doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
IEEE 802 JTC1 Standing Committee
July 2012 agenda
17 May 2012
Authors:
Name
Company
Phone
email
Andrew Myles
Cisco
+61 2 84461010
+61 418 656587
amyles@cisco.com
Submission
Slide 1
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
This presentation will be used to run the IEEE 802
JTC1 SC meetings in San Diego in July 2012
• This presentation contains a proposed running order for the IEEE 802
JTC1 Standing Committee meeting in July 2012, including
– Proposed agenda
– Other supporting material
• It will be modified during the meeting to include motions, straw polls and
other material referred to during the meeting
Submission
Slide 2
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
Participants have a duty to inform in relation to
patents
• All participants in this meeting have certain obligations under the IEEESA Patent Policy (IEEE-SA SB Bylaws subclause 6.2). Participants:
– “Shall inform the IEEE (or cause the IEEE to be informed)” of the identity of
each “holder of any potential Essential Patent Claims of which they are
personally aware” if the claims are owned or controlled by the participant or the
entity the participant is from, employed by, or otherwise represents
— “Personal awareness” means that the participant “is personally aware that the holder
may have a potential Essential Patent Claim,” even if the participant is not personally
aware of the specific patents or patent claims
– “Should inform the IEEE (or cause the IEEE to be informed)” of the identity of
“any other holders of such potential Essential Patent Claims” (that is, third
parties that are not affiliated with the participant, with the participant’s employer,
or with anyone else that the participant is from or otherwise represents)
– The above does not apply if the patent claim is already the subject of an
Accepted Letter of Assurance that applies to the proposed standard(s) under
consideration by this group
• Early identification of holders of potential Essential Patent Claims is
strongly encouraged; there is no duty to perform a patent search
Submission
Slide 3
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
There are a variety of patent related links
• All participants should be familiar with their obligations under the IEEESA Policies & Procedures for standards development.
• Patent Policy is stated in these sources:
– IEEE-SA Standards Boards Bylaws
— http://standards.ieee.org/guides/bylaws/sect6-7.html#6
– IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual
— http://standards.ieee.org/guides/opman/sect6.html#6.3
• Material about the patent policy is available at
– http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-material.html
• If you have questions, contact the IEEE-SA Standards Board Patent
Committee Administrator at patcom@ieee.org or visit
http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/index.html
• This slide set is available at http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/patslideset.ppt
Submission
Slide 4
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
A call for potentially essential patents is not
required in the IEEE 802 JTC1 SC
• If anyone in this meeting is personally aware of the holder of any patent
claims that are potentially essential to implementation of the proposed
standard(s) under consideration by this group and that are not already
the subject of an Accepted Letter of Assurance:
– Either speak up now or
– Provide the chair of this group with the identity of the holder(s) of any and all
such claims as soon as possible or
– Cause an LOA to be submitted
Submission
Slide 5
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC will operate using general
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.
• 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.
Submission
Slide 6
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
Links are available to a variety of other useful
resources
• Link to IEEE Disclosure of Affiliation
– http://standards.ieee.org/faqs/affiliationFAQ.html
• Links to IEEE Antitrust Guidelines
– http://standards.ieee.org/resources/antitrust-guidelines.pdf
• Link to IEEE Code of Ethics
– http://www.ieee.org/web/membership/ethics/code_ethics.html
• Link to IEEE Patent Policy
– http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.ppt
Submission
Slide 7
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC will operate using accepted
principles of meeting etiquette
• IEEE 802 is a world-wide professional technical organization
• Meetings are to be conducted in an orderly and professional manner in
accordance with the policies and procedures governed by the
organization.
• Individuals are to address the “technical” content of the subject under
consideration and refrain from making “personal” comments to or about
the presenter.
Submission
Slide 8
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC has three slots at the San
Diego plenary meeting
Tuesday
17 July, PM1
Wednesday
18 July, PM1
Thursday
19 July, PM1
• Call to Order
• Call to Order
• Call to Order
• Select recording
secretary <- important!
• Select recording
secretary <- important!
• Select recording
secretary <- important!
