1 / 49

JTC1 Ad Hoc January 2012 agenda

JTC1 Ad Hoc January 2012 agenda. Authors:. 23 December 2011. This presentation will be used to run the JTC1 Ad Hoc meetings in Jacksonville in Jan 2012. This presentation contains a proposed running order for the IEEE 802.11 JTC1 Ad Hoc committee meeting in January 2011, including

doiron
Download Presentation

JTC1 Ad Hoc January 2012 agenda

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. JTC1 Ad Hoc January 2012 agenda Authors: • 23 December 2011 Andrew Myles, Cisco

  2. This presentation will be used to run the JTC1 Ad Hoc meetings in Jacksonville in Jan 2012 • This presentation contains a proposed running order for the IEEE 802.11 JTC1 Ad Hoc committee meeting in January 2011, 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 Andrew Myles, Cisco

  3. Participants have a duty to inform in relation to patents • All participants in this meeting have certain obligations under the IEEE-SA 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 Andrew Myles, Cisco

  4. There are a variety of patent related links • All participants should be familiar with their obligations under the IEEE-SA 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/pat-slideset.ppt Andrew Myles, Cisco

  5. A call for potentially essential patents is not required in the JTC1 Ad Hoc • 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 Andrew Myles, Cisco

  6. The JTC1 Ad Hoc 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. Andrew Myles, Cisco

  7. 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 Andrew Myles, Cisco

  8. The JTC1 Ad Hoc 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. Andrew Myles, Cisco

  9. The JTC1 Ad Hoc has three slots at the Jacksonville meeting Tuesday PM1 Wednesday PM1 Thursday PM1 • Call to Order • Select recording secretary <- important! • Approve agenda • Details on next page • Conduct meeting according to agenda • Recess • Call to Order • Select recording secretary <- important! • Conduct meeting according to agenda • Recess • Call to Order • Select recording secretary <- important! • Conduct meeting according to agenda • Adjourn Andrew Myles, Cisco

  10. The JTC1 Ad Hoc has a detailed list of agenda items to be considered • Approve minutes from November in Atlanta • Review extended goals • Review liaisons to SC6 • Review status of WAPI in SC6 (802.11i replacement) • Review status of 802.1X/AE and 802.16 security replacements • Review status of N-UHT (802.11ac replacement) • Discuss IPSec replacement proposal • Discuss proposing ISO/IEC ratifications of 802.11-2012 • Review plan for renewal of ISO/IEC 8802 standards • Consider any motions Andrew Myles, Cisco

  11. The JTC1 Ad Hoc will consider approving its agenda • Motion to approve agenda • The JTC1 Ad Hoc approves the agenda for its meeting in Jacksonville in January 2012, as documented on pages 9-10 of <this slide deck> • Moved: • Seconded • Result Andrew Myles, Cisco

  12. The JTC1 Ad Hoc will consider approval of previous minutes • Motion to approve minutes • The JTC1 Ad Hoc approves the minutes for its meeting in Atlanta in Nov 2011, as documented in 11-11-1614 • Moved: • Seconded: • Result: Andrew Myles, Cisco

  13. The JTC1 Ad Hoc 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 Andrew Myles, Cisco

  14. ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 met in San Diego in June 2011 and will meet in Guangzhou, China in Feb 2012 • SC6 has a F2F meeting every 9 months or so • The last meeting was held on 20-24 June 2011 in San Diego • All WGs met in San Diego • WG1: Physical and data link layers • WG7: Network and transport layers (also known as Future Network) • WG8: Directory • WG9: ASN.1 and registration • The next meeting is 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 • WG1: Physical and data link layers • WG7: Network and transport layers Andrew Myles, Cisco

  15. IEEE 802 empowered Bruce Kraemer as HoD for the SC6 meeting in February 2012 • In November 2011 in Atlanta, Bruce Kraemer was appointed as HoD to the SC6 meeting in Feb 2012 and was authorised to: • Appoint the IEEE 802 delegation • Approve any necessary submissions • Call any necessary preparation teleconferences • Possible delegates include: • Bruce Kraemer • Dan Harkins (802.11 security) • Who? (802.11ac) • Who? (802.1X/AE) • The actual delegation will depend on what is on the final agenda Andrew Myles, Cisco

