November 2015 802.11 Session Supplementary Material

1. November 2015 802.11 SessionSupplementary Material Authors: Date: 2015-11-13 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

2. This report provides supplementary material related to attending the November 2015 802.11 plenary meetings. • Refer to the agenda: 11-15/1217r3 Introduction Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

3. Wednesday Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

4. 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 W2.2 Call for Potentially Essential Patents Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

5. Leaders of 802.11 Task Groups, Study Groups and Standing Committees (or their nominee) should attend the Thursday CAC at 7:30pm. • The purpose of the CAC is: • To prepare the agenda and material for the closing WG plenary • To create room requests for the next session • To advise and support the chair in his responsibilities as an EC member W2.3 – Thursday CAC reminder Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

6. At the last meeting, manual counts were taken of the number of people present in the room at the half-way point of each meeting. • As 75% attendance in a meeting is required to claim attendance, everybody claiming attendance should be present at this point • The counts recorded from the IMAT attendance system were captures and compared. • See the following slides W5.2 - Survey of attendance reporting Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

7. W5.2 - Recorded counts from the minutes Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

8. W5.2 - Counts from IMAT Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

9. W5.2 - Ratio: IMAT/physical(where physical was recorded) Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

10. Should we care? Can we ever do anything about it – after all isn’t it just human nature? It is unreasonable to expect a “personal professional” ethic? Should we ask IEEE 802 for guidance? Should we attempt to identify the those abusing the system? W5.2 - How should we respond to this data? Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

11. Should the WG chair attempt to take any corrective action in the matter of wrongly-claimed attendance ? • Yes • No • Abstain W5.2 - Straw Poll Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

12. The challenges.. • Distribution of Standards on DVD doesn’t help those whose laptop doesn’t have a DVD drive (increasing). Cost is ~ $1. • Distribution of Standards on a USB drive is expensive - $5, and some companies have an internal policy of disabling access to USB disk drives as a security measure. • Distribution of Standards online would need to authenticate that downloads to authenticated & registered users at the meeting, and probably create an audit trail of download vs user. This infrastructure does not exist, and therefore there would be a cost to develop it. • And finally – supporting > 1 distribution medium would add to cost and management overhead. W5.7 – Distribution of “Standards Disk” Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

13. DVD USB memory stick Authenticated download Some other method not yet invented Don’t have any interest in receiving this information How do you prefer to access an “IEEE 802 Standards Disk”? Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

14. friday Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

15. 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 F2.2 Call for Potentially Essential Patents Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

16. Next Full WG Session: January 17-22 • 1st CAC telecon – Dec 14th at noon ET (-5 weeks) • Initial objectives/agendas should be uploaded as mentor documents (.ppt format) or send to chair (.xls tab format) before the telecon. • Meeting date set to meet 30-day agenda submission deadline. • 2nd CAC telecon – Jan 11th at noon ET (-1 week) • Snapshots to be send to Dorothy Stanley before this telecon. F2.4 Administrative Reminders Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

17. F2.5 Letters of Assurance Database is here • 5 requests for LoA pending: • Texas A&M University System (802.11n, .11ac, .11ad) • Blackberry (802.11ai) • HP (802.11ai) • Microsoft (802.11ai) • Was pending in last session: • NTT (patents have expired) • Broadcom (802.11ai) Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

18. F2.6 Availability of documents- Nov 2015 ** = request pending Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

19. Drafts are sent to ISO during sponsor ballot to solicit comments. • Notice was sent (in October) to ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 soliciting comment on P802.11ai D6.0 and P802.11ah D5.0. • Approved drafts may also be sent during working group ballot. • Any comments received from ISO are processed by the comment resolution committee • No comments outstanding F2.7 802.11 drafts to ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

20. At the last meeting, manual counts were taken of the number of people present in the room at the half-way point of each meeting. • As 75% attendance in a meeting is required to claim attendance, everybody claiming attendance should be present at this point • The counts recorded from the IMAT attendance system were captures and compared. • See the following slides F6.2 - Survey of attendance reporting Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

21. F6.2 - Recorded counts from the minutes Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

22. F6.2 - Counts from IMAT Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

23. F6.2 - Ratio: IMAT/physical(where physical was recorded) Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

24. Should we care? Should we ask IEEE 802 for guidance? Should we try to change IEEE 802 rules? Should we attempt to identify the those abusing the system? How do we define participation? What behaviours are we trying to encourage, and what discourage? How does a tool impede or enable “real work?” F6.2 - How should we respond to this data? Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

25. We're wrong about the rules We're wrong about interpretation of the statistics We should be more "collegial". Focus more on getting the work done Trade attendance at plenaries vs missing a ballot Rules are imperfect, and it's clear some are cheating Attendance for registration has its own problems "buying votes". Don't put too much effort into addressing this - fix obvious abuses. Comments from WG members Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

26. Discussion is itself borderline offensive. We are here to develop standards. We are giving up time and money. We are the customers. Should completely disconnect voting rights from attendance. It is reasonable that voting membership should be based on attendance. Current requirements are not onerous. But it's an annoyance to record attendance. Perhaps less granular attendance. Should not restrict voting membership to attendees at f2f meetings. Too high a bar. We shouldn't waste time, but only address egregious offense. People are imperfect. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

27. Attendance for picking up your badge. Attendance as a proxy for skill-set / expertise. Not sure this works well. Voting in a WG letter ballot does not allow abstain except for lack of expertise -> excessive "yes" voters. Should support "abstain - don't care". Skewed letter ballot results. Need to keep track of active participation. Some people have difficulty achieving 75% due to other commitments, e.g. ad-hoc meetings. Contributors should be given flexibility. Perhaps a 1 per day recording of attendance. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

28. Recording attendance by TG and slot determines level of participation and interest. Our standards don't get improved by tracking more closely. Coarser granularity good enough for voting status. 2 conflicting requirements for recording: voting status and participation in any particular TG. Should keep recording per slot for participation. Should allow shared attendance in one slot. We currently have a request to IEEE-SA staff to modify tools to track both attendance and presence. Attendance should be by WG, not TG. Presence by TG. Motion: Attendance requirements shall be considered satisfied by attendee who has registered for 802.11 as primary group, when the badge is picked up. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

29. Direct the WG leadership to investigate the necessary changes in rules and procedures to enable “Attendance requirements shall be considered satisfied by attendee who has registered for 802.11 as primary group, when the badge is picked up”, and report back to the WG in the January 2016 session. Moved: Knut Odman Seconded: Paul Lambert Result: 41-2-8 Passes Motion approved in WG11 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

30. The wireless chairs meeting makes decisions related to the operation of the wireless interim meetings, such as location and cost. The meeting is open to all. If you are interested in these topics, please attend. The wireless chairs meeting takes place at 4:00pm local time on the Sunday of 802 Plenary and 802 Wireless Interim sessions. F7.1 802 Wireless Chairs meeting Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

31. 2016-01-17 to 2016-01-22 at Hyatt Regency, Atlanta, GA • IEEE LMSC (802) Interim • All LMSC working groups will be present • Meeting Registration and Hotel Registration are open For information and registration links, see http://www.ieee802.org/11/Meetings/Meeting_Plan.html F7.2 Next Meeting – LMSC Interim Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation