March 2015 doc IEEE 802 11 150229 r

March 2015 doc. : IEEE 802 -11 -15/0229 r 4 802 -11 PAR Review March 2015 Date: 2015 -03 -12 Authors: Submission Slide 1 Jon Rosdahl, CSR

March 2015 doc. : IEEE 802 -11 -15/0229 r 4 Abstract-Snapshot • Review of Proposed PAR documents 802 c- Amendment: Local Media Access Control (MAC) Addressing, PAR and CSD 802. 1 Qci- Amendment, Per-Stream Filtering and Policing, PAR and CSD 802. 1 Qcj- Amendment, Automatic Attachment to Provider Backbone Bridging (PBB) services, PAR and CSD 802. 3 bq- Amendment, PAR Modification Request and CSD 802. 3 bz- Amendment, 2. 5 Gb/s and 5 Gb/s, PAR and CSD 802. 11 ay- Amendment: Enhancements for Ultra High Throughput in and around the 60 GHz Band, PAR and CSD 802. 15. 3 e- Amendment for High-rate close proximity point-to-point communications , PAR and CSD Privacy Recommendation EC Study Group - Privacy Considerations for IEEE 802 Technologies, PAR and CSD 802. 24 Io. T New TG request • Meeting times: Monday PM 2, Tuesday AM 2, Thursday AM 2 Submission Slide 2 Jon Rosdahl, CSR

March 2015 doc. : IEEE 802 -11 -15/0229 r 4 PAR SC – March 2015 Chair: Jon Rosdahl Monday Agenda: 1. 2. 3. 4. Welcome Determine order of review Review PARs/CSD posted for review this week. Recess Tuesday Agenda: 1. 2. Complete review of PARs/CSD and post comments to 802 WGs Recess Thursday Agenda: 1. 2. 3. Submission Review Response to Comments Prepare Report for 802. 11 WG closing plenary Adjourn Slide 3 Jon Rosdahl, CSR

March 2015 doc. : IEEE 802 -11 -15/0229 r 4 802 c- Amendment: Local Media Access Control (MAC) Addressing, PAR and CSD 2. 1 Expand Acronym “MAC” – “Media Access Control (MAC)” 5. 2 b Change “local address space” to “local MAC address space” 5. 4 – Change “unique addresses” to “unique MAC addresses” – Change “local address” to “local MAC address”- 3 places. Submission Slide 4 Jon Rosdahl, CSR

March 2015 doc. : IEEE 802 -11 -15/0229 r 4 802 c- Amendment: Local Media Access Control (MAC) Addressing, PAR (cont) 5. 4 – Problem statement not clearly defined in the need statement. “While we agree that the number of Io. T devices may use more of the Local MAC Address space, please explain in the need section why the Local MAC Address space requires the simultaneous use of Multiple Local MAC Address Administrators. ” 6. 1 b – CID is not defined and is only used once…just spell it out “Company Identifier ” 5. 2 b and 6. 1 b – “Company ID” – Should be “Company Identifier” (2 instances) Submission Slide 5 Jon Rosdahl, CSR

March 2015 doc. : IEEE 802 -11 -15/0229 r 4 802 c- Amendment: Local Media Access Control (MAC) Addressing, CSD Compatibility – Just say “Yes”, delete the rest. Distinct Identity – Suggested change: “There are no guidelines for using the Local MAC Address space in existing standards. ” Technical Feasibility – Check the cited standard (possibly incorrect citation format) and include the full name of standard inline or as a note. Economic Feasibility – change “. . . local address distribution or claiming…” to “…local MAC Address distribution or claiming…” Submission Slide 6 Jon Rosdahl, CSR”…

March 2015 doc. : IEEE 802 -11 -15/0229 r 4 802. 1 Qci- Amendment, Per-Stream Filtering and Policing, PAR and CSD No Comment Submission Slide 7 Jon Rosdahl, CSR

March 2015 doc. : IEEE 802 -11 -15/0229 r 4 802. 1 Qcj- Amendment, Automatic Attachment to Provider Backbone Bridging (PBB) services, PAR and CSD 5. 2 Scope – First use of LAN/VLAN/MAC should have been spelled out…WG may consider for revision project, we understand that it was missed when the base standard PAR was approved. 5. 2 b Change “TLVs” to “TLV” 5. 4 expand LAN if not changing scope statement. Submission Slide 8 Jon Rosdahl, CSR

