1 / 49

TGac MAC ad hoc agenda and report

TGac MAC ad hoc agenda and report. Authors:. Date: 2012-09-17. Abstract. Agenda, Pre-Motions and Straw Polls for the TGac MAC ad hoc group, for September 2012 interim meeting held in Palm Springs, CA, USA. Important IEEE Links.

jenaya
Download Presentation

TGac MAC ad hoc agenda and report

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. TGac MAC ad hoc agenda and report Authors: Date:2012-09-17 Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  2. Abstract • Agenda, Pre-Motions and Straw Polls for the TGac MAC ad hoc group, for September 2012 interim meeting held in Palm Springs, CA, USA. Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  3. Important IEEE Links • The following slides in this deck are believed to be the latest available however the Source locations are: • http://standards.ieee.org/faqs/affiliationFAQ.html • http://standards.ieee.org/resources/antitrust-guidelines.pdf • http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.ppt • http://www.ieee.org/portal/cms_docs/about/CoE_poster.pdf • For summary see 11-07-0660-01-0000-opening-presentation Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  4. Member Affiliation • It is defined in the IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws, 5.2.1.5 as: “An individual is deemed “affiliated” with any individual or entity that has been, or will be, financially or materially supporting that individual’s participation in a particular IEEE standards activity. This includes, but is not limited to, his or her employer and any individual or entity that has or will have, either directly or indirectly, requested, paid for, or otherwise sponsored his or her participation. • http://standards.ieee.org/faqs/affiliationFAQ.html Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  5. Declaration of Affiliation • Revision: May 2007 Standards Board Bylaw 5.2.1.1 • 5.2.1.1 Openness • Openness is defined as the quality of being not restricted to a particular type or category of participants. All meetings involving standards development an all IEEE Sponsor ballots shall be open toa all interested parties. Each individual participant in IEEE Standards activities shall disclose his or her affiliations when requested. A person who knows or reasonably should know, that a participant’s disclosure is materially incomplete or incorrect should report that fact to the Secretary of the IEEE-SA Standards Board and the appropriate Sponsors. • http://standards.ieee.org/faqs/affiliationFAQ.html Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  6. Affiliation Policy • Requirement to declare affiliation at all standards development meetings and recorded in the minutes • Affiliation not necessarily same as employer • Declaration requirement may be familiar to some 802 WGs, though WG declaration process may evolve • 11. What if I refuse to disclose my affiliation? • As outlined in IEEE-SA governance documents, you will lose certain rights. In a working group where voting rights are gained through attendance, no attendance credit will be granted if affiliation isn’t declared. Similarly, voting rights are to be removed if affiliation isn’t declared. • Affiliation declaration will be added to Sponsor ballot • http://standards.ieee.org/faqs/affiliationFAQ.html Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  7. Highlights of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards • Participants have a duty to tell the IEEE if they know (based on personal awareness) of potentially Essential Patent Claims they or their employer own • Participants are encouraged to tell the IEEE if they know of potentially Essential Patent Claims owned by others • This encouragement is particularly strong as the third party may not be a participant in the standards process • Working Group required to request assurance • Early assurance is encouraged • Terms of assurance shall be either: • Reasonable and nondiscriminatory, with or without monetary compensation; or, • A statement of non-assertion of patent rights • Assurances • Shall be provided on the IEEE-SA Standards Board approved LOA form • May optionally include not-to-exceed rates, terms, and conditions • Shall not be circumvented through sale or transfer of patents • Shall be brought to the attention of any future assignees or transferees • Shall apply to Affiliates unless explicitly excluded • Are irrevocable once submitted and accepted • Shall be supplemented if