  16. The agenda for the Guangzhou, China meeting has not yet been published • IEEE 802 and the National Bodies were required to submit agenda items by 10 Jan 2012 • The SC6 secretariat has not yet published a detailed agenda, although there is a draft agenda • Likely/possible items of interest to IEEE 802 include: • 8802 standards • SC6 best practice document • WAPI • 802.1X/AE replacement • 802.11ac replacement • ... Andrew Myles, Cisco

  17. The 802.11 WG has liaised various Sponsor Ballot drafts to ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 • The latest set of documents were liaised on 24 Nov 2011 • The WG has told SC6 it will liaise 802.11ac as soon as it passes a LB Andrew Myles, Cisco

  18. It was recognised by the ad hoc in September 2009 that WAPI is of vital interest to the JTC1 Ad Hoc • It was agreed by the JTC1 ad hoc in Hawaii in Sept 09 that WAPI remains an important and constant issue for consideration • This is the case for a variety of reasons, possibly including: • WAPI appears to duplicate functionality of 802.11i • The promoters of WAPI continue to assert that 802.11i is insecure • It is unclear how or whether 802.11i and WAPI can coexist • The issues related to WAPI are similar to those for the proposed 802.1X/AE and 802.16 security replacements • … Andrew Myles, Cisco

  19. The formal WAPI NP proposal process started in October 2009 … N14123 Text for NP ballot … for use with ISO/IEC 8802-11 Multiple NBs submitted comments 9-Oct-09 N14228 Summary of Voting on 6N14123, …for use with ISO/IEC 8802-11 IEEE 802 submitted comments (N14142) 1-Feb-10 Renumbered draft responding to UK NB comment • 10 of 18 NB’s voted “yes” (10 required) & 5 NB’s stated they would participate (5 required) N14435 ISO/IEC WD 20011 Alternative security mechanism for use with ISO/IEC 8802-11 N14436 Disposition of Comments on the ISO/IEC NP 20011 6-Oct-10 6-Oct-10 IEEE 802 comments ignored in proposed disposition  Invited NBs to submit comments on proposed disposition (closing Jan 11)

  20. … and the WAPI NP approval process was still continuing in Nov 2011 … IEEE 802 submitted comments on proposed disposition (N14551) USNB submitted comments on proposeddisposition (N14549) Inappropriately changed title so document is no longer a disposition of NP ballot comments  N14620 Disposition of Comments on 1st WD 20011 17-Mar-11 Dismisses all substantive USNB comments on basis the process is beyond the NP stage  US NB asserts NP process incomplete & summarizing situation (N14742, N14743) Responds to most comments with assertions & false statements rather than reasoned arguments  IEEE 802 submits document asserting security of 802.11i (N14778) Dismisses all (but one) substantive IEEE 802 comments on basis the process is beyond the NP stage  N14770 Revised disposition of Comments on 1st WD 20011 8-Jun-11

  21. SC6 decided in June 2011 that an approved DoC on the WAPI NP comments was required • Most discussion at the SC6 meeting in San Diego related to WAPI was focused on process • Was the WAPI project at New Project or Working Draft stage? • US NB asserted that the WAPI project was still at NP stage because the comments on the ballot had not been resolved and approved by SC6 • China/Swiss NB asserted the WAPI project was at WD stage because the ballot passed and that SC6 had sent a working draft out for comment in Sept 10 • It was ultimately determined the WAPI project was required to complete a DoC on the NP comments before the NP process was complete • Based on ruling by SC6 Chair that was confirmed by JTC1 Secretariat • China NB indicated at the time that they would be appealing • There apparently was some sort of appeal relating to “bias”, but no outcome of the appeal has been published • The China NB participated in the comment resolution process after the San Diego meeting, although under informal protest Andrew Myles, Cisco

  22. A series of teleconferences were held to resolve comments on the WAPI NP proposal • The ruling in San Diego meant the comments made during the NP ballot process (back in Jan 2010!) needed to be resolved and agreed by SC6 before the WAPI project could formally progress • There were a series of teleconferences that attempted to resolve the comments • Four teleconferences were held • The first teleconference was held on 10 Aug 2011 • The last teleconference was held on 21 Nov 2011 Andrew Myles, Cisco

  23. On 21 November 2011, the China NB announced that they had withdrawn the WAPI project • The China NB announced they were withdrawing the WAPI project on 21 November 2011 • See embedded document • 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” Andrew Myles, Cisco