• Approve agenda
• Conduct meeting
according to agenda
• Conduct meeting
according to agenda
• Recess
• Adjourn
• Details on next page
• Conduct meeting
according to agenda
• Recess
Submission
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC has a detailed list of agenda
items to be considered
In no particular order:
• Approve minutes
– Interim meeting in May 2012 in Atlanta
• Review extended goals
– From IEEE 802 ExCom in Nov 2010
• Review IEEE 802.11 WG liaisons to SC6
– Review latest liaisons of Sponsor Ballot drafts
– Review status of JTC1 ballot on IEEE 802.11-2012
• Review any changes to status of proposals to SC6 related to IEEE 802
– WAPI, TLSEC, TePA-AC, EUHT, etc
Submission
Slide 10
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC has a detailed list of agenda
items to be considered
In no particular order:
• Review draft SC6/WG1 agenda for meeting in September in Austria
– Appoint and empower IEEE 802 delegation to SC6 meeting
• Develop final responses as part of process to develop an agreement
related extensions by SC6 to IEEE 802 standards
– Based on a 2nd round of questions & comments by Swiss & Chinese NBs
• Consider IEEE 802 response to Swiss NB input to SC6 on process
improvements after WAPI experience
Submission
Slide 11
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC will consider approving its
agenda
Motion to approve agenda
• The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC approves the agenda for its meeting in San
Diego in July 2012, as documented on pages 9-11 of <this slide deck>
• Moved:
• Seconded
• Result
Submission
Slide 12
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC will consider approval of
previous minutes
Motion to approve minutes
• The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC approves the minutes for its meeting in Atlanta
in May 2012, as documented in 11-12-0777r0
• Moved:
• Seconded:
• Result:
Submission
Slide 13
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC reaffirmed its general goals
in Sept 09, but they were extended in Nov 2010
Agreed (with changes from Nov 2010) goals
• Provides a forum for 802 members to discuss issues relevant to both:
– IEEE 802
– ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6
• Recommends positions to ExCom on ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 actions
affecting IEEE 802
– Note that 802 LMSC holds the liaison to SC6, not 802.11 WG
• Participates in dialog with IEEE staff and 802 ExCom on issues
concerning IEEE ’s relationship with ISO/IEC
• Organises IEEE 802 members to contribute to liaisons and other
documents relevant to the ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 members
Extensions
• The extensions to our goals came out of the 802 ExCom ad hoc held in
November 2010 on the Friday evening
Submission
Slide 14
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
The IEEE 802.11 WG has liaised various Sponsor
Ballot drafts to ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6
Task
Group
After
Sing.
After
Palm Sp
After San
Fran
After
Okinawa
After
Atlanta
After
Jack.
After
Hawaii
After
Atlanta
Mar 11
May 11
July 11
Sept 11
Nov 11
Jan 12
Mar 12
May 12
TGae
-
-
-
D5.0
D7.0
-
Ratified
TGaa
-
-
-
D6.0
D7.0
-
Ratified
TGac
-
-
-
-
-
D2.0
-
D3.0
TGad
-
-
-
-
-
D5.0
D6.0/D7.0
D8.0
TGmb
D8.0
-
-
D10.0
D12.0
-
Ratified
TGs
D10.0
-
Ratified
-
-
-
-
TGu
-
Ratified
-
-
-
-
-
• Normally the 802.11 WG liaises Sponsor Ballot documents. However, the
WG told SC6 it would liaise 802.11ac as soon as it passed a LB; we did!
Submission
Slide 15
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
Publication of IEEE 802.11-2012 is important so we can
submit it to ISO/IEC for “International” ratification
• One of the issue that comes up continuously is claims that IEEE 802.11
is not “International”
– This has been repeated continuously by various Chinese stakeholders,
particularly in relation to the amendments that have not been sent to ISO/IEC
– Interestingly, the Swiss NB rep recently agreed that IEEE 802.11 is
“international” in practice
• One way of resolving this issue is to submit IEEE 802.11-2012 to
ISO/IEC for ratification as soon as possible
• It is possible that IEEE 802.1 and IEEE 802.3 could also be submitted for
ratification by ISO/IEC if an agreement is reached on maintenance
procedures
– This topic will be discussed later in the meeting this week
Submission
Slide 16
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
SC6 agreed in Feb 2012 to invite IEEE 802 to submit
802.11-2012 for processing under the PSDO
• The IEEE 802 delegation explained the status of IEEE 802.11-2012 at
SC6 meeting in Feb 12
• It was also reiterated it was going to be submitted to ISO/IEC JTC1 for
ratification under the PSDO agreement as soon as it was published
• It was also noted that the PSDO process could be accelerated if SC6
formally invited the submission of IEEE 802.11-2012
– Saves need for a 60 day pre-ballot before the 5 month ballot
• SC6 ultimately issued the invitation, with one “disapprove” vote from the
China NB
– Resolution 6.1.6: Based on the ISO/IEEE PSDO Agreement, Clause 3.2, SC6
invites the IEEE 802.11 Working Group to submit IEEE 802.11-2012 for
processing as an ISO/IEC International Standard once it is published by IEEE
Submission
Slide 17
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
IEEE 802.11-2012 has been sent to ISO/IEC for balloting
according to the process in the PSDO agreement
• Now that IEEE 802.11-2012 has been ratified by the IEEE Standards
Board, IEEE staff has sent it to ISO/IEC for processing
• The JTC1 Secretariat have informed its membership that the 5 month
ballot will start on 18 May 2012, closing on 18 Oct 2012
• This means it will close after the next SC6 meeting
– The ballot cannot be discussed at all during the meeting
– There is no impact on comment resolution because this ballot does not have
any comments
• The IEEE 802.11 WG has not received any feedback on the ballot from
any NBs so far
Submission
Slide 18
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
The “WAPI story” has been going on for a very,
very, very long time ... and was thought to be over ...
