doc IEEE 802 11 120299 r 0 Mar

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 IEEE 802 JTC 1 Standing Committee March 2012 agenda 13 March 2102 Authors: Submission Slide 1 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 This presentation will be used to run the IEEE 802 JTC 1 SC meetings in Hawaii in March 2012 • This presentation contains a proposed running order for the IEEE 802 JTC 1 Standing Committee meeting in March 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

Mar 2012 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 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 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 There 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/sect 6 -7. html#6 – IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual — http: //standards. ieee. org/guides/opman/sect 6. html#6. 3 • Material about the patent policy is available at – http: //standards. ieee. org/board/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/patslideset. ppt Submission Slide 4 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 A call for potentially essential patents is not required in the IEEE 802 JTC 1 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 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 The IEEE 802 JTC 1 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 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 Links are available to a variety of other useful resources • Link to IEEE Disclosure of Affiliation – http: //standards. ieee. org/faqs/affiliation. FAQ. 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-slideset. ppt Submission Slide 7 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 The IEEE 802 JTC 1 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 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 The IEEE 802 JTC 1 SC has three slots at the Hawaii plenary meeting Tuesday 13 March, PM 1 Wednesday 14 March, PM 1 Thursday 15 March, PM 1 • Call to Order • Select recording secretary <- important! • Approve 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 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 The IEEE 802 JTC 1 SC has a detailed list of agenda items to be considered • Approve minutes from – Interim meeting in January 2012 in Jacksonville – Teleconference on 9 February 2012 • Review extended goals • Review outcomes of SC 6 meeting in China in February 2012 – – Review status of WAPI (802. 11 i replacement) Review status of TLSec/Te. PA-AC (802. 1 X/AE replacements) Review status of 802. 16 security replacements Review status of N-UHT (802. 11 ac replacement) Submission Slide 10 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 The IEEE 802 JTC 1 SC has a detailed list of agenda items to be considered – – – Review outcome of proposal for renewal of ISO/IEC 8802 standards Review next steps of forwarding 802. 11 -2012 for ISO/IEC ratification Review possible Mo. U to enable forwarding of 802. 1 & 802. 3 to ISO/IEC Review outcome of SC 6 “best practices” proposal Review WG 7, WG 8 activities • Consider any motions Submission Slide 11 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 The IEEE 802 JTC 1 SC will consider approving its agenda Motion to approve agenda • The IEEE 802 JTC 1 SC approves the agenda for its meeting in Hawaii in March 2012, as documented on pages 9 -11 of <this slide deck> • Moved: • Seconded • Result Submission Slide 12 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 The IEEE 802 JTC 1 SC will consider approval of previous minutes (Jacksonville in January 2012) Motion to approve minutes • The IEEE 802 JTC 1 SC approves the minutes for its meeting in Jacksonville in January 2012, as documented in 11 -12 -0199 r 0 • Moved: • Seconded: • Result: Submission Slide 13 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 The IEEE 802 JTC 1 SC will consider approval of previous minutes (teleconference in February 2012) Motion to approve minutes • The IEEE 802 JTC 1 SC approves the minutes for its teleconference on 9 February 2012, as documented in 11 -12 -0204 r 0 • Moved: • Seconded: • Result: Submission Slide 14 Andrew Myles, Cisco

Mar 2012 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 The IEEE 802 JTC 1 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 JTC 1/SC 6 • Recommends positions to Ex. Com on ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6 actions affecting IEEE 802 – Note that 802 LMSC holds the liaison to SC 6, not 802. 11 WG • Participates in dialog with IEEE staff and 802 Ex. Com 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 JTC 1/SC 6 members Extensions • The extensions to our goals came out of the 802 Ex. Com ad hoc held in November 2010 on the Friday evening Submission Slide 15 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 The IEEE 802 JTC 1 SC will review the outcomes of the recent SC 6 meeting Review status of: • WAPI (802. 11 i replacement) • TLSec/Te. PA-AC (802. 1 X/AE replacements) • 802. 16 security replacements • N-UHT (802. 11 ac replacement) • Proposal for renewal of ISO/IEC 8802 standards • Next steps of forwarding 802. 11 -2012 for ISO/IEC ratification • Possible Mo. U to enable forwarding of 802. 1 & 802. 3 to ISO/IEC • Outcome of SC 6 “best practices” proposal • WG 7, WG 8 activities Submission Slide 16 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6 met in in Guangzhou, China in Feb 2012 and will meet in Graz, Austria in Sept 2102 • SC 6 has a F 2 F meeting every 6 -9 months or so • The last meeting was held on 20 -24 June 2011 in San Diego – All WGs met in San Diego — — WG 1: Physical and data link layers WG 7: Network and transport layers (also known as Future Network) WG 8: Directory WG 9: ASN. 1 and registration • The recent meeting was in Guangzhou, China in February 2012 – Now confirmed for week of 20 Feb 2012, which is the same week as the Wi-Fi Alliance meeting in Vienna – Only two WGs are planning to meet — WG 1: Physical and data link layers — WG 7: Network and transport layers — WG 8: Directory • The next meeting is in Graz, Austria in Sept 2012 – Same week as IEEE 802. 11 WG meeting in Palm Springs Submission Slide 17 Andrew Myles, Cisco

Mar 2012 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Apparently hotels in China are threatened by the pleasures of Wi-Fi! Sign in hotel where SC 6 meeting was recently held; it was all over the hotel Submission

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 Eight P-member NBs (out of 19) attended the SC 6 plenary meeting National Bodies (P members) National Bodies (O members) • South Korea • Austria • Netherlands • Hong Kong • China Liaison organisations • UK • ECMA • US • IEEE 802 • Switzerland • Spain – Bruce Kraemer (802. 11 WG Chair, Ho. D) – Jodi Haasz (IEEE staff) • Germany Submission Slide 19 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 Six P-member NBs attended the SC 6/WG 1 meeting, with 28 delegates from China National Bodies (P members) National Bodies (O members) • South Korea – 3 attendees • Austria – 1 attendee • Netherlands – 1 attendees – Qualcomm • China - 28 attendees – Nufront – China Telecom – IWNCOMM • UK - 1 attendee • US - 1 attendee – NXP • Hong Kong – 1 attendee Liaison organisations • ECMA – 1 attendee • IEEE 802 – 2 attendees – Bruce Kraemer (802. 11 WG Chair, Ho. D) – Jodi Haasz (IEEE staff) • Switzerland – 1 attendee Submission Slide 20 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 The “WAPI story” has been going on for a very, very long time. . . 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. 11 i, after much controversy and appeals • 2006: WAPI fails ISO/IEC fast track ballot and 802. 11 i 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 • . . . Submission Slide 21 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 In Nov 2011 the China NB announced that they had withdrawn the WAPI project from SC 6 • In late 2011, a Comment Resolution Committee was attempting to resolve the comments from the WAPI NP ballot – The IEEE 802 goal was to remove all the false claims about 802. 11 i • The China NB announced they were withdrawing the WAPI project on 21 November 2011 – See embedded document – It is unclear who in China made the decision to cancel WAPI • It was stated that the China NB 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, ” • The China NB suggested they may resubmit the project “when a more favorable standardization environment is available” Submission Slide 22 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 At the SC 6 meeting in February 2012 there was little discussion of WAPI before the project was cancelled At the SC 6 meeting in China in February 2012 • WAPI was mentioned a number of times during the formal SC 6 welcoming ceremony • There was a WAPI network in operation during the week – Oddly, every AP had a different SSID • There was a WAPI demonstration – Most of the session focused on a demonstration on how WEP could be broken • WG 1 agreed and SC 6 approved a resolution to cancel the WAPI NP without any discussion at all – Resolution 6. 1. 3: SC 6 approves the cancellation of ISO/IEC 20011 project (WAPI). SC 6 thanks the Chinese NB for the submission of the WAPI project and also the other NBs and IEEE for contributions and participation in the project Submission Slide 23 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 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 24 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 Thank you to all those people who have dealt with the WAPI issue over the years • There is no need to name the individuals – They know who they are – And probably do not want to be named • Events that have been covered include: – – – – Delegation to China in 2004 Delegation to China in 2005 ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6 meetings from 2005 -2012 The 802. 11 i/WAPI fast track ballots in 2006 The 802. 11 i/WAPI CRM in 2006 The WAPI NP ballot in 2010 The WAPI NP CRMs in 2011 Many behind the scenes meetings Submission Slide 25 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 IEEE 802 delegation discussed ongoing liaisons of 802. 11 drafts to SC 6 • The status of various IEEE 802. 11 drafts was discussed – 802. 11 mb/aa/ae/ad/ac were all mentioned – It was also noted that the WG is working with CWPAN on 60 GHz in China • It was noted that the idea of the liaisons was to give SC 6 NBs an opportunity to provide comments as early as possible • This is particularly important given the ballot in the PSDO agreement is an up/down vote with no commenting • The Austrian/ECMA rep did not like the up/down voting without comments – Multiple parties noted that NBs have lots of opportunities to provide comments give the liaison process being used by the IEEE 802. 11 WG – It was noted that only a limited number of comments have been received so far Submission Slide 26 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 The 802. 11 WG has liaised various Sponsor Ballot drafts to ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6 Task Group After Dallas After LA After Sing. After Palm Sp After San. Fran After Okinawa After Atlanta After Jack. Nov 10 Jan 11 Mar 11 May 11 July 11 Sept 11 Nov 11 Jan 12 TGae - - - D 5. 0 D 7. 0 - TGaa - - - D 6. 0 D 7. 0 - TGac - - - - D 2. 0 TGad - - - - D 5. 0 TGmb D 6. 0 - D 8. 0 - - D 10. 0 D 12. 0 - TGs D 8. 0 - D 10. 0 - Ratified - - - TGu D 13. 0 - - Ratified - - • Normally the 802. 11 WG liaises Sponsor Ballot documents • However, the WG told SC 6 it would liaise 802. 11 ac as soon as it passed a LB – we did! Submission Slide 27 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 Publication of 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 (who is a consultant to IWNCOMM) recently agreed that 802. 11 is “international” in practice • One way of resolving this issue is to submit IEEE 802. 11 -2012 to ISO/IEC as soon as possible – Currently 802. 11 -2012 is scheduled for ratification in late Jan 2012, and publication sometime in March/April Submission Slide 28 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 SC 6 agreed 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 • It was also reiterated it was going to be submitted to ISO/IEC JTC 1 for ratification under the PSDO agreement as soon as it was published • It was also noted that the PSDO process could be accelerated if SC 6 formally invited the submission of IEEE 802. 11 -2012 – Saves need for a 60 day pre-ballot before the 5 month ballot • SC 6 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, SC 6 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 • The IEEE staff and IEEE 802. 11 Chair will arrange the submission at the appropriate time Submission Slide 29 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 SC 6 approved a table with proposed dispositions for various ISO/IEC 8802 standards • The IEEE 802 delegation presented the liaison that was in response to the UK NB proposal for the disposition of various ISO/IEC 8802 standards – See N 15106 • It was ultimately agreed that the table of proposed dispositions in the liaison should be accepted – Resolution 6. 1. 7: Noting the liaison response from IEEE 802 in 6 N 15106, SC 6 instructs its Secretariat to revise the SC 6 Program of Work based on the table below Submission Slide 30 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 SC 6 approved the table on the status of 8802 standards Project 05. 01. 00 Number 8802 -1 Year 2011 Name SPECIFIC LANS Overview 05. 01 8802 -1 - 05. 02. 00 8802 -2 1998 05. 03. 00 8802 -3 2000 SPECIFIC LANS Cooperative Cancel project. Delete the draft. agreement with IEEE 802 SPECIFIC LANS Logical Link Retain in stabilized state Control 90. 93 SPECIFIC LANS CSMA/CD Edn. Retain. Will be superseded as soon the next revision of IEEE 6 802. 3 is ratified by ISO/IEC. 05. 00 8802 -5 1998 05. 11. 00 8802 -11 2005 05. 21. 01 11802 -1 2005 05. 22. 01 11802 -2 2005 05. 25. 00 11802 -5 1997 05. 31. 00 15802 -1 05. 33. 00 15802 -3 Submission Recommendation Retain. IEEE 802 will provide text for a replacement when the current 802 O&A revision project is complete SPECIFIC LANS Token Ring. Edn. 3 LANS. Wireless MAC/PHY specifications Edn. 2 Retain in stabilized state Retain. IEEE 802 will provide a replacement at a future date 1995 LAN GUIDELINES LLC Addresses LAN GUIDELINES Standard group MAC addresses Media Access Control (MAC) Bridging of Ethernet v 2. 0 in Local Area Network COMMON LANS MAC service 1998 COMMON LANS MAC bridges Retain. IEEE 802 will provide a replacement at a future date based upon either 802. 1 D-2005 or 802. 1 Q-2011 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. 1 AC at a future date Slide 31 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 The proposal that only IEEE 802 “maintain, alter and 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 JTC 1/SC 6 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 SC 6’s ability to do their normal work Submission Slide 32 Andrew Myles, Cisco

Mar 2012 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 The SC 6 NBs had a variety of objections to the proposed IEEE condition China NB will probably object • 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 advuce • Suspected in contradicts ISO/IEC Directives – will need to ask staff UK NB had some concerns • Stated it was unreasonable to limit “extensions” by SC 6, on the basis that any document that normatively referenced an 8802 standard could be considered and extension Swiss NB had not reviewed • Stated they had not seen the liaison in time Submission Slide 33 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 SC 6 ultimately decided on a process to help resolve issues related to the IEEE 802 proposal Resolution 6. 1. 4 • SC 6 instructs its Secretariat to forward the following liaison statement to IEEE 802: – “SC 6 appreciates and acknowledges IEEE 802’s proposal (6 N 15106) 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 Mo. U 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 Mo. U from IEEE 802 by 2012 -08 -01. ” • Approved unanimously Submission Slide 34 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 SC 6 ultimately decided on a process to help resolve issues related to the IEEE 802 proposal Resolution 6. 1. 5 • SC 6 requests its NBs and LO to provide any questions related to IEEE 802 proposal (6 N 15106) 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 Mo. U will be distributed to the SC 6 NBs and LO • SC 6 NBs may provide additional comments related to these replies and Mo. U for an agreement by 2012 -06 -22 • The replies from IEEE 802 and a second draft Mo. U will be distributed to the SC 6 NBs and LO and discussed at the SC 6 plenary in Gratkorn/Graz • Approved unanimously Submission Slide 35 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 An ad hoc group developed an initial set of questions about the IEEE 802 proposal & conditions • An ad hoc group (but not including any China NB reps ) developed an initial set of questions; these were not approved or reviewed by SC 6 • The questions were: – Could the IEEE 802 group provide additional information about the proposed agreement? – Does IEEE 802 propose any changes to Sc 6 review, comments and comment resolution processes? – At what stage(s) and for what comment period will the IEEE 802 group provide drafts for comment? – How will the IEEE 802 group deal with comments? – Would the IEEE 802 group receive and process Sc 6 proposals for correction, amendment or revision of IEEE 802 standards? – How would the IEEE 802 group respond to an addition by Sc 6 to an IEEE 802 standard based on a normative reference? – Does the IEEE 802 group grant Sc 6 the right to develop standards competing with and making reference to IEEE 802 standards? Submission Slide 36 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 Additional questions were received from SC 6 NBs by the 7 March deadline • TBD - none so far as of 7 March Submission Slide 37 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 The key issue appears to be proposed limitation on “extensions” • Some NB interpreted extensions to mean anything that normatively referenced an ISO/IEC 8802 standard – ie anything that relied on an ISO/IEC 8802 standard • This probably was not the intent of the IEEE 802. 1 and 802. 3 WGs given that they would presumably like their standards to be used and referenced by other standards in the normal way • This suggests a tighter definition of “extend” is required to: – Meet the needs of IEEE 802. 1 and 802. 3 WGs – Mitigate the concerns of SC 6 NBs Submission Slide 38 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 The WAPI experience provides a good base on which to understand & define “extend” • Many people objected to WAPI for many reasons; one major objection was that it replaced integral elements of the IEEE 802. 11 specification • In particular, it did so by making changes to the IEEE 802. 11 standard in an uncontrolled way – eg WAPI made changes to element IDs, status codes and error codes without any reference to the IEEE 802. 11 ANA – eg the WAPI spec made changes to parts of the standards that were never intended to be changed by SDOs other than IEEE 802. 11 • This process would have diminished the ongoing integrity of IEEE 802. 11 by spreading the specification into multiple documents, under the control of different SDOs • The key problem with WAPI is that it made changes to IEEE 802. 11 by using internal, and sometimes undefined, interfaces in IEEE 802. 11; it did not use external, well defined interfaces! Submission Slide 39 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 An “extension” could be defined as any specification that relies on 802 internal interfaces • An external interface is one that is explicitly defined for interfacing with other standards – eg MAC SAP (802. 11 -2012, 5. 2) – eg MLME SAP (802. 11 -2012, 6. 3) • An internal interface is one that is not an external interface • An “extension” to an IEEE 802 standard could then be defined as a specification that uses an internal interface of the IEEE 802 standard • This definition should make most parties happy – The UK NBs concern should be mitigated because appropriate normative referencing is possible – The IEEE 802. 1 and 802. 3 WG’s fears should be mitigated because they would retain sole responsibility for their standards – The China NB’s concerns may or may not be mitigated Submission Slide 40 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 A constraint on “extensions” to IEEE 802 standards will not allow IEEE 802 to object to replacements in SC 6 • ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6 is an independent SDO and should generally not be restricted from doing work that does not “maintain, alter or extend” IEEE 802 standards • This means that SC 6 would be free to define complete replacements for IEEE 802 standards and long as they did not “alter or extend” them Could IEEE 802 object, using the proposed conditions, to: EUHT, which is a competitor to 802. 11 ac No TLSec and Te. PA-AC , which are competitors to 802. 1 X/AE No UHT, which is an extension of 802. 11 n Yes WAPI, which is an extension to 802. 11 Yes Submission Slide 41 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 The IEEE 802 JTC 1 SC will discuss possible answers to the SC 6 in relation to the proposed Mo. U • Could the IEEE 802 group provide additional information about the proposed agreement? – Yes, the IEEE 802 proposal for the agreement is now included in a draft Mo. U • Does propose any changes to SC 6 review, comments and comment resolution processes? – IEEE 802 is not proposing any changes to SC 6 processes for review, comment and comment resolution beyond those defined by the ISO/IEC Directives and other documents, including the PSDO agreement between ISO and IEEE • At what stage(s) and for what comment period will the IEEE 802 group provide drafts for comment? – IEEE 802 will accept comments on drafts at any time from any source. Obviously, if comments are made earlier then there is a greater chance they can be used to justify changes to a draft. However, comments received later in the standards development process will also be seriously considered. In the worst case, comments will be dealt with in the maintenance process after publication. Submission Slide 42 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 The IEEE 802 JTC 1 SC will discuss possible answers to the SC 6 in relation to the proposed Mo. U • How will the IEEE 802 group deal with comments? – The IEEE 802 WGs always seriously consider and resolve every comment received from any source either during the development of a standard or during the maintenance process • Would the IEEE 802 group receive and process SC 6 proposals for correction, amendment or revision of IEEE 802 standards? – Yes, at any time • How would the IEEE 802 group respond to an addition by SC 6 to an IEEE 802 standard based on a normative reference? – The IEEE 802 expect SC 6 to concede responsibility for all alterations, maintenance and extensions of IEEE 802 standards. We define an “extension” of an IEEE 802 standard as any document that extends the functionality of an IEEE 802 standard using interfaces that were not intended for external use. On this basis, the consideration of WAPI would be the responsibility of IEEE 802, whereas the standardisation of EUHT could be the responsibility of SC 6 Submission Slide 43 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 The IEEE 802 JTC 1 SC will discuss possible answers to the SC 6 in relation to the proposed Mo. U • Does the IEEE 802 group grant SC 6 the right to develop standards competing with and making