  24. The ISO Project portal now lists the WAPI project as “deleted” • The WAPI project is listed as “deleted” • Document title: Information technology -Telecommunications and information exchange between systems - Local and metropolitan area networks - Specific requirements- Part XX: Alternative security mechanism for use with ISO/IEC 8802-11 • Registration date of project: 6 Oct 2010 • Current stage of project: 20.98 (deleted) <- changed • Date of current stage: 22 Nov 2011 <- changed • Limit date for next stage: 6 Apr 2012 Andrew Myles, Cisco

  25. The JTC1 ad hoc will discuss the likely result of the WAPI project cancellation • The cancellation of the WAPI project “came out of the blue” • The real reasons for the cancellation are unclear • The JTC1 ad hoc will have a brief discussion relating to this situation • What are possible next steps for WAPI standardisation? • Will 802.11i be allowed in products in China without WAPI? • Is there any evidence of waning support for WAPI in China? • ... Andrew Myles, Cisco

  26. The Chair would like to thank various individuals for representing IEEE 802 at the CRMs 10 August 31 August 15 September 21 November • Bruce Kraemer • Dan Harkins • Dorothy Stanley • Jodi Haaz • Brian Weis • Bruce Kraemer • Dan Harkins • Dorothy Stanley • Jodi Haaz • Brian Weis • Bruce Kraemer • Dan Harkins • Dorothy Stanley • Jodi Haaz • Bruce Kraemer • Dan Harkins • Dorothy Stanley • Jodi Haaz Andrew Myles, Cisco

  27. IEEE 802 members are encouraged to get involved in their SC6 NBs • IEEE 802 members are important stakeholders in the WLAN industry around the world • You are encouraged to participate in the NB activities in whatever country your employer operates and ensure your view is reflected in the NB position • Usually NB positions are set by a “mirror committee” of some sort • In the US there is a Project 5 TAG that covers the MAC/PHY activities of JTC1/SC6/WG1 • In the UK there is also a mirror committee – at least one IEEE 802.11 member participates • Does anyone plan to join any of the NB mirror committees mentioned on the next page? Andrew Myles, Cisco

  28. IEEE 802 members are eligible to participate in the activities of many SC6 NBs • SC6 P-Members • Korea - KATS • Spain – AENOR • USA – ANSI • UK – BSI • Germany – DIN • Greece – ELOT • Russia - GOST R • Luxemburg – ILNAS • Tunisia – INNORPI • Japan - JISC • Kazakhstan – KAZMEMST • Kenya – KEBS • Belgium - NBN • Netherlands – NEN • China – SAC • Canada – SCC • Finland – SFS • Switzerland – SNV • Czech Republic - UNMZ Andrew Myles, Cisco

  29. There is no known progress on other security related proposals based on TePA in SC6 • The China NB have previously proposed two other security related protocols to SC6 • An 802.1X/AE replacement • An 802.16 security replacement • Both these proposals are based on TePA, the three part authentication protocol underlying WAPI • There has been no known progress on these proposals • They could be raised again at the next SC6 meeting in February 2012 • Although the current agenda does not mention either topic Andrew Myles, Cisco

  30. There is some evidence of new activities related to TePA 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 forTISec is an alternative to IPsec ESP + IKEv2 where TePA is the authentication component, and the key management piece is unspecified • TISec is not of direct relevance to the JTC1 ad hoc but it does indicate a continuing interest in TePA by some stakeholders in China Andrew Myles, Cisco

  31. N-UHT was a “hot topic” at the SC6 meeting in San Diego • Rolf DeVegt presented a discussion of 802.11ac and N-UHT at the SC6 meeting in San Diego • N14787 - IEEE 802.11’s perspectives on document 6N14746 • The China NB responded with a presentation at the end of the last day • The presentation did not get an official document number, and the version sent to the IEEE 802 delegation was modified from that presented • The Nufront rep wrote in an accompanying note • I think both MSR and 11 are good at data access applications, but only optimized for different scenarios. So, we are also open to discuss and communicate. Andrew Myles, Cisco

  32. N-UHT 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 • 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 recently when it was claimed that the band may be opened up for N-UHT only • The recently published 12th 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 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 Andrew Myles, Cisco

