September 2019 15 19 0406 01 004 z

September 2019 15 -19 -0406 -01 -004 z Project: IEEE P 802. 15 Working Group for Wireless Specialty Networks (WSN) Submission Title: TG 4 z EIR Opening Report for September 2019 Date Submitted: September 2019 Source: Tim Harrington, Pro-ID Consulting Contact: Timhr 950@outlook. com Voice: +1 408 309 2503, E-Mail: Timhr 950@Pro-IDconsulting. com Re: Enhanced Impulse Radio Technical Group Abstract: Opening report Purpose: Provide information for opening Sessions Notice: This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE P 802. 15. It is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein. Release: The contributor acknowledges and accepts that this contribution becomes the property of IEEE and may be made publicly available by P 802. 15. Slide 1 Tim Harrington (Pro-ID Consulting)

September 2019 15 -19 -0406 -01 -004 z Sign In for attendance Slide 2 Tim Harrington (Pro-ID Consulting)

September 2019 15 -19 -0406 -01 -004 z Scope This amendment enhances the HRP and LRP UWB PHYs and associated ranging techniques. Areas of enhancement include additional coding and preamble options, improvements to existing modulations to increase the integrity and accuracy of the ranging measurements, and additional information element definitions to facilitate ranging information exchange. The amendment defines MAC changes to support these PHY enhancements. Typical range of the radio is up to 100 meters. Slide 3 Tim Harrington (Pro-ID Consulting)

September 2019 15 -19 -0406 -01 -004 z EIR Officers Chair: Tim Harrington, UWB Alliance Vice Chair and Secretary: Technical Editor: Benjamin A. Rolfe, UWB Alliance Billy Verso, Deca. Wave Slide 4 Tim Harrington (Pro-ID Consulting)

September 2019 15 -19 -0406 -01 -004 z Overhead IEEE Slides Review and modify agenda Approve agenda Slide 5 Tim Harrington (Pro-ID Consulting)

September 2019 15 -19 -0406 -01 -004 z Instructions for the WG Chair The IEEE-SA strongly recommends that at each WG meeting the chair or a designee: • • • Show slides #1 through #4 of this presentation Advise the WG attendees that: • The IEEE’s patent policy is described in Clause 6 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws; • Early identification of patent claims which may be essential for the use of standards under development is strongly encouraged; • There may be Essential Patent Claims of which the IEEE is not aware. Additionally, neither the IEEE, the WG, nor the WG chair can ensure the accuracy or completeness of any assurance or whether any such assurance is, in fact, of a Patent Claim that is essential for the use of the standard under development. Instruct the WG Secretary to record in the minutes of the relevant WG meeting: • That the foregoing information was provided and that slides 1 through 4 (and this slide 0, if applicable) were shown; • That the chair or designee provided an opportunity for participants to identify patent claim(s)/patent application claim(s) and/or the holder of patent claim(s)/patent application claim(s) of which the participant is personally aware and that may be essential for the use of that standard • Any responses that were given, specifically the patent claim(s)/patent application claim(s) and/or the holder of the patent claim(s)/patent application claim(s) that were identified (if any) and by whom. The WG Chair shall ensure that a request is made to any identified holders of potential essential patent claim(s) to complete and submit a Letter of Assurance. It is recommended that the WG chair review the guidance in IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual 6. 3. 5 and in FAQs 14 and 15 on inclusion of potential Essential Patent Claims by incorporation or by reference. Note: WG includes Working Groups, Task Groups, and other standards-developing committees with a PAR approved by the IEEE-SA Standards Board. Slide 6 Tim Harrington (Pro-ID Consulting)

September 2019 15 -19 -0406 -01 -004 z Participants, Patents, and Duty to Inform All participants in this meeting have certain obligations under the IEEE-SA Patent Policy. • Participants [Note: Quoted text excerpted from IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws subclause 6. 2]: • “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 • “Should inform the IEEE (or cause the IEEE to be informed)” of the identity of “any other holders of 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 • No duty to perform a patent search Slide 7 Tim Harrington (Pro-ID Consulting)

September 2019 15 -19 -0406 -01 -004 z 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/develop/policies/bylaws/sect 6 -7. html#6 IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual http: //standards. ieee. org/develop/policies/opman/sect 6. html#6. 3 Material about the patent policy is available at http: //standards. ieee. org/about/sasb/patcom/materials. html If you have questions, contact the IEEE-SA Standards Board Patent Committee Administrator at patcom@ieee. org or visit http: //standards. ieee. org/about/sasb/patcom/index. html This slide set is available at https: //development. standards. ieee. org/myproject/Public/mytools/mob/slideset. ppt Slide 8 Tim Harrington (Pro-ID Consulting)

September 2019 15 -19 -0406 -01 -004 z Call for Potentially Essential Patents • 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 Slide 9 Tim Harrington (Pro-ID Consulting)

September 2019 15 -19 -0406 -01 -004 z Other Guidelines for IEEE WG 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. Slide 10 Tim Harrington (Pro-ID Consulting)

September 2019 15 -19 -0406 -01 -004 z Recirc Results and Goals • Recirc Results • • 80% YES votes Total comment count: • • Technical Comments: Editorial Comments: Blank; T or E not specified: Roque: 06 910 411 473 20 • Goals • • Resolve comments from 1 st Recirculation of WG letter ballot Start recirculation Slide 11 Tim Harrington (Pro-ID Consulting)

