March 1996
`
`
`
`Doc: IEEE P802.11-96/53
`
`Tentative Minutes of the IEEE P802.11 Working Group
`
`Plenary meeting
`La Jolla, California
`March 11-14, 1996
`
`Monday, March 11, 1996, 3:30 PM
`
`Secretary’s note: Due to an incredibly unfortunate attack of stupidity on my part, the only
`copy of the minutes from this meeting was deleted from the only computer on which it
`existed. When this was discovered, a few days after the meeting, it was too late to just un-
`delete them. The minutes which follow here are what was painfully collected from the hard
`drive, sector by sector with a disk editor. Most of the information was recovered. The
`characters ??? mark places where information was lost. All the motions were recovered -
`occasionally the movers/seconders were lost, but more importantly, for motions 2, 8, 10 and
`30 the vote counts were lost. The results of these motions (which is pass for all of them) is
`recorded from memory, so please check it.
`With sincere apology, Carolyn Heide.
`The meeting was called to order at 3:30 PM Vic Hayes, chairman IEEE P802.111), in the chair.
`Carolyn Heide secretary. Stuart Kerry managing document originals and copying and Ian Gifford
`managing distribution and pigeon hole organization. Wayne Moyers handling the attendance list.
`The agenda document for this meeting is 802.11-96/29-R1.
`Objectives for this meeting, all groups
`- Resolve comments on LB on D3.0 and prepare Draft for sponsor ballot (1)
`- Inclusion of FH tables for various other countries (France, Spain, Australia) (2)
`- Give a tutorial to 802 in preparation of the sponsor ballot (3)
`
`1)T The officers of the Working Group are:
`Mr. VICTOR HAYES
`Chairman IEEE P802.11
`Lucent Technologies
`Phone: +31 30 609 7528
`Fax: +31 30 609 7498
`E-Mail: v.hayes@ieee.org
`
`Ms. Carolyn Heide
`Secretary IEEE P802.11
`
`Phone: +1 847 945 6859
`
`E-Mail: 71041.3262@compuserve.com
`
`Mr. BOB O'HARA
`Editor IEEE P802.11
`Advanced Micro Devices
`Phone: +1 408 987 2421
`Fax: +1 408 987 2814
`E-Mail: bob.ohara@amd.com
`
`Mr. STUART KERRY
`Vice Chairman IEEE P802.11
`Symbol Technologies Inc.
`Phone: +1 408 369 2634
`Fax: +1 408 446 4630
`E-Mail: stuart@psd.symbol.com
`
`Mr. DAVE BAGBY
`Chair IEEE P802.11-MAC group
`Advanced Micro Devices
`Phone: +1 408 987 2423
`Fax: +1 408 987 2800
`E-Mail: david.bagby@amd.com
`
`
`Mr. CHRIS ZEGELIN
`Vice Chairman IEEE P802.11
`Symbol Technologies Inc.
`Phone: +1 408 369 2667
`Fax: +1 408 369 2740
`E-Mail: jrosdahl@novell.com
`
`Mr. DEAN KAWAGUCHI
`Chair IEEE P802.11-PHY group
`Symbol Technologies Inc.
`Phone: +1 408 369 2629
`Fax: +1 408 369 2740
`E-Mail: deank@psd.symbol.com
`
`Mr. GREG ENNIS
`Editor IEEE P802.11
`
`Phone: +1 408 356 4775
`Fax: +1 408 358 8991
`E-Mail: gennis@netcom.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tentative Minutes of full WG meeting
`
`page 1
`
`La Jolla, CA, 11-14 March, 1996
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2005
`
`

`

`March 1996
`
`
`
`Doc: IEEE P802.11-96/53
`
`- Conformance testing (4)
`- 3 Mbit/s informational presentation
`- FCC wish list
`
`1. Opening
`
`1.0 Secretary: Carolyn Heide.
`
`1.1 Roll Call: People in the room were invited to introduce themselves.
`
`1.2 Voting rights:
`
`Participation in debates, moving and seconding is only permitted by voting members, in all
`802.11 meetings (at all levels). The subgroup chairs may permit observers to participate in
`debates.
`Voting at the working group level is by voting members only. Chair may permit observers
`to participate in debate. To become a voting member:
` - participate in at least 2 out of 4 consecutive plenary meetings. Voting rights start at
`
`third meeting
` - participation in at least 75% in meetings, in the room
` - one interim may be exchanged for a plenary
` - Voting members will get a token to be used at votes
`Voting rights can be maintained:
` - by participation in 2 plenary meetings within 4 consecutive plenary meetings
` - one interim may be substituted for a plenary
`Voting rights may be lost:
` - after failing to pay the conference fee
` - after missing two out of three consecutive letter ballots
`1.3 Attendance list, Registration: The attendance list was distributed - 75% attendance
`according to the attendance list is required to qualify for attending the meeting as a whole,
`so make sure to sign the book. Copies of the attendance list are handed out before the end
`of each meeting.
`
`- important for administration of voting rights that the attendance book is used
`properly.
`
`- sign per meeting (morning, afternoon, evening). Do not sign ahead.
`
`- place initials. Do not cross or underline.
`
`- circle the letter corresponding to the meeting you attend when signing (F=full
`802.11, P=PHY, M=MAC group).
`
`Check e-mail addresses in the book:
` - some addresses have been struck, or have a $-sign added to the right - those received
`complaints from the reflector
` - please strike your e-mail address if you do not use it
` - if you do not disagree to receiving very long files, mark bulk e-mail with yes
`1.4 Logistics: Document distribution is done using pigeon holes - you will find your copies and
`messages in the referenced location in the expanding file folders in the slot in front of
`your name.
`
`Document distribution:
` - sign in for a slot, remember the letter and number
` - pigeon holes are file folders with a letter id on each folder and a number on each slot
`
`Tentative Minutes of full WG meeting
`
`page 2
`
`La Jolla, CA, 11-14 March, 1996
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2005
`
`

`

`March 1996
`
`
`
`Doc: IEEE P802.11-96/53
`
` - in each folder are numbered slots, each of which is 'owned' by a person
` - each person owns slot in front of number
`Coffee breaks at 10 AM and 3 PM. Noon to 1:00 PM lunch
`1.5 Other announcements
`
`1.5.1 Patent Policy
`IEEE standards may include the known use of patent(s) including patent applications, if there is
`technical justification in the opinion of the standards developing committee and provided the IEEE
`receives assurance from the patent holder that it will license applicants under reasonable terms and
`conditions for the purpose of implementing the standard. This assurance shall be provided without
`coercion and prior to approval of the standard (or reaffirmation when a patent becomes known after
`the initial approval of the standard).
`This assurance shall be a letter that is in the form of either:
`A. A general disclaimer to the effect that the patentee will not enforce any of its present or
`future patent(s) whose use would be required to implement the proposed IEEE standard
`against any person or entity using the patent(s) to comply with the standard or
`B. A statement that a license will be made available to all participants without compensation
`or under reasonable rates, with reasonable terms and conditions that are demonstrably free
`of any unfair discrimination.
`In order to determine whether to use patented material or not, the working group should examine its
`technical merits only and ensure that they have followed the procedure contained in the IEEE
`Standards Operations Manual.
`Request all participants to indicate if they know patent on which 802.11 may infringe
`1.5.2 Copyright of IEEE standards, by Vic Hayes
`Assumption:
`
`Those submitting papers and working on the standard would know that the copyrights would
`be transferred to the IEEE
`Earlier understanding of the rules in the PAR:
`
`Copyright of material taken from submissions and added into the standard, is automatically
`transferred to IEEE based on the PAR
`Quote from the PAR
`
`“I hereby acknowledge my appointment as Official Reporter to the _IEEE P802_Committee to
`write/revise a Standards Publication (entitled or to be entitled) _Wireless Access Method
`and Physical Layer Specifications_.
`
`In consideration of my appointment and the publication of the Standards Publication
`identifying me, at my option, as an Official Reporter, I agree to avoid knowingly
`incorporating in the Standards Publication any copyrighted or proprietary material of
`another without such other's consent and acknowledge that the Standards Publication shall
`constitute a "work made for hire" as defined by the Copyright Act, and, that as to any work
`not so defined, I agree to and do hereby transfer any right or interest I may have in the
`copyright to said Standards Publication to IEEE.
`Signed by myself”
`
`Return to assumption:
`
`Those submitting papers and working on the standard would know that the copyrights would
`be transferred to the IEEE
`Having never seen any input paper with explicit copyright sign, conclude that no copyrighted
`material is included in draft D3.0. Now is the time to indicate copyrighted material so we
`can remove it right away.
`
`
`
`Tentative Minutes of full WG meeting
`
`page 3
`
`La Jolla, CA, 11-14 March, 1996
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2005
`
`