  33. The standardisation status of UHT & N-UHT within China is becoming clearer ... unfortunately! • A meeting of CCSA before the SC6 meeting in San Diego considered the standardisation of N-UHT in China, and a vote indicated little support • Nufront voted “yes”; a number of Chinese companies abstained; a number of Chinese and non Chinese companies voted “no” • The Nufront rep informed the SC6 meeting in San Diego in June 2011 that N-UHT would use an “alternate” process within CCSA • UHT (an 11n extension) also used this “alternate” process • It appears “alternate” means a group of specially selected “experts” • It now appears CCSA has approved both UHT & N-UHT and forwarded them to MIIT for final ratification • CCSA ran a final 15 day comment period on N-UHT a few months ago Andrew Myles, Cisco

  34. It now appears that UHT & N-UHT are in final review by MIIT! • MIIT ran a 15 day comment period, closing on 4 Oct • It is believed that various organisations made submissions, including: • USITO • European Union Chamber of Commerce in China • Digital Europe • Japanese trade asscoiation • ... some companies • Most of the submissions focus on procedural issues, some of the submissions also raise technical issues • UHT/EUHT are incompatible with current WLAN products & EUHT • EUHT systems require interference free spectrum bands • There is only one 80MHz channel available in China • UHT & EUHT have significantly higher sensitivity to frequency error and phase noise compared to the 802. • UHT & EUHT introduces new techniques that add significant complexity Andrew Myles, Cisco

  35. MIIT has not yet provided a timeline for the next steps for NUHT completion ... whatever they are • It is reported that • MIIT (S&T Dept) has stated that they are in the process of reviewing the relatively large amount of comment feedback received • MIIT were surprised by the number of comments received • MIIT have not provided a timeline for any standard being approved. • … Andrew Myles, Cisco

  36. Nufront have now sent a letter to the IEEE 802.11 WG Chair suggesting some sort of interaction • Nufront have 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 Andrew Myles, Cisco

  37. The JTC1 ad hoc will discuss the letter from Nufront relating to EUHT • Some possible questions for discussion include: • What is IEEE 802.11’s view towards China developing EUHT? • Does cooperation on EUHT make sense? • What are the goals? • How could 802.11 and Nufront cooperate? • Does competition make more sense, as long as there is a “level playing field”? • Does EUHT satisfy the regulations for unlicensed spectrum? • LBT probably required in Europe in 5GHz in future • ... • Note: we will avoid more technical issues, egEUHT/802.11 coexistence Andrew Myles, Cisco

  38. The JTC1 ad hoc may develop a response to the letter from Nufront relating to EUHT • Contents could include: • ... Andrew Myles, Cisco

  39. Approval 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 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 February Andrew Myles, Cisco

  40. The JTC1 ad hoc will discuss formally submitting 802.11-2012 for ratification • The 802.11 WG has previously told SC6 that we intend submitting 802.11-2012 for ratification by ISO/IEC • If the IEEE submits 802.11-2012 under the PSDO agreement then a 60 day ballot of SC6 is required, followed by a five month approval ballot • If SC6 invites IEEE to submit 802.11-2012 under the PSDO agreement then only a five month approval ballot is required • It is hoped that a SC6 NB will make a request for IEEE to submit 802.11-2012 under the PSDO agreement • This will be known by 10 Jan 2012 Andrew Myles, Cisco

  41. The SC6 meeting in San Diego discussed a proposal from UK NB to withdraw the ISO/IEC 8802 series • At the SC6 meeting in San Diego the UK NB made a proposal to withdraw a number of standards including the 8802 series • 11802-5:1997 (based on 802.1H-1997) • 15802-1:1995 (based on 802.1D-1998) • 8802-2:2001 (based on IEEE 802.2-1998) • 8802-3:2000 (based on IEEE 802.3-1996) • 8802-5:1998 (based on IEEE 802.5-1998) • 8802-11:2005 (based on IEEE 802.11-2003 + .11g-2003, .11h-2004, .11i-2004) • The proposal was based on the observation that the ISO versions of these standards are either obsolete or significantly out of date • This is less true for the 8802-11 series • The proposal also noted that IEEE 802.3 WG has explicitly requested that 8802-3:2000 be withdrawn • After some discussion, it was agree to postpone any decisions on this proposal until Feb 2012 to give IEEE 802 an opportunity to consider associated issues Andrew Myles, Cisco