D o n S t u r e k , I t r o n September 2019 15 -19 -0406 -01 -004 z 4 z-EIR Schedule for the Week Monday AM 1 AM 2 PM 1 PM 2 Tuesday Wednesday Thursday TG 4 z Ei. R TG 4 z Ei. R PM 3 Slide 12 Tim Harrington (Pro-ID Consulting)

September 2019 15 -19 -0406 -01 -004 z Agenda https: //mentor. ieee. org/802. 15/dcn/19/1519 -0362 -01 -004 z-tg 4 z-eir-septemberagenda. xlsx Slide 13 Tim Harrington (Pro-ID Consulting)

IEEE-SA Rev. Comment Resolution Preparation Guidelines The Guideline is intended to provide assistance to the Standards Committee in preparing comment resolutions that increase the likelihood of quick project approval at Rev. Com guidance on the contents of the disposition and disposition detail fields: The disposition status field of a comment resolution must be set to one of: Accepted, Revised or Rejected. This section gives guidance on how to determine which is the appropriate disposition status, and based on that, what might go in the disposition detail field. 14 14

Rev. Com Guidelines Disposition status is “Accepted” - Means: The CRC agreed exactly with comment and change proposed by the commenter. - Prerequisite: The changes proposed in the comment contain sufficient detail so that voters can understand the specific changes that satisfy the commenter and the editor can make the change. -The disposition detail field should be left blank 15 15

Rev. Com Guidelines Disposition status is “Revised” - Means: CRC agrees in principle with the comment and/or proposed change, and one or more of: the CRC disagrees with all or part of the specific details in the proposed change in the comment, the proposed change in the comment does not contain sufficient detail so that the CRC can understand the specific changes that satisfy the commenter, or the changes made by the CRC contain additions or modifications to what was proposed by the commenter the proposed change offers more than one alternative - The disposition details field should contain sufficient detail so that voters can understand the specific changes determined by the CRC and the editor can make the change 16 16

Rev. Com Guidelines Disposition status is “Rejected” -Used when one or more of these applies: - the CRC disagree with the comment - the comment is out of scope - the proposed change in the comment does not contain sufficient detail so that the CRC can understand the specific changes that satisfy the commenter - the CRC cannot come to a consensus to make changes necessary to address the comment - the comment is in support of an unsatisfied previous comment associated with a disapprove vote and does not provide substantive additional rationale - the comment includes an attachment that does not meet the criteria indicated by the my. Ballot system; that the CRG cannot address as a single issue; or that does not relate to a specific line, paragraph, figure, or equation in the balloted draft - the commenter has indicated to the CRG chair that they wish to withdraw the comment 17 17

Rev. Com Guidelines The disposition detail field should explain why the comment is being rejected using one or more of these reasons: - an explanation of why the CRC disagrees with the comment, - a statement that the comment is out of scope, and the rationale, - a statement that the proposed change in the comment does not contain sufficient detail so that the CRC can understand the specific changes that satisfy the commenter - a statement that the CRC could not reach consensus on the changes necessary to address the comment, along with the reason - a statement that the CRC has previously considered the comment (or a substantively similar comment), along with identification (by reference or copy) of the original comment and its disposition detail and status - a statement of why the CRC considers the attachment does not meet the criteria indicated by the my. Ballot system; or cannot be addressed as a single issue; or does not relate to a specific line, paragraph, figure, or equation in the balloted draft - a statement that the commenter has withdrawn the comment 18 18

September 2019 15 -19 -0406 -01 -004 z Motions and Discussion • Discussion will be limited to 2 minutes per presenter • 1 rebuttal up to 1 minutes • May be extended at the discretion of Chairman upon request 19 Tim Harrington (Pro-ID Consulting)

September 2019 15 -19 -0406 -01 -004 z July Accomplishments Progress on CR of 1 st WG letter ballot 1 st recirculation started by CRG between meetings Slide 20 Tim Harrington (Pro-ID Consulting)

September 2019 15 -19 -0406 -01 -004 z Timeline • • • March 2018 – 2 nd Call for proposals – resolved comments on PAR and CSD July 2018 – Review new proposals – Merge Baselines for draft Sept 2018 – Drafting using merged baselines Nov 2018 – Drafting using merged baselines Jan 2019 – Complete drafting – informal ballot March 2019 – Comment Res – 1 st Working Group ballot May 2019 – Comment Resolution July 2019 - Comment Res – Recirc Working Group ballot Sept 2019 – Comment Res – Recirc Working Group ballot Nov 2019 – Comment resolution & start SA ballot Jan 2020 - Comment Res – Forward to Rev. Com Slide 21 Tim Harrington (Pro-ID Consulting)

Examples Disapprove vote, cited as technical: “Class 1 E is a name and therefore the "c" must be capatalized regardless of the formatting utilized for Terms and Definitions” Disposition detail was Rejected with the following detail: “I will leave this up to IEEE and IEC to determine what is the correct format. ” Rev. Com Member commented, questioning this disposition detail and offered the following: “The only valid promise of future action is to refer a comment to the publication editor for consideration during publication editing. It is not clear that "IEEE and IEC" meant the IEEE-SA editors. ” 22 22

Example Approve vote with comment: “Delete "European community (CE)", if only third party certification is accepted. Or add the alternative of self declaration. ” Disposition status was Accepted with the detail: “Added the alternative of self declaration, "an accredited testing laboratory“” Rev. Com Member commented: “Comment should have been "revised" because the comment itself offers a choice, and it is not possible to implement both parts of an exclusive choice. ” 23 23