March 2015 doc. : IEEE 802 -11 -15/0229 r 4 802. 3 bq- Amendment, PAR Modification Request and CSD No Comment Submission Slide 9 Jon Rosdahl, CSR

March 2015 doc. : IEEE 802 -11 -15/0229 r 4 802. 3 bz- Amendment, 2. 5 Gb/s and 5 Gb/s, PAR and CSD No comment Submission Slide 10 Jon Rosdahl, CSR

March 2015 doc. : IEEE 802 -11 -15/0229 r 4 802. 11 ay- Amendment: Enhancements for Ultra High Throughput in and around the 60 GHz Band, PAR and CSD Other 802 WGs will Provide feedback to 802. 11 ay for response. Submission Slide 11 Jon Rosdahl, CSR

March 2015 doc. : IEEE 802 -11 -15/0229 r 4 802. 15. 3 e- Amendment for High-rate close proximity point-to-point communications , PAR and CSD 5. 2 a – “high rate” – What is high rate? –consider changing to “high rate (up to 100 Gbps)” “Data rates are high enough” Not defined enough for a scope statement. 5. 4 – “High” and “Low” are relative terms that should be defined as what is “High” or “Low” reword without “high” or “low” “Wireless switched point-to-point” – what is this? Does “switched” relate to a packet or connection type switch? Should intra-device really be inter-device? Wireless backhaul/fronthaul? – what is meant by this? Submission Slide 12 Jon Rosdahl, CSR

March 2015 doc. : IEEE 802 -11 -15/0229 r 4 802. 15. 3 e- Amendment for High-rate close proximity point-to-point communications , PAR and CSD 7. 1 Similar Scope – 802. 11 ad and 802. 11 ay are similar. Please note similarities and differences. CSD: Broad sets of applicability: “high rate” –nebulous – give range to define what is “high rate” Multiple vendors: Please answer the question about the market potential not the attendees affiliations. 1. 2. 4 don’t list the corporations in the CSD, but do cite reference to the evidence alluded to. 1. 2. 5 c) do not use “Wi-Fi” change to “WLAN” or delete Submission Slide 13 Jon Rosdahl, CSR

March 2015 doc. : IEEE 802 -11 -15/0229 r 4 Privacy Recommendation EC Study Group - Privacy Considerations for IEEE 802 Technologies, PAR and CSD 4. 2 and 4. 3 need to include target dates for completion. Should be at least 6 months apart. 5. 2 Change “document” to “recommended practice” 5. 4 delete “document” result “The recommended practice…” 5. 5 change “and certain threats” to “and certain privacy threats” 5. 5 change “with IETF in many” to “with IETF on many” 5. 5 change “guidelines” to “recommendations” CSD: Distinct Identity: change “defines privacy” to “defines a privacy” and “practice” to “practices” Economic Feasibility – Question was not answered need to provide evidence and address the requested specific areas “a) through e)”. Submission Slide 14 Jon Rosdahl, CSR

March 2015 doc. : IEEE 802 -11 -15/0229 r 4 IEEE 802. 24 approved a scope document for a new IEEE 802. 24 TAG Task Group focused on Internet of things (Io. T) vertical applications. The document was approved 7/0/0 by IEEE 802. 24 and can be found at: https: //mentor. ieee. org/802. 24/dcn/15/24 -15 -0003 -00 -0000 -iot-scope-form. docx I expect to bring this for approval during the Friday closing meeting during the March plenary. According to the procedure adopted by the IEEE 802 EC, such documents need to be circulated 30 days in advance of the plenary meeting. Comments from WGs are due by 6: 30 pm local time on Tuesday during the plenary meeting. Responses from IEEE 802. 24 are due by 6: 30 pm local time on Wednesday during the plenary meeting. Members of IEEE 802. 24 will be seeking votes of support from IEEE 802 WGs during the week. I will advise the appropriate WG Chairs when such a motion will be requested. Submission Slide 15 Jon Rosdahl, CSR

March 2015 doc. : IEEE 802 -11 -15/0229 r 4 802. 24 Io. T New TG request feedback 1. 2. 3. Scope – missing “. ” at end of Scope. Customer – ‘Customer’ is what is being asked to be identified…please identify “who the customer” is to answer the question. Similar Groups – What are the “in identified Io. T vertical applications”? What are the liaison opportunities? Would a liaison with “IEEE P 2413” be one of those opportunities? What about any opportunities with those groups identified in #4? Submission Slide 16 Jon Rosdahl, CSR

March 2015 doc. : IEEE 802 -11 -15/0229 r 4 Motion to Send Feedback to 802 WGs Move to send feedback prepared by PAR Review SC to the respective IEEE 802 WGs as documented in 1114/0229 r 1. Moved: Dan Harkins 2 nd: Michelle Turner Results: 8 -0 -0 motion passes. Submission Slide 17 Jon Rosdahl, CSR

March 2015 doc. : IEEE 802 -11 -15/0229 r 4 Email sent to EC Reflector – 10 March 2015 Hello, 802. 11 Par Review SC has posted comments on behalf of 802. 11 in document 11 -15/229 r 1. : https: //mentor. ieee. org/802. 11/dcn/15/11 -15 -0229 -01 -0 PAR-802 -11 -par-review-meeting-slides-and-minutes-march 2015. pptx Comments were provided for the following: 802 c - slide 4, 5, 6 802. 1 Qci - slide 8 802. 15. 3 e - slide 12, 13 Privacy Recommendation EC Study Group: slide 14 802. 24 Io. T New Task Group Request slide 16 No comments were submitted for : 802. 1 Qci 802. 3 bq 802. 3 bz Thank you for consideration of our comments. The file has also been attached for your convenience, Jon Chair PAR Review SC, IEEE 802. 11 Submission Slide 18 Jon Rosdahl, CSR

March 2015 doc. : IEEE 802 -11 -15/0229 r 4 Responses from 802 WGs Submission Slide 19 Jon Rosdahl, CSR

March 2015 doc. : IEEE 802 -11 -15/0229 r 4 The 802. 1 Local Address SG met to resolve the comments on the 802 c PAR and CSD. The updated PAR is: http: //ieee 802. org/1/files/public/docs 2015/new-addresses-thaler-local-address-parv 02. pdf The updated CSD is: http: //ieee 802. org/1/files/public/docs 2015/lasg-mjt-802 c-CSD-0315 -v 02. pdf The consolidated comments received from 802. 3, 802. 11, Paul Nikolich and Roger Marks , along with resolutions are here: http: //ieee 802. org/1/files/public/docs 2015/lasg-haddock-consolidated-par-csdcomments-0315 -v 1. pdf Cheers, Glenn Parsons - Chair, IEEE 802. 1 Submission Slide 20 Jon Rosdahl, CSR

March 2015 doc. : IEEE 802 -11 -15/0229 r 4 802 c - Amendment: Local Media Access Control (MAC) Addressing, PAR and CSD 2. 1 Expand Acronym “MAC” – “Media Access Control (MAC)” 5. 2 b Change “local address space” to “local MAC address space” 5. 4 – Change “unique addresses” to “unique MAC addresses” Change “local address” to “local MAC address” - 3 places. –Agree with all except it is Medium Access Control Submission Slide 21 Jon Rosdahl, CSR

March 2015 doc. : IEEE 802 -11 -15/0229 r 4 802 c - Amendment: Local Media Access Control (MAC) Addressing, PAR and CSD 5. 4 – Problem statement not clearly defined in the need statement. “ While we agree that the number of Io. T devices may use more of the Local MAC Address space, please explain in the need section why the Local MAC Address space requires the simultaneous use of Multiple Local MAC Address Administrators. ” –Accept (but need is 5. 5), see following slide • 6. 1 b –CID is not defined and is only used once. . . just spell it out “Company Identifier ” – Accept 5. 2 b and 6. 1 b – “Company ID” – Should be “Company Identifier” (2 instances) – Accept Submission Slide 22 Jon Rosdahl, CSR

March 2015 doc. : IEEE 802 -11 -15/0229 r 4 802 c - Amendment: Local Media Access Control (MAC) Addressing, PAR and CSD § Compatibility – Just say “Yes”, delete the rest. –Accept • Distinct Identity – Suggested change: “There are no guidelines for using the Local MAC Address space in existing standards. ” –Accept • Technical Feasibility – Check the cited standard (possibly incorrect citation format) and include the full name of standard inline or as a note. –Accept • Economic Feasibility – change “. . . local address distribution or claiming…” to “…local MAC Address distribution or claiming…” –Accept Submission Slide 23 Jon Rosdahl, CSR