Submitter becomes aware of other potential Essential Patent Claims • A “Blanket Letter of Assurance” may be provided at the option of the patent holder • A patent holder has no duty to perform a patent search • Full policy available at http://standards.ieee.org/guides/bylaws/sect6-7.html#6 1 Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  8. IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards 6.2 Policy IEEE standards may be drafted in terms that include the use of Essential Patent Claims. If the IEEE receives notice that a [Proposed] IEEE Standard may require the use of a potential Essential Patent Claim, the IEEE shall request licensing assurance, on the IEEE Standards Board approved Letter of Assurance form, from the patent holder or patent applicant. The IEEE shall request this assurance without coercion. The Submitter of the Letter of Assurance may, after Reasonable and Good Faith Inquiry, indicate it is not aware of any Patent Claims that the Submitter may own, control, or have the ability to license that might be or become Essential Patent Claims. If the patent holder or patent applicant provides an assurance, it should do so as soon as reasonably feasible in the standards development process. This assurance shall be provided prior to the Standards Board’s approval of the standard. This assurance shall be provided prior to a reaffirmation if the IEEE receives notice of a potential Essential Patent Claim after the standard’s approval or a prior reaffirmation. An asserted potential Essential Patent Claim for which an assurance cannot be obtained (e.g., a Letter of Assurance is not provided or the Letter of Assurance indicates that assurance is not being provided) shall be referred to the Patent Committee. A Letter of Assurance shall be either: a) A general disclaimer to the effect that the Submitter without conditions will not enforce any present or future Essential Patent Claims against any person or entity making, using, selling, offering to sell, importing, distributing, or implementing a compliant implementation of the standard; or b) A statement that a license for a compliant implementation of the standard will be made available to an unrestricted number of applicants on a worldwide basis without compensation or under reasonable rates, with reasonable terms and conditions that are demonstrably free of any unfair discrimination. At its sole option, the Submitter may provide with its assurance any of the following: (i) a not-to-exceed license fee or rate commitment, (ii) a sample license agreement, or (iii) one or more material licensing terms. 2 Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  9. IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards Copies of an Accepted LOA may be provided to the working group, but shall not be discussed, at any standards working group meeting. The Submitter and all Affiliates (other than those Affiliates excluded in a Letter of Assurance) shall not assign or otherwise transfer any rights in any Essential Patent Claims that are the subject of such Letter of Assurance that they hold, control, or have the ability to license with the intent of circumventing or negating any of the representations and commitments made in such Letter of Assurance. The Submitter of a Letter of Assurance shall agree (a) to provide notice of a Letter of Assurance either through a Statement of Encumbrance or by binding any assignee or transferee to the terms of such Letter of Assurance; and (b) to require its assignee or transferee to (i) agree to similarly provide such notice and (ii) to bind its assignees or transferees to agree to provide such notice as described in (a) and (b). This assurance shall apply to the Submitter and its Affiliates except those Affiliates the Submitter specifically excludes on the relevant Letter of Assurance. If, after providing a Letter of Assurance to the IEEE, the Submitter becomes aware of additional Patent Claim(s) not already covered by an existing Letter of Assurance that are owned, controlled, or licensable by the Submitter that may be or become Essential Patent Claim(s) for the same IEEE Standard but are not the subject of an existing Letter of Assurance, then such Submitter shall submit a Letter of Assurance stating its position regarding enforcement or licensing of such Patent Claims. For the purposes of this commitment, the Submitter is deemed to be aware if any of the following individuals who are from, employed by, or otherwise represent the Submitter have personal knowledge of additional potential Essential Patent Claims, owned or controlled by the Submitter, related to a [Proposed] IEEE Standard and not already the subject of a previously submitted Letter of Assurance: (a) past or present participants in the development of the [Proposed] IEEE Standard, or (b) the individual executing the previously submitted Letter of Assurance. 