July 2005
doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0635r0
Wireless WG response to proposed
802.1AM PAR & 5 criteria
2005-07-18
Name
Company
Phone
E-mail
Andrew Myles
Cisco
+61 418 656587
andrew.myles@cisco.com
Notice: This document has been prepared to assist IEEE 802.11. It is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this
document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein.
Release: The contributor grants a free, irrevocable license to the IEEE to incorporate material contained in this contribution, and any modifications thereof, in the creation of an IEEE Standards
publication; to copyright in the IEEE’s name any IEEE Standards publication even though it may include portions of this contribution; and at the IEEE’s sole discretion to permit others to reproduce in
whole or in part the resulting IEEE Standards publication. The contributor also acknowledges and accepts that this contribution may be made public by IEEE 802.11.
Patent Policy and Procedures: The contributor is familiar with the IEEE 802 Patent Policy and Procedures <http:// ieee802.org/guides/bylaws/sb-bylaws.pdf>, including the statement "IEEE
standards may include the known use of patent(s), including patent applications, provided the IEEE receives assurance from the patent holder or applicant with respect to patents essential for
compliance with both mandatory and optional portions of the standard." Early disclosure to the Working Group of patent information that might be relevant to the standard is essential to reduce the
possibility for delays in the development process and increase the likelihood that the draft publication will be approved for publication. Please notify the Chair <stuart.kerry@philips.com> as early as
possible, in written or electronic form, if patented technology (or technology under patent application) might be incorporated into a draft standard being developed within the IEEE 802.11 Working
Group. If you have questions, contact the IEEE Patent Committee Administrator at <patcom@ieee.org>.
Submission
Slide 1
Andrew Myles, Cisco
July 2005
doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0635r0
The 802.1AM PAR should be rejected and the subject
matter reconsidered by a new wireless forum
Background of
802.1AM PAR
• 802 ExCom has been
asked by 802.1 to
approve the 802.1AM
PAR
Wireless position
on 802.1AM PAR
• A variety of technical
and practical issues
suggest 802 ExCom
should reject the
802.1AM proposal
Wireless position
on next steps
• 802 ExCom should
encourage 802.1 and
the wireless WG’s to
discuss issues related
to managing wireless
networks in some
new wireless forum
Also see 05/453r1
Submission
Slide 2
Summary
Andrew Myles, Cisco
July 2005
doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0635r0
A variety of technical and practical issues suggest
802 ExCom should reject the 802.1AM proposal
Technical issues
Practical issues
• A common interface is not essential,
or even desirable, for effective RF
management
• The 802.1AM PAR was developed
without the cooperation of the
wireless groups
• A common interface is of limited use
managing wireless networks in
different administrative domains
• There is limited interest in the
proposed 802.1AM PAR from the
wireless groups
• 802.1 may not have the appropriate
expertise to execute this the
802.1AM PAR successfully
Submission
Slide 3
Issues
Andrew Myles, Cisco
July 2005
doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0635r0
A common interface is not essential, or even
desirable, for RF management
PAR asserts a “common interface” is
essential
It is likely that a “dedicated
interface” is more desirable
• The propose 802.1AM PAR asserts,
“Common management and
configuration algorithms are
essential to the long term viability of
a heterogeneous LAN”
• The claim that a common interface is
“essential” for RF management is not
supported by any evidence in the
802.1AM PAR or 5 criteria
• At least one alternative system using
“dedicated interfaces” unique to each
wireless network could also be used
to perform RF management
• A case can be made that the use of
“dedicated interfaces” represents a
better compromise than common
interfaces for RF management
Submission
Slide 4
Issues – Essential
Andrew Myles, Cisco
July 2005
doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0635r0
An alternate system using dedicated interfaces
could be used to perform RF management
802.1AM
proposal
Common
management
interfaces
Dedicated
management
interfaces
Alternate
approach
Submission
Uniform interface but less functional manager
.1AM
.1AM
802.1AM
agent
802.1AM
agent
802.1AM
agent
802.1AM
agent
802.11
802.15
802.16
802.20
802.11
agent
802.15
agent
802.16
agent
802.20
agent
.11
.1AM
.15
.16
.1AM
.20
“Common
802.1AM agent”
Interface specific
agents that are
being developed
today
Diverse interface but more functional manager
Slide 5
Issues – Essential - Alternate
Andrew Myles, Cisco
July 2005
doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0635r0
A case can be made that “dedicated interfaces” are
a better compromise than “common interfaces”
“Dedicated interface”
• Common interface enables simpler &
more consistent RF management
(as described by the PAR)
• Dedicated interface approach allows
each wireless network to optimise RF