`

`March 1996
`
`
`
`Doc: IEEE P802.11-96/53
`
`Hearing no claims before March 31, 1996, I would declare there is no copyrighted material included
`in draft D3.0,
`
`
`There is some disagreement in the room, and a feeling that this needs to be legally scrutinized. Vic
`will check and the issue will be returned to this week.
`
`
`1.5.3 Help Preparing next mailing, Thursday evening: Carolyn Heide, Stuart Kerry
`1.5.4 New Bylaws, Operations Manual, and IEEE Standards Companion available.
`1.5.5 Sponsor Ballot invitation is out and registration closes March 15.
`1.5.6 Boeing is concerned about the future - 2 Mbps is too slow for the near future; has experienced
`some problems at 2.4 Ghz; interface with other international standards.
`
`2. Approval of the minutes of the previous meeting
`
`2.1 Montreal meeting, Document IEEE P802.11-95/234: Motion #3, should have stated FAILED.
`Approved, with this change, by consensus.
`
`2.2 San Diego meeting, Document IEEE P802.11-96/20: approved by consensus
`
`2.3 Matters arising from the minutes: none.
`
`3. Reports
`
`3.1 The Executive Committee, by Vic Hayes
`
`- position on wireless New Work Item in ISO/IEC including comparison of Hiperlan and 802.11
`- LMSC Chair vacant in July, including the offices the chair holds
` - information on workload available
` - process will be made by Montague
`- document distribution
` - limit the dis to those voters in the group
` - no distrib during plenaires
` - 4 PM Tuesday group addressing it
`Discussion:
`Group instructs Vic to ask: Will the fact that standards will no longer be available free at meetings,
`decrease the meeting fees? That only seems fair, as this has been listed as one of the reasons for
`increasing the fees. The group recommends decreasing meeting fees by the price of books.
`
`- Names in Standards: current write-up for
` - inclusion of all voters from PAR until approval to send to IEEE Standards Board
` - other contributors identified by chair or nominated by a WG member
` - organization nominated by a wg member
` - better proposal requested, will be discussed later
`3.2 The Editors: none
`
`3.3 The letter ballot on draft D3.0 results:
`
`- 70 approval
`- 42 yes, 18 no, 0 abstain
`- 75% required, unanimous preferred
`
`Tentative Minutes of full WG meeting
`
`page 4
`
`La Jolla, CA, 11-14 March, 1996
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2005
`
`

`

`March 1996
`
`
`
`Doc: IEEE P802.11-96/53
`
`- excomm requires all no votes be addressed and rebutted if not accepted
`- full report in 96/47-1 to -7
`3.4 San Jose, 1995, meeting finances:
`
`Collections
`
`
`Number of attendees:
`
`
`Amount collected per attendee:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Total money collected
`Expenses
`
`Hotel charges:
`
`
`Beverages and refreshments
`
`
`Audiovisual equipment/set-up
`
`
`
`
`
`Total hotel charges
`
`
`Photocopying expenses
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Total expenses
`
`Result
`
`Surplus
`
`Surplus form San Jose 1994
`
`
`
`Total funds for 802.11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`54
`
`
`
`
`$100.00
`---------.---
`$ 5,400.00
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`$ 3,172.10
`1,996.51
`------------.---
`5,168.61
`125.51
`---------.---
`$ 5,294.12
`
`$105.88
`
`$108.32
`--------.----
`$214.20
`
`Motion #1:
`
`To approve the San Jose financial report.
`
`Bob O’Hara
`Moved by:
`Carolyn Heide
`Seconded by:
`Motion 1 Discussion: none
`
`Opposed: 1
`Approved: 30
`3.5 San Diego, January 1996 meeting finances:
`
`Abstain: 1
`
`Motion #1 passes
`
`
`
`$1,904.60
`$80.00
`$90.81
`$239.00
`$3,258.09
`
`
`
`$483.85
`$6,570.63
`
`Expenses:
`
`Audio Visual
`
`Office Telephone
`
`Long Distance Charges
`
`Laser Printer
`
`AM/PM Breaks
`
`Host Bar
`
`Host Reception/Dinner
`
`Xerox
`
`Kinkos Copy Center
`
`Total expenses
`Result
`40 participants @$100.00 each
`
`IEEE Shared Cost
`($4,000.00)
`
`Final Cost
`$2,570.63
`
`Motion #2:
`
`$607.75 (MACom)
`$1,735.49 (MACom)
`$514.28
`
` $ 2,343.24 (MACom)
`
`To approve the San Diego meeting financial report.
`
`Tentative Minutes of full WG meeting
`
`page 5
`
`La Jolla, CA, 11-14 March, 1996
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2005
`
`