March 2015 doc. : IEEE 802 -11 -15/0229 r 4 P 802. 1 Qci Updated PAR/CSD The updated P 802. 1 Qci PAR can be found at: http: //www. ieee 802. org/1/files/public/docs 2015/new-nfinninput-gates-par-0115 -v 05. pdf The updated CSD can be found at: http: //www. ieee 802. org/1/files/public/docs 2015/newnfinn-input-gates-csd-0115 -v 03. pdf Submission Slide 24 Jon Rosdahl, CSR

March 2015 doc. : IEEE 802 -11 -15/0229 r 4 802. 15. 3 e Response to Comments a word doc containing responses to the comments received from 802. 3 and 802. 11 on the 15. 3 e PAR and CSD. Also attached is a revised CSD including the proposed changes. Final changes to the PAR must be done by the Nes. Com Admin so a revised PAR is not attached but the suggested changes are included in the comment responses. Please let me know if you have any further comments or questions. https: //mentor. ieee. org/802. 15/dcn/15/15 -15 -0229 -03 -003 e-par-csdcomments-resolutions. docx https: //mentor. ieee. org/802. 15/dcn/14/15 -14 -0716 -07 -003 e-sg 3 e-draftcsd. docx Regards Bob Heile, Ph. D Chair, IEEE 802. 15 Working Group on Wireless Personal Area Networks Submission Slide 25 Jon Rosdahl, CSR

March 2015 doc. : IEEE 802 -11 -15/0229 r 4 Responses to IEEE 802. 11 comments on the 802. 15. 3 e PAR and CSD 5. 2. a. Scope of the complete standard: This standard defines PHY and MAC specifications for high data rate wireless connectivity with fixed, portable and moving devices. Data rates are high enough to satisfy a set of consumer multimedia industry needs, as well as to support emerging wireless switched point-to -point and high rate close proximity applications. Submission Action: Modify the scope of the 802. 15. 3 standard to the following. We did not elect to use the suggested resolution since 1 bps would qualify as high rate with that wording. Also a reminder that this is the revised scope for the base standard not this project hence the lower number. This standard defines PHY and MAC specifications for high data rate wireless connectivity (typically over 200 Mbps) with fixed, portable and moving devices. Data rates are high enough to satisfy a set of consumer multimedia industry needs such as streaming HD video, as well as to support emerging wireless switched point-to-point and high rate close proximity applications. Slide 26 Jon Rosdahl, CSR

March 2015 doc. : IEEE 802 -11 -15/0229 r 4 Responses to IEEE 802. 11 comments on the 802. 15. 3 e PAR and CSD 5. 4 – “High” and “Low” are relative terms that should be defined as what is “High” or “Low” reword without “high” or “low” “Wireless switched point-to-point” – what is this? Does “switched” relate to a packet or connection type switch? Should intradevice really be inter-device? Wireless backhaul/fronthaul? – what is meant by this? Submission 5. 4 Purpose: The purpose of this standard is to provide for low complexity, low cost, low power consumption, high data rate wireless connectivity among devices supporting a variety of applications including things like a set of consumer multimedia industry needs, wireless switched point-to-point applications in data centers, wireless backhaul/fronthaul intra-device communications and a wide variety of additional use cases such as rapid large multimedia data downloads and file exchanges between two devices in close proximity, including between mobile devices and stationary devices (kiosks, ticket gates, etc. ), and/or wireless data storage devices. Slide 27 Action: Disagree. This language has already been approved by Nes. Com as part of 802. 15. 3 base standard revised purpose included in the 802. 15. 3 d PAR. Note: The use of the term “intradevice” is correct. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

March 2015 doc. : IEEE 802 -11 -15/0229 r 4 Responses to IEEE 802. 11 comments on the 802. 15. 3 e PAR and CSD 7. 1 Similar Scope 7. 1 Are there other standards or projects with a similar – 802. 11 ad and scope? : No 802. 11 ay are similar. Please note similarities and differences. Submission Slide 28 802. 15. 3 and 802. 15. 3 c preceded 802. 11 ad and 802. 11 ay. 802. 15. 3 e merely builds on 802. 15. 3 and 802. 15. 3 c to support new applications in the 802. 15. 3 family. 802. 11 ay was not available while this PAR was being drafted. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