Brief summary of highlights/lowlights
• 2003: WAPI mandated for use in China, implemented by named firms
• 2004: Mandate withdrawn after China agrees to standardise WAPI first
• 2005: WAPI submitted to ISO/IEC fast track ballot in parallel to IEEE
submitting 802.11i, after much controversy and appeals
• 2006: WAPI fails ISO/IEC fast track ballot and 802.11i passes, amid
much controversy and appeals
• 2009: WAPI mandated in handsets and for SPs in China
• 2009: WAPI submitted to ISO/IEC as NP
• 2010: WAPI NP ballot passes but comments not resolved
• Nov 2011: China NB announced that they had withdrawn the WAPI NP
• Feb 2012: SC6 formally cancelled the WAPI NP
Submission
Slide 19
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
... but there was some sort of protest from the China
NB relating to the WAPI NP process
• The China NB stated they withdrew the project because:
– The project has “experienced and still been suffering many unreasonable
obstacles”
– It is likely the project will not complete within required time limits because of an
“unfair and unjustified environment,”
• It is believed that the China SC6 Mirror Committee has protested to
ISO/IEC about various aspects the WAPI NP process
• The details of any protest from the China SC6 Mirror Committee or any
response from ISO/IEC are unavailable
– Any details may become available at the next SC6 meeting ...
– ... although there is no agenda item related to WAPI on the SC6/WG1 agenda
Submission
Slide 20
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
Any un-cancelling of the WAPI NP will require ballots
of SC6 NBs, JTC1 NBs & comment resolution
• The China NB suggested at the time of cancellation they may resubmit
WAPI “when a more favorable standardization environment is available”
• The ISO/IEC Directives are not very clear on the process for a project to
be re-established once it has been cancelled
• The best hint comes from the latest NP Ballot form, which includes an
option for:
– “THIS PROPOSAL RELATES TO THE RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF A
CANCELLED PROJECT AS AN ACTIVE PROJECT”
• This form and the latest ISO/IEC Directives (plus JTC1 supplement)
suggest if there was a proposal to re-establish WAPI then:
– It would have be sent to a new letter ballot of SC6 NBs
– Assuming the ballot passed, any resulting negative
comments would have to be resolved and balloted by the JTC1 NBs if the JTC1
Secretariat judges the comment “will influence the acceptance of the new work
item proposal”
Submission
Slide 21
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
It is unclear what is next for WAPI, from either a
regulatory or standards perspective
Regulations
Standards
• WAPI is still required by Type Approval
regulations in handsets in China
– These regulations are not available
in written form, although their
existence was disclosed by China in
WTO discussions
• WAPI is a Chinese National Standard
• There are no known plans to
standardise WAPI internationally
• It is possible that WAPI may be taken
to IS status through “other” processes
• WAPI is still also informally required by
SPs in China
• It is hoped any requirement for WAPI
in devices will be repealed soon given
that WAPI will not become an ISO/IEC
standard
• Please provide the SC any updates to this regulatory and standards situation
Submission
Slide 22
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
There is no further news related to TLSec, the
proposed 802.1AE replacement
• In previous SC6 meetings the China NB have proposed a protocol called
TLSec, which is roughly an 802.1AE replacement
• At the SC6 meeting in February 2012, an IWNCOMM representative
presented TLSEc again, emphasising its use of TePA, and concluding
– “It is necessary to do more research on LAN layer 2 security.
– TLSec in N14402 is different from IEEE 802.1AE”
• IWNCOMM asserted that China Telecom were supporting this work
• The IEEE 802 delegation responded with a technical presentation
prepared and some background on the IEEE 802.1 WG
• The discussion concluded with the China NB informing SC6 that further
standardisation work on TLSec would continue in BWIPS
– BWIPS is the organisation under CESI that standardised WAPI
• There is no further news related to TLSec as of July 2012
Submission
Slide 23
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
There is no further news related to TePA-AC, the
proposed 802.1X replacement
• In previous SC6 meetings the China NB have proposed a protocol called
TePA-AC, which is roughly an 802.1X replacement
• At the SC6 meeting in February 2012, an IWNCOMM representative
presented TePA-AC again, emphasising its use of TePA, and concluding
– “Network access control is widely used in many network environments.
– TePA-AC in N14399 is different from IEEE 802.1x.”
• IWNCOMM claimed that TePA-AC covered a different application space
from 802.1X, but Swiss NB rep appeared to disagree
• The discussion concluded with the China NB informing SC6 that further
standardisation work on TePA-AC would continue in BWIPS
– BWIPS is the organisation under CESI that standardised WAPI
• There is no further news related to TePA-AC as of July 2012
Submission
Slide 24
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
There is no further news related to TAAA, the
proposed LRWN security replacement
• In previous SC6 meetings the China NB have proposed a protocol called
TAAA, which is roughly WAPI for Long Range Wireless Networks
• At the SC6 meeting in February 2012, an IWNCOMM representative
presented TAAA again, emphasising its use of TePA, and concluding
– “TAAA applies to various LRWN.
– The details of the solution may be discussed further.”
• It appears from the subsequent discussion that a LRWN could include
both LTE & 802.16
• The IEEE delegation provided a response, which informed SC6 that this
activity is actually within the scope of ITU IMT-2000 and IMT-Advanced
• This information appeared to be a surprise to the IWNCOMM rep and
there was no further discussion, or indication of next steps for TAAA
• There is no further news related to TAAA as of July 2012
Submission
Slide 25
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
There was no mention of UHT or EUHT at the SC6
meeting in China in February 2012
• Nufront and the China NB had previously proposed standardisation of
UHT (an 802.11n extension) and EHUT (an 802.11ac replacement) by
SC6
– EUHT is also known as N-UHT
• The IEEE 802 delegation expressed concern about various aspects of
this proposal at the San Diego SC6 meeting in June 2011
• It was expected that the issue would be raised again at the China
meeting of SC6 in February 2012
• UHT/EUHT were not mentioned at all, although Nufront representatives
were in attendance
Submission
Slide 26
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
The recent standardisation UHT or EUHT in China
raises a number of unknowns
• Since the SC6 meeting in Feb 12, MIIT has announced that UHT and
EUHT have been approved as voluntary Chinese National Standards
– This occurred after a somewhat unusual process in CCSA that effectively
ignored the concerns of many Chinese and non-Chinese companies
– The actual text appears to be unavailable as of July 2012, even in hard copy
• It is not known what the implications of UHT/EUHT standardisation in
China are for the 5GHz bands in China
• It is not known if type approval regulations will be used to mandate
UHT/EUHT, similar to those used for WAPI
• It is not even known if UHT or EUHT have been implemented
– Nufront have not released any products
Submission
Slide 27
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
It was feared that EUHT could be linked to the
opening up of 5GHz spectrum in China
• Most of the 5GHz band in China is not currently open for WLAN
– Even in 5725-5850MHz, users must apply for government approval (and in
some cases, must pay fee) to use the band
• However, there was an effort led by Chinese SPs & supported by MIIT
State Radio Regulatory Commission (SRRC) to open up 5GHz in China
• This effort had been going very well, until late 2011 when it was claimed
that the band may be opened up for UHT/EUHT only
• The 12th Five Year Plan for Wireless Radio Development provides
support for a UHT/EUHT only approach (published in 2011)
– The plan calls for China to make strategic use of its wireless spectrum
resources to support broadband, cloud computing, and IoT development
– It also calls for allocation of spectrum to indigenous Chinese technologies, and
that it increase the amount of domestic IP in wireless radio equipment used in
China
Submission
Slide 28
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
Recent reports suggest that the risk to 5GHz from
EUHT interest in China might be overstated
• It was reported (as of March 2012) that:
– MIIT have indicated they WERE looking at opening up the lower 5 GHz band
(e.g. 5150-5350MHz) to WLAN in 2012.
— China still has unresolved issues regarding radio interference from radar, but MIIT will
use experience with radar in US & Europe
– MIIT have made clear that it would NOT grant exclusive access to any specific
technology for access to the 5GHz band,
– MIIT have made clear all internationally standardized 802.11 products were
eligible for use in China
— Of course, this does not include 802.11ac which has not been standardised, even by
the IEEE; technically, it does not include 802.11n yet either
• It was reported (as of May 2012) that:
– During 2012 US–China Joint Commission on Commerce & Trade (JCCT)
Information Industry Working Group (IIWG), MIIT told the USTR that China
would allocate the lower 5GHz band (5150–5350Mhz) for unlicensed, public use
– At least one Chinese SP is requiring testing of devices in 2012 using 51505350MHz, 5470-5725MHz and 5725-5850MHz
Submission
Slide 29
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
Nufront sent a letter to the IEEE 802.11 WG Chair
suggesting some sort of interaction
• Before the SC6 meeting in Feb 12, Nufront sent a letter (in Chinese!) to
the IEEE 802.11 WG Chair, asking:
– What is IEEE 802.11’s view towards China developing EUHT?