`

`March 1996
`
`
`
`Doc: IEEE P802.11-96/53
`
`Wayne Movers
`Moved by:
`Ian Gifford
`Seconded by:
`Motion 2 Discussion: none
`
`Abstain: ???
`Opposed: ??
`Approved: ???
`3.6 IPR letters: received from Proxim 96/5a, Norand 96/50
`
`Motion #2 passes
`
`3.7 Meeting with the FCC: ???
`
`4. Review of contributions: ???
`
`5. Adoption of the Agenda (11-96/29)
`
`Motion #3:
`
`To approve the agenda giving Vic the authority to adjust the Wed
`PM session as appropriate.
`
`???
`???
`
`Moved by:
`Seconded by:
`Motion3 Discussion:
`With the provision that the subgroup chairs indicate to Vic before 5PM Tuesday if they would
`have cross group issues, and he will decide Wednesday 8 AM whether there will be a Wednesday
`plenary meeting.
`
`Approved: (no nays)
`
`
`
`
`
`Motion #3 passes
`
`6. Unfinished Business:
`
`6.1 Re-Election of Officers
`
`Subgroup chairs: Dean Kawaguchi for PHY subgroup, Dave Bagby for MAC subgroup. Approval
`with no objections.
`Editors: Bob O’Hara and Greg Ennis. Approval with no objections.
`Vice-chairmen: Stuart Kerry, Chris Zegelin. Approval with no objections.
`Vice-Chairman Stuart Kerry takes the chair:
`Chairman:
`Motion #4:
`
`To reaffirm Vic Hayes as chairman of 802.11.
`
`Chris Zegelin
`Moved by:
`Anil Sanwalka
`Seconded by:
`Motion 4 Discussion: none
`
`Approved: (no nays)
`Stuart returns the chair to Vic
`6.2 Response to ISO 96/31
`
`
`
`Motion #5:
`
`Moved by:
`Seconded by:
`
`
`
`Motion #4 passes
`
`Refer to a group (Stuart Kerry) and (Vic Hayes) for drafting
`
`Carolyn Heide
`Wayne Moyers
`
`Tentative Minutes of full WG meeting
`
`page 6
`
`La Jolla, CA, 11-14 March, 1996
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2005
`
`

`

`March 1996
`
`
`
`Doc: IEEE P802.11-96/53
`
`Motion 5 Discussion: none
`
`Approved: (no nays)
`
`
`
`
`
`Motion #5 passes
`
`7. New Business:
`
`7.1 802.3 PAR, presentation by the Higher Speed Study Group (HSSG)
`
`A presentation of the overview of the task and technical intent of that group was presented so that
`this group may give guidance to Vic as to how to vote on approval of this PAR at the excom.
`Copies of the presentation will be distributed this week.
`Note by chair:
`the files are provided in the April mailing as gigabit5.txt and
`gigabito.txt. As they are Postscript files, no header or
`footers are available. No paper copy will be made available
`via the document order service
`
`7.2 NPRM, 96/8
`
`Has been available at the FTP site. The standing committee will be resurrected to handle this.
`Motion #6:
`That 802.11 will send a response to the NPRM through the
`standing committee process
`
`Naftali Chayat
`Moved by:
`Stuart Kerry
`Seconded by:
`Motion 6 Discussion: none
`
`Approved: 22
`7.3 Names in standard
`
`Opposed: 0
`
`Abstain: 5
`
`Motion #6 passes
`
`Proposed Method:
`- List as of the time the draft is approved for submission to sponsor ballot and announce that in the
`title.
`- Start list with current 802.11 chair, MAC group chair and PHY group chair followed by names of
`the two main editors.
`- Mark in the list with voters, the subgroup chairs and subgroup editors at the time of submission to
`sponsor ballot.
`- Add people at the groups discretion.
`Discussion:
`It is not consistent over other standards.
`Some people would like to see old contributors added also. Add at the chairman’s discretion, or
`the group’s discretion.
`
`Motion #7:
`
`To adopt this rule, as described in ‘Proposed Method’ above.
`
`Dave Bagby
`Moved by:
`Anil Sanwalka
`Seconded by:
`Motion 7 Discussion: none
`
`Approved: 26
`
`Opposed: 0
`
`Abstain: 4
`
`Motion #7 passes
`
`Tentative Minutes of full WG meeting
`
`page 7
`
`La Jolla, CA, 11-14 March, 1996
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2005
`
`