March 2015 doc. : IEEE 802 -11 -15/0229 r 4 Responses to IEEE 802. 11 comments on the 802. 15. 3 e PAR and CSD: Broad sets of applicability: “high rate” –nebulous – give range to define what is “high rate” Submission a) Broad sets of applicability. There is a need for close proximity high rate communications to service the transmission and rapid exchange of large data files based on close proximity, point -to-point connections, potentially to large numbers of mobile devices in the same space. This amendment consists of IEEE 802. 15. 3 MAC additions and an unlicensed 60 GHz Physical layer, delivering date rates up to 100 Gbps, for use in a wide variety of use cases such as rapid large multimedia data downloads and file exchanges between two close proximity devices, i. e. mobile devices, stationary devices (kiosks, ticket gates, etc. ), and other wirelessly enabled data storage devices. Slide 29 Action: Revise CSD 1. 2. 1 a to read as follows: There is a need for close proximity high rate communications to service the transmission and rapid exchange (subseconds) of large data files (on the order of 25 Gbits) based on close proximity, point-to-point connections, potentially to large numbers of mobile devices in the same space. This amendment consists of IEEE 802. 15. 3 MAC additions and an unlicensed 60 GHz Physical layer, delivering date rates up to 100 Gbps, for use in a wide variety of use cases such as rapid large multimedia data downloads and file exchanges between two close proximity devices, i. e. mobile devices, stationary devices (kiosks, ticket gates, etc. ), and other wirelessly enabled data storage devices. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

March 2015 doc. : IEEE 802 -11 -15/0229 r 4 Responses to IEEE 802. 11 comments on the 802. 15. 3 e PAR and CSD: b) Multiple vendors and numerous users. Action: Revise CSD 1. 2. 1 b to read as follows. Multiple vendors: Please answer the question about the market potential not the attendees affiliations. There have been 20 -30 people, affiliated with 10 or so companies, participating in the development of this project and actively showing interest. Participants include international wireless carriers/service providers, academic researchers, government research laboratories, semiconductor manufacturers, communication equipment manufacturers, system integrators and end users. There a large number of multimedia companies who are expected to serve this application space. The application is aimed at a broad consumer market which is comprised of a large number of users. Participants in the standard include chip vendors, chip designers, technology suppliers, radio frequency (RF) equipment manufacturers, infrastructure providers, international wireless carriers/service providers, academic researchers, government research laboratories, semiconductor manufacturers, communication equipment manufacturers, system integrators and consumers. Submission Slide 30 Jon Rosdahl, CSR

March 2015 doc. : IEEE 802 -11 -15/0229 r 4 Responses to IEEE 802. 11 comments on the 802. 15. 3 e PAR and CSD 1. 2. 4 don’t list the corporations in the CSD, but do cite reference to the evidence alluded to. Each proposed IEEE 802 LMSC standard shall provide evidence that the project is technically a) feasible within the time frame of the project. At a minimum, address the following items to demonstrate technical feasibility: a) Demonstrated system feasibility. The sequence of link setup, data transfer and link release occurring within a short duration has already been demonstrated for point-to-point wireless communication systems by Sony, Toshiba and others. a) a) Submission Action: Revise CSD 1. 2. 4 a and b to read as follows. 1. 2. 4 Technical Feasibility Proven similar technology via testing, modeling, simulation, etc. Similar main components of the technology and signaling are being used in today’s systems by Sony, Toshiba and others. Hence, the involved testing overhead associated with a commercial development undertaken by manufacturers is known to be reasonable. Slide 31 Demonstrated system feasibility. The sequence of link setup, data transfer and link release occurring within a short duration has already been demonstrated for point-to-point wireless communication systems by a number of multimedia organizations and universities such as TU Braunschweig. Proven similar technology via testing, modeling, simulation, etc. Similar main components of the technology and signaling are being used today in proprietary commercial systems and in research laboratories at University institutions such as TU Braunschweig. Jon Rosdahl, CSR