– Does an opportunity exist for cooperation between IEEE 802 and EUHT
promoters?
• The IEEE 802.11 WG Chair responded (in Chinese!) noting:
– He does not know the opinion of the 802.11 WG yet
– The 802.11 WG is interested in discussions, and learning about EUHT
– The 802.11 WG members are likely to have a variety of technical questions,
particularly in relation to coexistence of CSMA/CA and TMDA systems
– Nufront is invited to present to 802.11, or alternatively a meeting could be
arranged in Beijing next February for a limited audience
• There has been no further communication as of July 2012
Submission
Slide 30
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 met in in Guangzhou, China in
Feb 2012 and will meet in Graz, Austria in Sept 2012
• SC6 has a F2F meeting every 6 (future) - 9 (past) months or so
• The last meeting was held in Guangzhou, China in February 2012
• The next meeting is in Graz, Austria in Sept 2012
– Same week as IEEE 802.11 WG meeting in Palm Springs, with a generic
agenda that includes:
—
—
—
—
WG 1 - Physical and Data Link Layers
WG 7 - Network, Transport, and Future Network
WG 8 – Directory
WG 9 - ASN.1 and Registration
– It is expected that IEEE will be represented by at least
— Bruce Kraemer (IEEE 802.11 WG Chair)
— Jodi Haasz (IEEE staff)
– Andrew Myles also expects to attend as US NB HoD
Submission
Slide 31
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
The draft agenda for the SC6/WG1 meeting has
been announced with a few items for IEEE 802
• …
• 5. SC6 WG1 Active Work Items
– 5.1 Wireless Power Transfer
— 5.1.1 In-band Control Protocol based on MFAN
— 5.1.2 Incubator Group on 'ICT over WPT‘
– 5.2 Study Group Report on PLC Harmonization
– 5.3 IEEE 802 Liaison <- IEEE 802 liaisons & proposed agreement
– 5.4 NFC
– 5.5 Liaison report from Ecma
– 5.6 Revision
— 5.6.1 ISO/IEC 24771
— 5.6.2 ISO/IEC 29157
• 5.9 Others
– 5.9.1 Procedures <- Procedure review by Swiss NB based on WAPI experience
• …
Submission
Slide 32
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC will empower the IEEE 802
HoD to the SC6 meeting in Sept 12
Motion
• The JTC1 ad hoc recommends that Bruce Kraemer be appointed as HoD
to the SC6 meeting in Sept 2012 and be authorised to:
– Appoint the IEEE 802 delegation
– Approve any necessary submissions
– Call any necessary preparation teleconferences
• Moved:
• Seconded:
• Result:
• Note: this is the same as motion in November 2011 before SC6 meeting
in Feb 2102
Submission
Slide 33
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
In Feb 12, SC6 approved a table with proposed
dispositions for various ISO/IEC 8802 standards
• The IEEE 802 delegation presented a liaison that was in response to a
UK NB proposal for the disposition of various ISO/IEC 8802 standards
– See N15106
• It was ultimately agreed that the table of proposed dispositions proposed
by IEEE 802 in the liaison should be accepted
– Resolution 6.1.7: Noting the liaison response from IEEE 802 in 6N15106, SC6
instructs its Secretariat to revise the SC 6 Program of Work based on the table
below
Submission
Slide 34
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
In Feb 12, SC6 approved the table on the status of
8802 standards
Project
05.01.00
Number
8802-1
Year
2011
Name
SPECIFIC LANS Overview
Recommendation
Retain. IEEE 802 will provide text for a replacement when the
current 802 O&A revision project is complete
05.01.01
8802-1
-
Cancel project. Delete the draft.
05.02.00
8802-2
1998
05.03.00
8802-3
2000
SPECIFIC LANS Cooperative
agreement with IEEE 802
SPECIFIC LANS Logical Link
Control 90.93
SPECIFIC LANS CSMA/CD
Edn. 6
05.05.00
8802-5
1998
Retain in stabilized state
05.11.00
8802-11
2005
SPECIFIC LANS Token Ring.
Edn.3
LANS. Wireless MAC/PHY
specifications Edn. 2
05.21.01
11802-1
2005
Retain. IEEE 802 will provide a replacement at a future date
05.22.01
11802-2
2005
05.25.00
11802-5
1997
05.31.00
15802-1
1995
LAN GUIDELINES LLC
Addresses
LAN GUIDELINES Standard
group MAC addresses
Media Access Control (MAC)
Bridging of Ethernet v2.0 in
Local Area Network
COMMON LANS MAC service
05.33.00
15802-3
1998
COMMON LANS MAC bridges
Retain. IEEE 802 will provide a replacement at a future date
based upon either 802.1D-2005 or 802.1Q-2011
Submission
Retain in stabilized state
Retain. Will be superseded as soon the next revision of IEEE
802.3 is ratified by ISO/IEC.