management without definition of
new 802.1AM-like standard
Pro’s
“Common interface”
• Dedicated interfaces enable an RF
manager to understand and leverage
the unique characteristics of each
wireless network
Con’s
• Common interface requires an
802.1AM standard to be defined
• The PAR defines a “lowest common
denominator” solution
• Dedicated interface requires RF
manager to deal with different
interfaces to each wireless network
(as described by the PAR)
• Alternatively, the PAR requires
changes to multiple standards and
will constrain future developments
• Each of the wireless groups need to
improve their dedicated management
interfaces, i.e. work is required
Submission
Slide 6
Issues – Essential - Compromise
Andrew Myles, Cisco
July 2005
doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0635r0
The 802.1AM PAR defines a non optimal “lowest
common denominator” solution
“common” often means non optimal
“lowest common denominator”
802.1AM PAR defines a “lowest
common denominator”
• Many in the audience at the RF
management tutorial in San Antonio
noted “common” management often
means “lowest common
denominator” management
• The PAR only identifies transmit
power & channel selection as
candidates for common management
• Such systems typically cannot
leverage, or even understand, the
properties unique to different
wireless networks (unlike a system
based on dedicated interfaces)
• When questioned, the presenters of
the RF management tutorial in San
Antonio could not identify additional
common parameters
• Such systems are unlikely to provide
sufficient common parameters for
“optimal” RF management
Submission
Slide 7
Issues – Essential – Compromise – LCD
Andrew Myles, Cisco
July 2005
doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0635r0
A useful common interface implies unpalatable changes
to existing standards & constrains future standards
A useful common interface definition
is possible using a “superset”
This requires unacceptable changes
to existing & future standards
• It might be possible to define a useful
“common interface” by specifying
some modified superset of
management interfaces used by the
existing wireless network standards
• This approach is impractical because
it would require:
– agreements across multiple
wireless groups
– changes to multiple existing
wireless network standards
• It would also impose unacceptable
constraints on future developments
of each wireless standard because
they would need to remain
compatible with 802.1AM
Submission
Slide 8
Issues – Essential – Compromise – Standards
Andrew Myles, Cisco
July 2005
doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0635r0
A common interface is of limited use managing
wireless networks in different administrative domains
PAR asserts it is required to enable
heterogeneous LAN management
It is not clear there is a problem or
that 802.1AM provides a solution
• The PAR states that it is common
today for different 802 wireless
networks to operate in the same
spectrum
• It is unclear that different 802
wireless networks frequently operate
in the same spectrum
• The PAR states a “common
interface” is required to enable
different wireless networks operating
in same spectrum
• Even if they do, any management
interface is often unhelpful because
different 802 wireless networks
usually operate in different
administrative domains
• This is particularly the case for 802
wireless networks operating in
unlicensed spectrum, which is where
there are more likely to be
heterogeneous 802 wireless systems
Submission
Slide 9
Issues – Administrative domains
Andrew Myles, Cisco
July 2005
doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0635r0
The 802.1AM PAR was developed without the
cooperation of the wireless groups
Most assumed the proposal for
“common interface” was dead
Unfortunately, the PAR was
developed in relative isolation
• The 802.1AM PAR was inspired by a
tutorial in November 2004 in San
Antonio
• The 802.1 group developed the PAR
in relative isolation
• A straw poll at the end of the tutorial
indicated a broad lack of interest for
further development
• There was no request for close
cooperation directed to the wireless
groups, despite their clearly interest
in any such activity
• Most people assumed the proposal
for a common interface for RF
management was “dead”
• Most wireless WG members only
became aware of the PAR after it
was completed and sent to ExCom
Submission
Slide 10
Issues – Knowledge
Andrew Myles, Cisco
July 2005
doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0635r0
There is limited interest in the proposed 802.1AM
PAR from the wireless groups
The proposed 5 criteria claims broad
support for a “common interface”
Indications from the wireless WG’s
suggest the PAR should be rejected
• The 5 criteria asserts, “Many
vendors and users that participate in
wireless 802 working groups have
expressed interest in having a
consistent management service
interface applicable to all 802
wireless standards”
• The audience at the tutorial on RF
management in San Antonio voted
overwhelmingly against the 802.1AM
common management concept in a
straw poll
• A wireless ad hoc in Cairns also
voted 2/20/13 in a straw poll that the
802.1AM PAR should be rejected
– The question was “Do you favor
approval of the 802.1AM PAR?”