  42. The proposals to withdraw the ISO/IEC 8802 series raised a variety of general issues for the IEEE • Issues include (with conclusions from SFO in red): • Is it important for an IEEE 802 standards to be recognized as “international” and thus protected by international trade treaties? Yes • Does the WTO consider an IEEE 802 standard to be international? Don’t know • Do all countries recognize the an IEEE 802 standard as international? No • Is there any additional value in submitting IEEE 802 standards to ISO/IEC JTC1 for ratification? Yes, universal international recognition • What is the value to IEEE 802 and ISO/IEC JTC1 NBs? Better relationship • Do we expect any technical value? Limited, based on history, but some possible • Are the answers different for each 802 WG? Probably not • How should IEEE 802 submit standards for ratification? • Using the PSDO? Yes, because it is an agreed method between IEEE & ISO • Using the traditional fast track method? No, don’t want comments at that point • … Andrew Myles, Cisco

  43. The proposals to withdraw the ISO/IEC 8802 series raises a variety of specific questions for the IEEE • Specific questions include (with conclusions from SFO in red): • Should the IEEE 802.11 WG execute its plan to send 802.11-2012 to ISO/IEC JTC1 for ratification? Yes • Should the IEEE 802.11 WG send 802.11-2007 to ISO/IEC JTC1 in the meantime to bring the ISO/IEC series “up to date”? No, because the approval process would overlap with 802.11-2012 approval process • Should the IEEE 802.1 and 802.3 WGs send their latest standards to ISO/IEC JTC1? Yes, to ensure universal international recognition • Should the other IEEE 802 WG’s consider sending standards to ISO/IEC? Maybe, depending on particular circumstances • Note: 802.16 is working with ITU-T instead Andrew Myles, Cisco

  44. The Chair of the IEEE International ad hoc provided a “discussion starter” in San Francisco • Phil Wennblom (Intel) is the Chair of the IEEE International ad hoc • This committee has been considering similar issues • Phil provided a presentation that: • Described the importance of international standards • Provided an overview of the PSDO • Summarized the IEEE experience with the PSDO • Afterwards the IEEE 802 JTC1 ad hoc has a discussion with participation by representatives from: • 802.1 WG • 802.3 WG • 802.11 WG • 802.16 WG Andrew Myles, Cisco

  45. The IEEE 802 JTC1 ad hoc put together a liaison for consideration in Atlanta in November • Rough outline based on input from San Francisco • Request SC6 not to withdraw 8802 series • In particular 8802-1/2/3/5/11 • Could stabilize in interim ... but probably not worthwhile • Inform SC6 that IEEE 802 WGs intend to liaise Sponsor Ballot drafts to SC6 for comment • Similar to what 802.11 WG already does • Idea is to give NBs an opportunity to comment early • Would all 802 WG’s want to liaise all amendment or only rollup drafts • Inform SC6 that IEEE 802 intend to send rollups to ISO/IEC for ratification • In particular 802.1/3/11 • Using PSDO process with up/down votes – no actionable comments Andrew Myles, Cisco

  46. The IEEE 802 EC put together a liaison for consideration in Atlanta in November • Rough outline based on input from San Francisco • Request SC6 agreement that they will not modify or amend or extend 8802 standards in any way without agreement from IEEE 802 • As required by 802.3 WG • As suggested by 802.1 WG reps • This would have affected WAPI in the past, but probably not now • Request that SC6 agreement that they “will not generate any new projects which fall in direct conflict or duplication with the existing IEEE 802 projects” without agreement from IEEE 802 • As suggested by an SC6 NB • This might affect 802.1X/AE, 802.16 security and 802.11ac replacements • Withdraw all relevant existing standards and TRs once up to date IEEE 802 standards are in place in ISO/IEC Andrew Myles, Cisco

  47. The JTC1 ad hoc may consider approving the liaison letter to JTC1/SC6 • A the letter relating to the proposal to withdraw a number of 8802 associated documents was sent to SC6 • The letter is still in preparation – and will go directly from EC after completion • It will be considered as part of the SC6 agenda • Agenda not yet available Andrew Myles, Cisco

  48. Are there any other matters? Andrew Myles, Cisco

  49. The IEEE 802 JTC ad hoc will adjourn for the week • Motion: • The IEEE 802 JTC1 ad hoc, having completed its business in Jacksonville in January 2012, adjourns • Moved: • Seconded: • Result Andrew Myles, Cisco

More Related