3 Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  10. IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards The assurance is irrevocable once submitted and accepted and shall apply, at a minimum, from the date of the standard's approval to the date of the standard's withdrawal. The IEEE is not responsible for identifying Essential Patent Claims for which a license may be required, for conducting inquiries into the legal validity or scope of those Patent Claims, or for determining whether any licensing terms or conditions are reasonable or non-discriminatory. Nothing in this policy shall be interpreted as giving rise to a duty to conduct a patent search. No license is implied by the submission of a Letter of Assurance. In order for IEEE’s patent policy to function efficiently, individuals participating in the standards development process: (a) shall inform the IEEE (or cause the IEEE to be informed) of the holder of any potential Essential Patent Claims of which they are personally aware and that are not already the subject of an existing Letter of Assurance, owned or controlled by the participant or the entity the participant is from, employed by, or otherwise represents; and (b) should inform the IEEE (or cause the IEEE to be informed) of any other holders of such potential Essential Patent Claims that are not already the subject of an existing Letter of Assurance. 4 Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  11. 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 fixing product prices, allocation of customers, or dividing 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. • --------------------------------------------------------------- • 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 • 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. • This slide set is available at http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.ppt 5 Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  12. Question • Are there any patent claim(s)/patent application claim(s) and/or the holder of patent claim(s)/patent application claim(s) that the participant believes may be essential for the use of that standard? • Minute 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. Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  13. Current MAC adhoc meeting agenda-notes pages Most recent agenda-notes pages are at the top of this document (i.e. have lower slide numbers). Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  14. Interpretive guide • Text coloring: • Black = pending agenda item • Red = item partially addressed • Green = item completed • Gray = item not addressed in the session indicated at the top of the slide Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  15. Agenda for Sep 17th, 2012 – PM1 • Affiliation policy • Reviewed by TGac chair during opening block (must be done within conf calls) • IEEE Patent policy review • Reviewed by TGac chair during opening block (must be done within conf calls) • Question of IP claims (See slide 12) • Reviewed by TGac chair during opening block (must be done within conf calls) • Attendance recording • Conf call attendance required – send email to chairs • Minutes – review • Review rules for adhocs • 11-09-0059r5 • MAC topics (11-09-1175-01-00ac-ad-hoc-groups-scope.ppt) • Power saving • Capability negotiations • Frame formats • Submissions • (see next page) • Conference calls • To be decided by the TG Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  16. 11-12/0856, “LB188 Subclause .2.5.2 Comment Resolution” Liwen Chu 11-12/0836, “LB188 Clause 8 Comment Resolutions NiharJindal 11-12/1036, “D3 comment resolution brianh part3” Brian Hart 11-12/1007, “LB188 Stephens Remaining Resolutions” Adrian Stephens 11-12/0711, “gcm-256-and-suite-b”, Joe Salowey 11-12/0946, “Next-Gen Security Built on 11ac”, Brian Hart 11-12/1075, “LB188 comment resolution on subclause 9.7.6.6”, Kaiying 11-12/1088, “LB188 comment resolution on clause 10.39.4”, Chao-Chun Submissions (Not Completed) Osama Aboul-Magd (Huawei Technologies)