March 2015 doc. : IEEE 802 -11 -15/0229 r 4 Responses to IEEE 802. 11 comments on the 802. 15. 3 e PAR and CSD Action: Accept. Change “Wi 1. 2. 5 c) do not use c) Consideration of installation costs. -Fi” to “WLAN” “Wi-Fi” change to The installation of fixed “WLAN” or delete standalone terminals would be similar to that of installing Wi-Fi access points and when included in devices like ticket gates would not add to the installation cost of that gate Submission Slide 32 Jon Rosdahl, CSR

March 2015 doc. : IEEE 802 -11 -15/0229 r 4 Privacy EC SG Comment Responses Dear 802 EC members, The Privacy EC SG has received several comments on the PAR/CSD. We appreciate the feedback received. Comments have been captured in the following file: https: //mentor. ieee. org/privecsg/dcn/15/privecsg-15 -0010 -01 -ecsg-parcsd-comments-received. pptx The group believes that some comments require further and more detailed consideration. Therefore, I have been appointed by the group to request to the EC withdrawing the Privacy EC SG PAR proposal from the March 13 th Agenda. Comment responses will still be provided by March 12 th. Best regards, Juan Carlos (Privacy EC SG Chair http: //www. ieee 802. org/Priv. Recsg/) Submission Slide 33 Jon Rosdahl, CSR

March 2015 doc. : IEEE 802 -11 -15/0229 r 4 Privacy EC SG: Response to Comments from 802. 11 4. 2 and 4. 3 need to include target dates for completion. Should be at least 6 months apart. See previous response to Roger Mark’s comment 5. 2 Change “document” to “recommended practice” 5. 4 delete “document” result “The recommended practice…” 5. 5 change “and certain threats” to “and certain privacy threats” 5. 5 change “with IETF in many” to “with IETF on many” 5. 5 change “guidelines” to “recommendations” Agree with the above CSD: Distinct Identity: change “defines privacy” to “defines a privacy” and “practice” to “practices” Economic Feasibility – Question was not answered need to provide evidence and address the requested specific areas “a) through e)”. See previous response to Roger Mark’s comment. We will address this in a future version of the CSD Submission Slide 34 Jon Rosdahl, CSR

March 2015 doc. : IEEE 802 -11 -15/0229 r 4 Privacy EC SG: Comments from Roger Marks CSD Economical Feasibility The response does not address economic feasibility. Increased privacy has economic benefits to some parties and is an economic threat to others. These issues should be articulated. Should probably state that Privacy control should enhance, not degrade, security and functionality. Please see: https: //mentor. ieee. org/omniran/dcn/15/omniran-15 -00 CF 00 -privacy-engineered-access-network. pptx (Consider adding a clear statement like the one used in IETF) There are examples of solutions that improve privacy without increasing significantly the cost (e. g. MAC address randomization) Submission Slide 35 Jon Rosdahl, CSR

March 2015 doc. : IEEE 802 -11 -15/0229 r 4 802. 24 Io. T New TG response to comments IEEE 802. 24 TAG has created a response to the comments received regarding the scope document for the formation an IEEE 802. 24 TAG Task Group on Io. T. The responses can be found at: https: //mentor. ieee. org/802. 24/dcn/15/24 -15 -0010 -00 -Io. Tg-response-toscope-comments. pdf Changes were made to the scope document in response to the comments and the updated document can be found at: https: //mentor. ieee. org/802. 24/dcn/15/24 -15 -0003 -01 -0000 -iot-scopeform. docx Thanks James Gilb IEEE 802. 24 TAG Chair Submission Slide 36 Jon Rosdahl, CSR

March 2015 doc. : IEEE 802 -11 -15/0229 r 4 Minutes for PAR Review SC – March 2015 Monday PM 2: 1. 2. 3. 4. Welcome – called to order at 4 pm by Jon Rosdahl Determine order of review Review PARs/CSD posted for review this week. Recess at 6 pm Tuesday AM 1: 1. 2. 3. Called to order at 10: 30 am Completed review of PARs/CSD and post comments to 802 WGs Recess Thursday AM 2: Meeting did not come to order as there was only the Chair attending. 1. Review Response to Comments was conducted by Chair 2. A Report was prepared for 802. 11 WG closing plenary 3. Adjourn - as no more work to be done for the week. Submission Slide 37 Jon Rosdahl, CSR

March 2015 doc. : IEEE 802 -11 -15/0229 r 4 References Submission Slide 38 Jon Rosdahl, CSR