`

`March 1996
`
`7.4 Input from Boeing
`
`
`
`Doc: IEEE P802.11-96/53
`
`Concern about the future and making sure the standard is ready to address things in the near future:
`faster speeds; interference problems in the 2.4 GHz environment.
`Suggestion that there should be a submission made for the committee to consider, if there is a desire
`to influence the group direction or activity.
`7.5 Adoption of ‘shall’ comments and their affect on the PICS Proforma, by Simon Black
`
`There are a lot of comments about changing ‘will’ and ‘is’ to ‘shall’, and how this may affect items
`that were and should be put into the PICS Proforma.
`db shall/may corrections:
` - approximately 125-150 comments all from a pass at shall/may/can/will etc.
` - no changes made to sense of paragraphs just official wording correcting
`Motion #8:
`To accept all the comments, in all clauses, related to the use of
`shall/may/can/will, made by Dave Bagby which begin with “w/o the
`requested change”.
`
`???
`Moved by:
`???
`Seconded by:
`Motion 8 Discussion: ???
`
`Abstain: ???
`Opposed: ???
`Approved: ???
`7.6 Interframe spacing definition, by Johnny Zweig
`
`Motion #8 passes
`
`There are a number of comments by Johnny about the accuracy of interfame spaces based on the slot
`times - should there by a range allowed for jitter? It was decided that these comments would be
`addressed by the appropriate groups as they were encountered.
`
`8. Adjourn to subgroups: ??? PM
`
`Tuesday AM & PM, 12 March, 1996
`MAC & PHY subgroups
`
`Wednesday AM, 13 March, 1996
`MAC & PHY subgroups
`
`Wednesday PM, 13 March, 1996
`Full Working Group
`
`The meeting was reconvened at 1:00 PM, by chairman Vic Hayes, Carolyn Heide secretary.
`
`Tentative Minutes of full WG meeting
`
`page 8
`
`La Jolla, CA, 11-14 March, 1996
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2005
`
`