Submission
Slide 11
Issues – Interest
Andrew Myles, Cisco
July 2005
doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0635r0
802.1 may not have the appropriate wireless
expertise to execute the 802.1AM PAR successfully
802.1 are focusing on the
“management” aspects
802.1’s lack of wireless expertise
suggests success is unlikely
• 802.1 clearly believe they have the
expertise to succeed in executing the
proposed PAR by the fact they
submitted it without coordinating with
the wireless groups
• It is true that 802.1 does have
significant management expertise
• The RF management tutorial
explicitly claimed 802.1 is the logical
place to work on management
applications because it has the most
protocol and management expertise
Submission
• However, it has little explicit wireless
expertise
• Very detailed knowledge regulatory,
wireless standards knowledge and
cooperation from the wireless groups
will be required to execute this
project successfully
• This expertise is unlikely to be
available from the wireless groups
given the apparent lack of support
for the 802.1AM PAR
Slide 12
Issues – Expertise
Andrew Myles, Cisco
July 2005
doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0635r0
802 should encourage the wireless WG’s to ensure
wireless networks are manageable
• It is important to ensure wireless
networks are manageable as
appropriate and possible
• Various 802.11 TG’s are only
beginning to learn how to make
802.11 manageable, eg
– 802.11d (Regulatory
management)
– 802.11h (Spectrum management
– 802.11k (Radio measurement)
– 802.11v (Wireless management)
• Other wireless groups are
undertaking similar activities
Submission
• The wireless ad hoc in Cairns voted
positively (23/1/15) that “…a
common language needed for
wireless for communicating
operational characteristics and status
of dissimilar wireless systems”
• As 802.11 and the other wireless
WG’s “learn to walk” there is clearly
interest in making wireless
management as easy as possible
• 802 ExCom should continue to
encourage the 802 wireless groups
to work towards defining useful
dedicated interfaces based on a
common language where possible
• The work could occur in a new
wireless architecture forum …
Slide 13
Next steps
Andrew Myles, Cisco
July 2005
doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0635r0
Some explicit questions for 802.1
relating to the proposed 802.1AM PAR
Submission
Slide 14
Andrew Myles, Cisco
July 2005
doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0635r0
The 802.1AM PAR inspires a variety of technical
questions
• Why is a common RF management
interface “essential”?
• Is there a detailed list of parameters
that would be manageable using the
“common interface”?
• Why is a “common interface” more
desirable than a “dedicated
interface”?
• What regulatory issues are
applicable to the proposed work?
• Why wouldn’t a “dedicated interface”,
which requires no standardisation,
be more desirable?
• How is the necessary communication
between dissimilar systems to take
place?
• Why wouldn’t a “common interface”
be a “lowest common denominator
interface”?
• Would 802.1AM require any changes
to any of the 802.11, 802.15, 802.16,
… standards?
Submission
Slide 15
Questions – Technical
Andrew Myles, Cisco
July 2005
doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0635r0
The 802.1AM PAR inspires a variety of technical
questions
• How would 802.1AM constrain future
development of 802.11, 802.15, …?
• How would a “common interface”
approach leverage the unique
characteristics of each network?
• How often do different 802 networks
operate in the same spectrum and
geography?
Submission
• How is any RF management
interface useful when systems exist
under different administrative
controls?
• How is the necessary communication
between systems authenticated and
protected from attacks?
Slide 16
Questions – Technical
Andrew Myles, Cisco
July 2005
doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0635r0
The 802.1AM PAR inspires a variety of practical
questions
• Why was the 802.1AM PAR
developed without coordination with
the wireless WG’s?
• Would 802.1 be willing to withdraw
the 802.1AM PAR, on the
understanding that the subject
matter could be discussed in a forum
including all the wireless WG’s?
• How is the view expressed by the
negative straw poll vote at the RF
management tutorial reflected by the
proposed 802.1AM PAR?
• How would 802.1 ensure appropriate
wireless expertise (from 802.11,
802.15, 802.16, …) was available to
execute the proposed work?
Submission
Slide 17
Questions – Practical
Andrew Myles, Cisco
July 2005
doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0635r0
Proposed motions & straw polls
for 18-22 July 2005
Submission
Slide 18
Andrew Myles, Cisco
July 2005
doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0635r0
Proposed straw poll at morning session of the
wireless ad hoc on 18 July 2005
Straw poll
• “The wireless ad hoc recommends to the wireless WG’s that 05/0635ry
be forwarded to 802.1 as the view of the wireless WG’s in relation to the
proposed 802.1AM PAR”
• Proposer: Andrew Myles
Result
• Yes:
• No:
• Abstain:
Submission
Slide 19
Motion – wireless ad hoc
Andrew Myles, Cisco
July 2005
doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0635r0
Proposed motion at the plenary session of the
802.11 WG on 18 July 2005
Motion
• The Chair of 802.11 shall forward 05/0635ry to 802.1 as the view of the
802.11 WG in relation to the proposed 802.1AM PAR
• Proposer: Andrew Myles
• Seconder:
Result
• Yes:
• No:
• Abstain:
Submission
Slide 20
Motions – 802.11
Andrew Myles, Cisco
July 2005
doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0635r0
Possible motion at the plenary session of the 802.11
WG on 22 July 2005
Motion
• The Chair of 802.11 is directed to vote against the 802.1AM PAR at the
802 ExCom meeting
• Proposer: Andrew Myles
• Seconder:
Result (75% required)
• Yes:
• No:
• Abstain:
Submission
Slide 21
Motions – 802.11
Andrew Myles, Cisco