Retain. Will be superseded as soon the next revision of IEEE
802.11 is ratified by ISO/IEC
Retain. IEEE 802 will provide a replacement at a future date
Retain in stabilized state.
Retain. IEEE 802 will provide a replacement based upon
802.1AC at a future date
Slide 35
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
The proposal that only IEEE 802 “maintain, alter &
extend” ISO/IEC 8802 standards was controversial
• The IEEE 802 liaison also indicated that IEEE 802 would be willing to
submit standards (particularly 802.1 and 802.3) to ISO/IEC under certain
conditions
– “…it is essential that ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 agrees that the responsibility to
maintain, alter or extend the functionality of IEEE 802 standards ratified by
ISO/IEC remains solely with IEEE 802”
• This condition was particularly controversial among most NBs
• The main issue of contention appeared to revolve around the definition of
“extend”; many NBs considered a restriction of extensions as limiting
SC6’s ability to do their normal work
Submission
Slide 36
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
The SC6 NBs had a variety of objections to the
proposed IEEE condition
China NB had some concerns
• Stated that they believe it is based on a misinterpretation of “one
standard worldwide”
• Objected to the “alter” and “extend” conditions
• Suspected it violates anti-trust laws – will need legal advice
• Suspected it contradicts ISO/IEC Directives – will need to ask staff
UK NB had some concerns
• Stated it was unreasonable to limit “extensions” by SC6, on the basis that
any document that normatively referenced an 8802 standard could be
considered an extension
Swiss NB had not reviewed
• Stated they had not seen the liaison in time
Submission
Slide 37
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
SC6 ultimately decided on a process to help resolve
issues related to the IEEE 802 proposal
SC6 Resolution 6.1.4 (Liaison to IEEE 802)
• SC 6 instructs its Secretariat to forward the following liaison statement to
IEEE 802:
– “SC6 appreciates and acknowledges IEEE 802’s proposal (6N15106) for an
agreement.
– SC 6 will forward an initial list of related questions from its NBs and LO to IEEE
802 by 2012-03-09
– SC 6 requests a response and a draft MoU from IEEE 802 by 2012-05-01. A
second list of questions will be provided to IEEE 802 by 2012-07-01
– SC 6 requests a response and updated MoU from IEEE 802 by 2012-08-01.”
• Approved unanimously
Submission
Slide 38
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
SC6 ultimately decided on a process to help resolve
issues related to the IEEE 802 proposal
SC6 Resolution 6.1.5 (Instructions to SC6 NBs)
• SC 6 requests its NBs and LO to provide any questions related to IEEE
802 proposal (6N15106) for an agreement to the SC 6 Secretariat by
2012-03-07
• SC 6 Secretariat is instructed to forward them to IEEE 802 by
2012-03-09
• The replies from IEEE 802 and a first draft MoU will be distributed to the
SC 6 NBs and LO
• SC6 NBs may provide additional comments related to these replies and
MoU for an agreement by 2012-06-22
• The replies from IEEE 802 and a second draft MoU will be distributed to
the SC 6 NBs and LO and discussed at the SC 6 plenary in
Gratkorn/Graz
• Approved unanimously
Submission
Slide 39
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
Additional questions were received from two SC6
NBs by the 7 March deadline for 1st round comments
• Questions were received from two NBs
– China NB – see N15226
– Switzerland NB – see N15227
Submission
Slide 40
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
In March 12, the IEEE 802 JTC1 SC developed a
draft “agreement” and a set of responses
• The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC developed a draft agreement and a set of
responses to the Chinese and Swiss questions
– See 11-12-0456-00-0jtc-mar-2012-Hawaii-output.ppt
– The key issue was a definition of what we meant by an extension; this was
defined to mean, “functionality that makes use of internal interfaces, which were
designed solely for the use of IEEE 802 members within the context of approved
IEEE 802 projects”
• This document was subsequently approved by the IEEE 802 EC with
authority given for editorial changes
• Bruce Kraemer and Paul Nikolich subsequently approved a revised
version, which was then liaised to SC6
– See N15271
Submission
Slide 41
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
It is likely that the “agreement” will not be a signed
legal document
• The proposed “agreement” document is between SC6 and IEEE 802
• It is doubtful that either group have the legal authority to sign such a
document
• Instead, it is envisaged that both groups will pass motions approving the
agreement
• This of course leaves open the risk that either group will reneg in the
future
• The only thing stopping this is the “moral imperative”
• Is that enough comfort to allow the 802.1 WG and 802.3 WG?