`

`March 1996
`
`9. Opening
`
`
`
`Doc: IEEE P802.11-96/53
`
`9.1 Roll Call: People in the room were invited to introduce themselves.
`
`9.2 Document list update: none
`
`9.3 Agenda adjustments: none
`
`9.4 Announcements: none
`
`10. Cross group Issues
`
`10.1 Multiple rates, 10.2 Patents, 10.3 Broadcast Reliability, by Dave Bagby
`
`At this point Paul Eastman and John Montague (acting chair 802.0) join the group to discuss dealing
`with issues such as this one, and the effect on making progress toward forwarding the draft to
`sponsor ballot.
`Be careful about trying to get only 75% approval from the working group and carry to that to the
`executive committee for approval to send to sponsor ballot. That is a very low percentage of
`approval. If there are large technical issues that as many as 25% members feel are still unsolved,
`when the excomm will probably send the draft back to the working group. Although the strict rules
`say 75% working group approval is enough for forwarding, it is difficult to remember when that has
`ever been done. Worse yet - bring a draft that 25% of the members says has unsolvable technical
`issues, and it will definitely get sent back. If there are issues where there is a degree of feeling that
`there is no technical solution, it may be better to try to remove that feature.
`Questions from the group to John & Paul:
`Q: There are workable solutions to the multirate problem, we just can’t agree on what they are.
`A: If 75% of the members believe a technical solution is valid and have good reasons, and 25%
`disagree - if it can be demonstrated that it is a matter of honest disagreement among skilled
`technical people, then explain that when presenting to the excomm. However, there has been great
`success obtained in the past by not having things go out of 802 with that level of disagreement. It is
`easier and quicker to resolve things before sponsor ballot. Zero negative votes is usual when going
`to sponsor ballot, and almost all 802 standards pass on the first sponsor ballot because of this.
`Q: Part of the problem arises from trying to define interoperability concerns, rather than telling
`people how to implement in detail.
`A: If there are many ways to do something and everyone agrees one or more exist, then that is no
`problem. But if you have people who say there is no way to do it given the current state of the art,
`then you have a problem. The standard needs to be reasonably implementable within current state
`of the art. If a feature is specified and the only way to implement it turns out to be a tightly held
`patent, there is a problem - requiring one or more accepted technical ways to implement something
`covers that potentiality.
`Q: There is a discussion about just how many people voted no due the multirate issues, and why.
`Apparently about half dozen no votes were based on multirate. Some feel it is a religious issue.
`Others say no, it is just the age old dilemma of fix it or remove it.
`A: The excomm will not attempt to tell you how to solve the problem. It is just a statement of fact
`that time will be saved by resolving issues before sending the standard to the excomm. Avoid the
`risk of getting it sent back
`Q: There is a lack of understanding of the mechanics of getting the standard to sponsor ballot.
`A: Get at least 75% approval in the working group. Change the draft and send it to confirmation
`ballot within the working group. Members who still agree, don’t respond. Those who still have no
`votes, or have had no votes created by the changes respond with new no votes.
`Q: There is confusion as to whether the confirmation ballot is before/after/parallel to excomm
`approval. Is there not a procedure which allows submitting to the excom and having the
`
`Tentative Minutes of full WG meeting
`
`page 9
`
`La Jolla, CA, 11-14 March, 1996
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2005
`
`

`

`March 1996
`
`
`
`Doc: IEEE P802.11-96/53
`
`confirmation ballot in parallel, and if no new technical issues are raised by confirmation ballot then
`it goes forward to sponsor ballot?
`A: This known as conditional forwarding. There should be a lot more than 75% approval with the
`working group to do this, or great justification required. If the group has diligently responded to no
`votes, then possibly it can get through. But without high confidence in the success of the
`confirmation ballot, it is not looked on favorably. That would be two strikes and there would be a
`high wall against approval. The confirmation ballot is for saying the changes to the draft change
`my vote or not. Votes changed from yes to no, would nullify the conditional forwarding process.
`On the other hand, if the confirmation ballot comes back and shows the real effort that has been
`put into resolving the problems, and that the situation is stuck but stable, probability of excomm
`approval is high.
`
`??? There was then a discussion of handling patented issues which was lost. The basic point made
`was the IEEE keeps on file the IPR letters received from companies, which state that they will apply
`non-discriminatory licensing against a fair and reasonable fee. The IEEE itself does nothing with
`these letters except hold them on file. The sole defining body of ‘a fair and reasonable fee’ is the
`courts in the territories of the patent holders.
`??? The discussion that took place after the visitors left was lost. Mostly a lot of people said why
`don’t we get some work done on this issue.
`It was decided that a group, led by Pablo Brenner, would work in the evening to come to resolution
`of the multirate issues. No decision was made on what action to take about broadcast reliability.
`10.4 Architectural split for FH
`
`Discussion:
`??? The beginning of this discussion was lost, but the point is that there was objection to carrying
`around PHY specific information in fields of MAC frames, as it is a violation of layering
`principles …
`If there is information which must be distributed amongst PHY management entities, it should be
`in the PLCP header and passed between PHYs.
`These layer violation arguments will come from ISO and have to be fixed then, so we might as
`well fix them now.
`Need also the move the TSF timer to the PHY for this kind of purity to be achieved. There are
`significant issues with the TSF timer. A truly independent MAC would also not do scanning.
`It is imperfect layering, but it is a practical solution to the problem. This is a difference between
`philosophy and practicality.
`Eliminating the exposed MAC/PHY interface got us into this problem. Editorial problems can be
`avoided by choosing the right terms in the standard.
`There is no reason a PHY has to be so stupid as to constantly repeat the same action all the time. It
`can take intelligent action at the time of its choosing - there are real life examples of this today. It
`can pass its own control information when it needs to do so.
`
`Motion #9:
`
`That the 802.11 MAC specification retain the management protocol
`and messages necessary for FH operation, thereby declining the
`related letter ballot comment, comment 68 in clause 7.
`
`Simon Black
`Moved by:
`Brad Herrin
`Seconded by:
`Motion 9 Discussion: none
`
`Approved: 24
`
`Opposed: 2
`
`Abstain: 11
`
`Motion #9 passes
`
`Tentative Minutes of full WG meeting
`
`page 10
`
`La Jolla, CA, 11-14 March, 1996
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2005
`
`