reference to IEEE 802 standards? – SC 6 would always have the right to develop a competing standard that does not make use of internal interfaces that were not intended for external use. On this basis, the consideration of WAPI would be the responsibility of IEEE 802, whereas the standardisation of EUHT could be the responsibility of SC 6 • More questions depending on input from SC 6 in next few days Submission Slide 44 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 The IEEE 802 needs to develop a draft Mo. U that documents any conditions Rough outline – lots more discussion/work needed It is likely the formal Mo. U will be generated by IEEE staff • Goal: retain integrity and consistency of IEEE 802 standards. • Implication: any changes to IEEE 802 standards are only ever undertaken by one organisation, in this case IEEE 802 • Mechanism: IEEE 802 is solely responsible for “maintaining, altering and extending” any IEEE 802 or equivalent ISO/IEC 8802 standards • Comments – Maintaining and altering of IEEE 802 standards (and their ISO/IEC 8802 equivalents) already require permission from IEEE 802 under the PSDO agreement because these actions are affected by IEEE copyrights – An “extension” is any new specification that depend on an interface to the IEEE 802 standard that is not intended for external use Submission Slide 45 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 The China NB announced that TLSec would be standardised in China by BWIPS • In previous SC 6 meetings the China NB have proposed a protocol called TLSec, which is roughly an 802. 1 AE replacement • At the SC 6 meeting in February 2012, an IWNCOMM representative presented TLSEc again, emphasising its use of Te. PA, and concluding – “It is necessary to do more research on LAN layer 2 security. – TLSec in N 14402 is different from IEEE 802. 1 AE” • IWNCOMM asserted that China Telecom were supporting this work • The IEEE 802 delegation responded with a presentation prepared before the meeting by some IEEE 802. 1 WG experts – and some background on the IEEE 802. 1 WG • The discussion concluded with the China NB informing SC 6 that further standardisation work on TLSec would continue in BWIPS – BWIPS is the organisation under CESI, led by IWNCOMM, that standardised WAPI Submission Slide 46 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 The China NB announced that Te. PA-AC would be standardised in China by BWIPS • In previous SC 6 meetings the China NB have proposed a protocol called Te. PA-AC, which is roughly an 802. 1 X replacement • At the SC 6 meeting in February 2012, an IWNCOMM representative presented Te. PA-AC again, emphasising its use of Te. PA, and concluding – “Network access control is widely used in many network environments. – Te. PA-AC in N 14399 is different from IEEE 802. 1 x. ” • IWNCOMM claimed that Te. PA-AC covered a different application space from 802. 1 X, but Swiss NB rep appeared to disagree • The discussion concluded with the China NB informing SC 6 that further standardisation work on Te. PA-AC would continue in BWIPS – BWIPS is the organisation under CESI, led by IWNCOMM, that standardised WAPI Submission Slide 47 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 The China NB did not indicate any next steps for TAAA, the proposed security replacement for LRWNs • In previous SC 6 meetings the China NB have proposed a protocol called TAAA, which is roughly WAPI for Long Range Wireless Networks • At the SC 6 meeting in February 2012, an IWNCOMM representative presented TAAA again, emphasising its use of Te. PA, 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 and 802. 16 • The IEEE delegation provided a response that was written at the last moment by an 802. 16 expert, which informed SC 6 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 Submission Slide 48 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 There is some evidence of new activities related to Te. PA in other SDOs • BWIPS have applied to IESG for a protocol number for a protocol called TISec – TISec is a “IP security framework for data communication between network nodes which is based on a Tri-element Peer Authentication[1] mechanism and IP data security methods” – It includes an authentication protocol TAI, which “provides network node authentication, key management, credential management, and provides a combination employment of different cryptographic algorithms” – It includes a data encapsulation protocol TUE, which “works for the IP layer data integrity and confidentiality of the IP packet” • It appears that the proposal for. TISec is an alternative to IPsec ESP + IKEv 2 where Te. PA is the authentication component, and the key management piece is unspecified • TISec is