Submission
Slide 42
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
Additional questions were received from two SC6
NBs by the 1 July deadline for 2nd round comments
• Additional questions/comments were received from two NBs
– China NB – see N15335
– Switzerland NB – see N15325
• The SC will consider possible responses to the 2nd round comments
– See 11-12-0767 for proposed response to China NB comments
– See 11-12-0768 for proposed response to Switzerland NB comments
– See 11-12-0769 for slightly modified proposed agreement
Submission
Slide 43
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
The draft “agreement” has changed only slightly
since the Hawaii meeting in March 2012
IEEE 802 and SC6 agree that:
a) Best practice indicates a single SDO should have responsibility for
developing or maintaining a standard, albeit in cooperation with all
relevant stakeholders
b) IEEE 802 will have sole responsibility for developing, maintaining,
altering and extending all IEEE 802 standards adopted by ISO/IEC JTC
1/SC 6 as ISO/IEC 8802 standards
c) An extension is defined as functionality that makes use of internal
interfaces, which were designed solely for the use of IEEE 802
members within the context of approved IEEE 802 projects .
d) …
Submission
Slide 44
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
The draft “agreement” has not changed only
slightly since the Hawaii meeting in March 2012
IEEE 802 and SC6 agree that:
c) ….
d) SC6 may request clarification from IEEE 802 as to whether a particular
interface in an IEEE 802 standard is an internal interface
e) SC6 may request that IEEE 802 define any external interfaces required
to enable SC6 to define additional functionality for ISO/IEC 8802
standards that originated in IEEE 802
f) IEEE 802 will consult with SC6 as necessary to produce IEEE 802
standards and their ISO/IEC 8802 equivalents that reflect the needs of
a broad range of stakeholders
Submission
Slide 45
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
The proposed agreement between SC6 and IEEE
802 does not apply to ISO/IEC 8802-15-4
• A member of IEEE 802.15 WG asked whether the proposed agreement
between SC6 and IEEE 802 would apply to ISO/IEC 8802-15-4?
– ISO/IEC 8802-15-4 was fast tracked by SC31 under the PSDO
• The answer is no because the proposed agreement would only apply to
IEEE 802 standards submitted to ISO/IEC JTC1 through SC6 under the
PSDO
• That said, there would be no harm, and probably lots of good, if IEEE
802.15 WG and SC31 also decided to follow similar principles
Submission
Slide 46
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
ITU-T is also struggling with the issue of who can
modify standards
• The Germany NB in ITU-T proposed a mechanism by which ITU-T could
change the meaning of standards from other SDOs
• It was initially directed at a number of IETF standards, including MPLS,
but could also be applied to IEEE standards
• In both ITU-T and ISO/IEC cases the fundamental question is whether it
makes sense for one SDO to modify the work of another without
permission?
• The IEEE Board of Governors submitted a document to ITU-T
articulating its views
Submission
Slide 47
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
The IEEE 802 JTC1 ad hoc will review the Swiss NB
comments and a possible IEEE 802 response
Submission
Slide 48
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
The IEEE 802 JTC1 ad hoc will review the Chinese
NB comments and a possible IEEE 802 response
Submission
Slide 49
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
The IEEE 802 JTC1 ad hoc will discuss the
“signing” of any agreement
• It appears that neither IEEE 802 or SC6 have the authority to formally
sign an agreement
• One approach is for both parties to pass motions among its membership
that approves the agreement
– Either party could then renege at any time by passing a motion to rescind the
approval
• The agreement would be based on a “moral imperative” rather thsn any
legal force
• Is the IEEE 802.1 WG and IEEE 802 sufficiently satisfied with this
arrangement?
– If so then we can move forward
– If not then there is no obvious path
• Discuss …
Submission
Slide 50
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
The Swiss NB has made some process suggestions
in the light of WAPI experience
• The Swiss NB has made a set of suggestions to SC6 in the light of the
WAPI experience
– And probably EUHT, TLSEc, TePA-AC, etc
• The suggestions are in three categories
– a new process for reviewing IEEE 802 drafts
– more socialisation of the NP proposals, including the NP form
– a new focus on identifying experts for participation in projects
• The IEEE 802 does not need to take any action now, but need to be
aware of possible outcomes and be ready for the discussion in
September
Submission
Slide 51
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
Swiss NB is suggesting a new process for
reviewing IEEE 802 drafts
A. Review of IEEE 802 drafts
• Since some time the IEEE 802.11 group has been submitting drafts to
SC6/WG1 for comment.
• This practice is expected to be continued and possibly also attained by
other IEEE 802 groups.