`

`March 1996
`
`10.5 Sleep State of the MAC
`
`
`
`Doc: IEEE P802.11-96/53
`
`In the PHY attributes there are sleep and doze turn on times. Are those supported by the MAC?
`These are states for the PHY - doze and sleep - yet in the interface there is no way to control those.
`There is only on and off in the PLME interface.
`This may be historical - from the days when the MAC defined different sleep modes, which has been
`removed.
`The group seems to feel that the PHY can removed one of these states, or provide information to the
`MAC on how to change/use them. The PHY group will discuss this.
`10.6 Clause 9 - fixed in MAC group, nothing to discuss
`
`10.7 Structure of PLCP Header
`
`There is a comments which suggests replacing, in the PLCP header, the length in octets with the
`duration in microseconds (of this frame). This is just another way of encoding the length. The reason
`given is if in the future there are changes in the encoding rate, this field will still be useable. The FH
`PHY group liked the idea and would like to adopt it.
`This results in 13 bits duration in microseconds, and 3 bits signaling information. This limits the
`length to about 1000 octets per MPDU maximum.
`This changes the rx vector structure because the PHY can tell the MAC - I received something and it
`will be x microseconds long, but I don’t know how many octets are in it. It does not change the tx
`vector. Another method might be for the PHY to raise CCA indication rather than pass the
`information as a parameter.
`Discussion:
`There is objection to limiting the length - that is not long enough to carry a non fragmented
`maximum length MSDU in one MPDU.
`There is currently no length information in the MAC frame because it relies on getting this from
`the PLCP header information passed up from the PHY.
`The issue of handling dribble bits will be introduced now also. It is solvable, but do we really want
`to do this now.
`It is possible that this may be useful in solving multirate things.
`Do we meet the hamming distance requirement with this? Can we accurately determine where the
`CRC is? The rx vector and tx vector will not match and that has large ripple affect also.
`
`Motion #10:
`
`The resolution of PLCP length vs duration encoding be a topic
`assigned to be explicitly settled as part of the multirate discussion
`group and that the approach be uniformly applied to all PHYs.
`
`Michael Fischer
`Moved by:
`Jan Boer
`Seconded by:
`Motion 10 Discussion: ???
`
`Approved: ???
`10.8 Japanese Call sign
`
`Opposed: ???
`
`Abstain: ???
`
`Motion #10 passes
`
`Discussion:
`??? The beginning of this discussion was lost. The issues is what information needs to be carried
`where and how often to meet a Japanese regulatory requirement for transportation of the call sign
`of a unit …
`The MAC cannot do it because of bit stuffing - the PHY will stuff bits that will change the call sign
`if it is passed down as part of the MPDU.
`
`Tentative Minutes of full WG meeting
`
`page 11
`
`La Jolla, CA, 11-14 March, 1996
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2005
`
`