not of direct relevance to the JTC 1 ad hoc but it does indicate a continuing interest in Te. PA by some stakeholders in China Submission Slide 49 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 There is some evidence of new activities related to Te. PA in other SDOs • There are reports that Te. PA related standards are being promoted in SC 27 – More information is required Submission Slide 50 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 It is feared that N-UHT could be linked to the opening up of 5 GHz spectrum in China • Most of the 5 GHz band in China is not currently open for WLAN • However, there was an effort led by Chinese SPs & supported by MIIT State Radio Regulatory Commission (SRRC) to open up 5 GHz in China • This effort had been going very well, until recently when it was claimed that the band may be opened up for N-UHT only • The recently published 12 th Five Year Plan for Wireless Radio Development provides support for an N-UHT only approach – The plan calls for China to make strategic use of its wireless spectrum resources to support broadband, cloud computing, and Io. T 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 51 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 Recent reports suggest that the risk to 5 GHz in China might be overstated • It is reported that: – MIIT have indicated they WERE looking at opening up the lower 5 GHz band (e. g. 5. 150 GHz) 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 5 ghz band, – MIIT have made clear all internationally standardized 802. 11 products were eligible for use in China — Of course, this does not include 802. 11 ac which has not been standardised, even by the IEEE. Submission Slide 52 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 There was no mention of UHT or EUHT at the SC 6 meeting in China in February 2012 • Nufront and the China NB had previously proposed standardisation of UHT (an 802. 11 n extension) and EHUT (an 802. 11 ac replacement) by SC 6 • The IEEE 802 delegation expressed concern about various aspects of this proposal at the San Diego meeting in June 2011 • It was expected that the issue would be raised again at the China meeting of SC 6 in February 2012 • UHT/EUHT were not mentioned at all, although Nufront representatives were in attendance • Since the SC 6 meeting, MIIT has announced that UHT and EUHT will be published as voluntary Chinese National Standards – After a somewhat unusual process in CCSA that effectively ignored the concerns of many Chinese and non Chinese companies Submission Slide 53 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 The recent standardisation UHT or EUHT in China raises a number of unknowns • It is not known what the implications of UHT/EUHT standardisation in China are for the 5 GHz bands in China – They could be opened up for 802. 11 ac and UHT/EUHT – They could be opened up for UHT/EUHT only, although this was previously denied by MIIT – They could remain mostly closed, which is the current status quo • 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. . . Submission Slide 54 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 Nufront sent a letter to the IEEE 802. 11 WG Chair suggesting some sort of interaction • Before the SC 6 meeting, 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 • The 802. 11 WG Chair may provide an update. . . Submission Slide 55 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 The SC 6 Chair had previously suggested some “best practices” for SC 6. . . • The SC 6 Chair had suggested some “best practices”, apparently partially motivated by the “WAPI experience”: – Accusations, written or verbal, of any other NBs or LOs, should be strictly forbidden. – Accusations, written or verbal, of any standards owned by SC 6 or LOs, should be strictly forbidden. – New work items of direct or obvious duplicate nature to existing standards within SC 6 or LOs should be strongly discouraged. – Revisions of any SC 6 standards should not be attempted through other than the editors. – Participants to SC 6 should keep to the common-sense spirit of cooperative peer collaboration and should, by no means, inadvertently exploit the venue of SC 6 as a hostile battle field. Submission Slide 56 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 . . . after much discussion a revised set of “best practices” was agreed by all SC 6 NBs Agreed SC 6 best practices • The ISO TMB document, “ISO Code of Conduct” (registered as SC 6 N 14956 and JTC 1 N 10715) describes the responsibilities on technical committees to ensure that their work is carried out to the highest professional standard within the framework of the ISO/IEC Directives. • SC 6, of course, endorses this approach for all areas