• However, so far only part of the received drafts have been reviewed.
• To change this, the item "Review of IEEE drafts" shall be included in the
WG1 agenda to
– report about review results since the previous meeting,
– announce drafts to be received before the next meeting,
– call for volunteers to review these drafts.
• The results of the discussion under this agenda item shall be reported in
the WG1 meeting minutes.
Submission
Slide 52
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
What is the IEEE 802 reaction to “a new process for
reviewing IEEE 802 drafts”?
Possible IEEE 802 reaction
• The proposed process seems sensible and appropriate for SC6 to
encourage commenting on IEEE 802 drafts and tracking any responses
Submission
Slide 53
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
Swiss NB is suggesting a new focus on identifying
experts for participation in projects
B. Support of Project Editors
• In NP ballots, Q3 asks for active participation to the project. According to
the ISO/IEC Directives, P-members answering "Yes" to Q3 are
requested to nominate experts for such participation.
• However, so far, in WG1 only exceptionally these experts have been
actively involved into the projects.
• To change this, in WG1 the Project Editors shall
– include the names of these experts in their NP ballot report,
– pro-actively involve these experts in the project,
– report to WG1 about project activities
• The reports of the Project Editors shall be included in the WG1 meeting
minutes.
• If a P-member answering "Yes" to Q3 fails to nominate an expert, or if an
expert nominated fails to collaborate with the Project Editor, then WG1
shall request the Sc6 Secretariat to ask that P-member for proper action.
Submission
Slide 54
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
What is the IEEE 802 reaction to “a new focus on
identifying experts for participation in projects”?
Possible IEEE 802 reaction
• In many cases very few experts have participated in SC6 technical
discussions, even when they committed to do so
• For example, only two of five NBs that committed to provide experts on
the WAPI NP form actually did so
• It seems appropriate and sensible for SC6 to define mechanisms to
ensure commitments are kept
• However, IEEE 802 has an ongoing concern that SC6 NBs generally do
not seem to attract experts qualified to comment on SC6 work
– The WAPI discussions had experts from only 3 NBs, and IEEE 802
– The UHT discussion had experts from 2-3 NBs, and the IEEE 802
– The TePA-AC discussions had experts from 2 NBs and the IEEE 802
• This means that there is doubt about the quality of the technical review
Submission
Slide 55
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
Swiss NB is suggesting more socialisation of the
NP proposals, including the NP form
C. Consultation on NPs
• The JTC1 Supplement, Annex JA.2.1, advises National Bodies to consult
the subcommittee prior to submission of a NP for ballot, because (cit.)
"… without prior consultation of the subcommittee, there is a risk that the
ballot may fail because the necessary consensus and support are
absent".
• So far, WG1 has been presented NPs in a fairly informal manner, mostly
in the form of PowerPoint presentations, and with focus on the technical
content of the proposal.
• However, to minimize the risk that the ballot may fail, and to substantiate
the envisaged consensus and support, essential elements of the NP
proposal should be included in these consultations.
Submission
Slide 56
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
Swiss NB is suggesting more socialisation of the
NP proposals, including the NP form
C. Consultation on NPs (con’t)
• To this end, presentations of NPs should provide the following:
– Title and scope,
– Sketch of the field of application and major use cases.
– Demonstration of the innovative nature of the proposed technology. Technology
is deemed innovative if it meets one or more of the following
— The target field of application is different from that of existing standards.
— The functionality exceeds that provided by existing standards.
— The technology has a competitive advantage over related technology.
– Requirements for non-interference and safe coexistence with other technologies,
– Requirements for inter-operability with other technologies,
– Indication of regulatory requirements, i.e. either regulation requiring the use of
the proposed standard, or regulation that must be considered by
implementations of the proposed standard.
– Indication of known patents.
• The WG1 minutes shall report the results of the checking of these criteria
by WG1.
Submission
Slide 57
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
What is the IEEE 802 reaction to “more socialisation
of the NP proposals, including the NP form”?
Possible IEEE 802 reaction
• Earlier discussions justifying NPs seem reasonable and sensible
Submission
Slide 58
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
IEEE 802 JTC1 SC will consider any motions
• The motions will be constructed during the week
• They are likely to include motions to approve
– Response to the Swiss NB comments
– Response to the China NB comments
– Final version of the proposed agreement
Submission
Slide 59
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
Are there any other matters for consideration by
IEEE 802 JTC1 SC?
Submission
Slide 60
Andrew Myles, Cisco
doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0778r1
July 2012
The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC will adjourn for the week
Motion:
• The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC, having completed its business in San Diego in
July 2012, adjourns
• Moved:
• Seconded:
• Result
Submission
Slide 61
Andrew Myles, Cisco