`

`March 1996
`
`
`
`Doc: IEEE P802.11-96/53
`
`One regulatory region requirement for one specific PHY should not be forced on the MAC.
`Perhaps a PHY option called ‘Japanese support’ should be defined and that PHY should figure out
`how to handle it.
`There is an understanding that it doesn’t matter that it gets bit stuffed - the relevant receiver will do
`the unstuffing and interpret that answer at a layer high enough for that. There is also an
`understanding that this information must go out more frequently that only once at start up.
`There is a suggestion that we don’t have to do anything here, it can come from a higher level,
`passed down through the LLC interface and through the MAC and PHY. It is an issue for the
`implementers in Japan that use 802.11 equipment. It’s not a standards issue.
`
`Motion #11:
`
`To move to next item on the agenda.
`
`Johnny Zweig
`Moved by:
`Pablo Brenner
`Seconded by:
`Motion 11 Discussion: none
`
`Approved: 22
`
`Opposed: 0
`
`Abstain: 8
`
`Motion #11 passes
`
`11. PHY resolutions
`
`The FH PHY group has some input it would like to give to the standing regulatory committee.
`Is there any plan for the PHY group to make comment resolutions available? Yes, a disk will be
`circulated today so that it can be looked at before tomorrow. A snapshot of work at this time.
`
`12. MAC resolutions:
`
`The disk has been circulated with comments resolutions and clause changes as of noon today.
`
`13. Conformance Testing:
`
`There is a document started in the DS group.
`
`14. Adjourn for subgroups: 4:40 PM
`
`Thursday AM, 14 March, 1996
`MAC & PHY subgroups
`
`Thursday PM, 14 March, 1996
`Full Working Group
`
`The meeting was reconvened at 1:00 PM, by chairman Vic Hayes, Carolyn Heide secretary.
`
`15. Opening
`
`15.1 Announcements
`
`15.1.1 Sponsor Ballot: On Wednesday 112 responses to the Sponsor ballot were received. closure
`is tomorrow. Response forms in the originals file (see Stuart Kerry)
`
`Tentative Minutes of full WG meeting
`
`page 12
`
`La Jolla, CA, 11-14 March, 1996
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2005
`
`

`

`March 1996
`
`
`
`Doc: IEEE P802.11-96/53
`
`15.1.2 Patent policy: let Vic Hayes know about applicable patents so he can send letters requesting
`for willingness to license
`15.1.3 Feedback on accommodation: no objections to this meeting’s accommodations
`15.1.4 Files of results: request to submit the files to Stuart Kerry.
`
`15.2 Document list update: updated the list.
`
`15.3 Agenda adjustments: none
`
`16. Reports
`
`16.1 MAC Group, by Dave Bagby
`
`Goals
`We had one goal - Process D3 LB comments and forward D3.1 for sponsor ballot.
`We didn’t make it, but we made a lot of progress.
`
`Misc Subjects
`Nov, Jan MAC minutes approved
`D3 MAC Clauses LB stats:
` Number of comments per clause: C1: 1, C2: 1, C3: 11, C4: 2, C5: 59, C6: 23, C7: 119, C8: 17,
`
`C9: 168, C10: 7, C11: 117, General & annex:128
`
`
`Clause 1
`Completed. All comments accepted. All resolutions edited into draft text.
`MAC approval vote: 12, 0, 1
`
`
`Motion #12:
`
`To accept the recommendation of the MAC group.
`
`The MAC Group
`Moved by:
`???
`Seconded by:
`Motion 12 Discussion: ???
`
`Opposed:0
`
`Abstain:1
`
`Motion #12 passes
`
`Approved: 23
`Clause 2
`Completed. All comments accepted. All resolutions edited into draft text.
`MAC approval vote: 12, 0, 1
`
`
`Motion #13:
`
`To accept the recommendation of the MAC group.
`
`The MAC Group
`Moved by:
`???
`Seconded by:
`Motion 13 Discussion: ???
`
`Opposed: 0
`
`Abstain: 0
`
`Motion #13 passes
`
`Approved: 24
`Clause 3
`Completed .One editorial comment referred to editors for style correction (c# 4 resolution in blue in
`file). All other resolutions edited into draft text.
`MAC approval vote: 12, 0, 2
`
`
`Motion #14:
`
`To accept the recommendation of the MAC group.
`
`Tentative Minutes of full WG meeting
`
`page 13
`
`La Jolla, CA, 11-14 March, 1996
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2005
`
`

`

`March 1996
`
`
`
`Doc: IEEE P802.11-96/53
`
`The MAC Group
`Moved by:
`???
`Seconded by:
`Motion 14 Discussion: ???
`
`Opposed: 0
`
`Abstain:0
`
`Motion #14 passes
`
`Approved: 24
`Clause 4
`Completed. All comments accepted. All resolutions edited int