of its work but, further, wishes to highlight the manner in which the work within SC 6 meets these requirements through the following statements: – SC 6 expects open and constructive technical discussion within its WGs through respectful and professional debate for the successful progression of its Programme of Work; – SC 6 expects participants to undertake the work in a spirit of cooperative collaboration and to maintain respect towards other participants and decorum at all time; and – SC 6 always welcomes new technical work item proposals with the expectation that such contributions are accompanied by information that highlights key technical innovations and market value with significant interest to the NBs. Submission Slide 57 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 SC 6/WG 1 attended to a variety of other issues of indirect or interest to IEEE 802 members • SC 6 sent a liaison to IEEE 1901 – It was reported that there is a coexistence issue between IEEE 1901 and ISO/IEC 12139 -1 – SC 6 has attempted to have a liaison conversation with IEEE 1901 to which IEEE 1901 has not responded – A further liaison was approved — As the term of the ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6/WG 1 Study Group on PLC will end in January 2013, resolution of the coexistence problems, to ensure coexistence of IEEE 1901 (2010), ITU-T G. hn and ISO/IEC 12139 -1 is now urgent. SC 6 therefore kindly requests the IEEE 1901 Working Group to put due priority on collaboration with the ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6/WG 1 Study Group on PLC – Bruce Kraemer offered to ask the Chair of IEEE 1901 to respond Submission Slide 58 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 SC 6/WG 1 attended to a variety of other issues of indirect or interest to IEEE 802 members • There was much discussion related to NFC – A number of drafts moved forward – There seem to be an issue with interoperability/coexistence of multiple solutions • ISO/IEC 24771 is being revised – Korean MAC/PHY standard (using binary CDMA) for ad hoc wireless network to support Qo. S in an industrial work environment • The Picocast standard (ISO/IEC 29157) is being revised – Picocast is a Korean PHY/MAC spec for short-range wireless low-rate applications in the ISM band – It is claimed to provide a unified yet efficient wireless solution for versatile service convergence (mobile video, audio, voice, control, & sensor) Submission Slide 59 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 SC 6/WG 1 attended to a variety of other issues of indirect or interest to IEEE 802 members • ISO/IEC 15149 was approved – This standard defines a magnetic field area network (MFAN) – A wireless network that provides reliable communication in harsh environments using magnetic field • ISO/IEC 17921 Magnetic Communication Protocol NP was approved – A Korean proposal for a PHY and MAC layer protocol for in-band control of wireless power transfer Submission Slide 60 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 SC 6/WG 7 is redesigning the internet. . . • WG 7 is working on “Future Network”, which seems to be defining a new Internet • The WG 7 Chair described it outside the meeting as an “academic exercise” and they have no plans for a transition from the existing reality • Projects mentioned during the meeting include: – ISO/IEC DTR 20002, “Managed P 2 P Framework” – ISO/IEC 29181, Future Network: Problem Statement and Requirements — — — Part 2: Naming and Addressing Part 3: Switching and routing Part 4: Mobility Part 5: Security Part 6: Media Transport Part 7 : Service Composition – Distributed Mapping System – Framework for energy efficient network Submission Slide 61 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 . . . and SC 6/WG 7 is extending 802. 15. 4 • Projects include: – An NP (ISO/IEC 17812) to use IEEE 802. 15. 4 -2011 to provide low-latency scalable wireless mesh topologies — Is 802. 15 WG aware of this? Submission Slide 62 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 SC 6/WG 8 appears to standardise Directory Services Submission Slide 63 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 The IEEE 802 JTC 1 SC will consider any motions • There are likely to be motions relating to – Proposed Mo. U – Answers to SC 6 NB questions related to Mo. U Submission Slide 64 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 Are there any other matters? Submission Slide 65 Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -12/0299 r 0 Mar 2012 The IEEE 802 JTC 1 SC will adjourn for the week Motion: • The IEEE 802 JTC 1 ad hoc, having completed its business in Hawaii in March 2012, adjourns • Moved: • Seconded: • Result Submission Slide 66 Andrew Myles, Cisco