum • Wi-Fi created the expectation of broadband wireless that led to the development of LTE • What would it look like to combine multiple IEEE 802 standards into a single offering? • Some vendors already do that – integrating 802 technologies into systems. • The “Package” offered by the “5G” ecosystem is clearly articulated. • What is the comparable offering from IEEE 802? Tim Godfrey, EPRI

28. Points For Whitepaper Outline • IEEE needs to think about how to create that package without a “subscription model” • IEEE 802 is often free • IEEE 802 is deployed in vertical markets, where the network is owned and operated by the user of the services. • Are there other models for IEEE 802 other than subscription that can provide ancillary economic value? • Is management of shared spectrum a candidate? • IEEE 802 and unlicensed spectrum enables faster innovation • Many of the breakthrough innovations were not as planned • The story of why IEEE 802 complements everything else, and everything else (alone) is not sufficient. • IoT is built around many specialized niches. The challenge is meeting the diverse requirements. IEEE 802 provides multiple standards to address multiple IoT applications. Tim Godfrey, EPRI

29. Next Steps • Develop TOC for white paper from these points • Volunteers requested provide text contributions for white paper Tim Godfrey, EPRI

30. 802.15.4g and 802.11ah Coexistence (802.19.3) • 802.24 will develop a whitepaper/document for application-specific use cases. Identifying where each standard is most suitable, and how to make best use of other changes. • Identify use cases where 802.15.4g is not sufficient and both are needed • Could be choices of applications, channel guidelines, duty cycle, • Avoid perception that 802 standards are unable to coexist • Evaluate and describe potential application-level implications of delay/latency increases due to mutual interference • 802.19.3 project schedule: • A draft ready by April • WG Ballot Sept 2019 • SA Ballot November 2019 • Plan to develop a white paper in 2nd half of year. Review status in July Tim Godfrey, EPRI

31. 2019 TAG Activity Plan • “Low latency” White Paper • Include 802.21 AR/VR activity • Nendica FFIOT might also fit into this • “Network Integration” white paper about unique benefits of IEEE 802 architecture • A whitepaper/document for application-specific use cases of Sub 1GHz standards 802.15.4g and 802.11ah. Identifying where each standard is most suitable, and how to make best use of mechanisms proposed in 802.19.3 TG. • Can this also include applying 802.15.4s in sub-1GHz spectrum? • 2H 2019 for starting • TBD • 802.24 white paper on IoT and P2413 • Update of first Smart Grid white paper to address latest amendments of 802.15.4 u, v, w, x, y, Revmd Tim Godfrey, EPRI

32. 802.24 TAG closing • Action Items from this meeting • See Slide 21 regarding low-latency white paper • Any New Business? Tim Godfrey, EPRI