  17. 11-12/1044, “LB188 MIB comments” Robert Stacey 11-12/0864, “LB188 Clause 8.4.2 Comment Resolutions”, Yongho Seok 11-12/1132, “Comment resolution (6852 MAC, 6273 COEX)” ,  Simone Merlin 11-12/1135, “LB188-MAC-comment-resolutions”, Sandhya 11-12/0853, “LB188 Subclause 9.19.2.4 Comment Resolution” Liwen Chu 11-12/0905, “LB188 Subclause 9.19.2.2 Comment Resolution”, Liwen Chiu Submissions Osama Aboul-Magd (Huawei Technologies)

  18. Submissions Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  19. TGac MAC adhoc Motions to be brought for vote in TGac task group All MAC adhoc motions are contained in this section, with the most recent motions appearing first. Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  20. Do you agree to accept the resolutions to CIDs 6699, 6700, 6787, 6428 as described in Doc # 11-12/1044r0? Passed by unanimous consent in TG meeting Pre-Motion #1 (AM2, Mon, 09/17/2012) Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  21. Do you agree to accept the resolution to CID 6547 as described in Doc # 11-12/836r2? Passed by unanimous consent in TG meeting Pre-Motion #2 (AM2, Mon, 09/17/2012) Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  22. In Doc 12/864r1, CID 6541 Do you support that any PPDU transmitted in 40MHz is taken into account in the calculation of channel utilization of 40MHz in Extended BSS Load Element? Yes: 13 No: 0 Straw Poll #1 Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  23. Do you agree to accept the resolutions to CIDs 6257, 6258, 6540, 6541, 6542, 6260, 6261, 6543, 6006, 6262, 6544, 6741, 6545, 6546, 6512, 6853, 6536, 6249, 6250, 6252, 6254, 6255, 6090, 6172, 6673 as described in Doc # 11-12/864r2? Passed by unanimous consent in MAC ad hoc meeting Pre-Motion #3 (PM1, Mon, 09/17/2012) Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  24. Do you agree to accept the resolution to CID 6852 as described in Doc # 11-12/1132r0? Passed by unanimous consent in MAC ad hoc meeting Pre-Motion #4 (PM2, Mon, 09/17/2012) Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  25. In Doc # 12/856r4, CID 6084 When the TXOP limit is 0 and the TXOP holder has estimated the value of a TSingle-MSDU that proves to be an underestimate, i.e. doesn’t allow transmission of data to complete within the TEnd-NAV, should transmission of that data allowed? Yes: 11 No: 0 Straw Poll Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  26. Do you agree to accept the resolution to CID 6084 as described in Doc # 11-12/856r4? Passed by unanimous consent in MAC ad hoc meeting Pre-Motion #5 (PM2, Mon, 09/17/2012) Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  27. Do you agree to accept the resolutions to CIDs 6173, 6259, 6250, 6252, 6254, 6255, 6674, 6493, 6537, 6538, 6539, 6090, 6461, 6511 as described in Doc # 11-12/864r3? Passed by unanimous consent in MAC ad hoc meeting Pre-Motion #6 (AM1, Tue, 09/18/2012) Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  28. Do you agree to accept the resolutions to CIDs 6200 and 6397 as described in Doc # 11-12/1036r2? Passed by unanimous consent in MAC ad hoc meeting Pre-Motion #7 (AM1, Tue, 09/18/2012) Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  29. Do you agree to accept the resolutions to CIDs 6121, 6197, 6854 as described in Doc # 11-12/1135r1? Passed by unanimous consent in MAC ad hoc meeting Pre-Motion # 8(AM2, Tue, 09/18/2012) Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  30. Do you agree to accept the resolutions to CIDs 6042, 6043, 6044, 6106, 6107, 6474, 6677, 6821 as described in Doc # 11-12/0853r2? Y: 7 N: 2 A: 0 Pre-motion passed Pre-Motion # 9(AM2, Tue, 09/18/2012) Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  31. Do you agree to accept the resolutions to CIDs 6513 and 42616198with the resolution text “Revised. See changes in Doc # 11-12/711r2” Y: 13 N: 10 A: 10 Pre-motion failed Pre-Motion # 10(AM1, Wed, 09/19/2012) Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  32. Do you agree to reject CIDs 6513 and 42616198with the reason “The provided resolution failed ad hoc pre-motion (Y:N:A = 13:10:10). Concerns raised during the discussion were a) a general desire by security experts to include the work and b) a general concern by device implementers about hardware impact”? Passed by unanimous consent in MAC ad hoc meeting Pre-Motion # 11(AM1, Wed, 09/19/2012) Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  33. Do you agree to accept the resolutions to CIDs 6154, 6155, 6374, 6563, 63746376, 6451 as described in Doc # 11-12/1088r5? Passed by unanimous consent in MAC ad hoc meeting Pre-Motion # 12(AM1, Wed, 09/19/2012) Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  34. Do you agree to accept the resolutions to CIDs 6279, 6280, 6839, 6466, 6468, 6469 as described in Doc # 11-12/1075r4? Passed by unanimous consent in MAC ad hoc meeting Pre-Motion # 13(AM1, Wed, 09/19/2012) Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  35. Do you agree to accept the resolutions to CIDs 6803, 6436 as described in Doc # 11-12/0905r1? Passed by unanimous consent in MAC ad hoc meeting Pre-Motion # 14(AM1, Wed, 09/19/2012) Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  36. Corrections of pre-motion #10 and #11 • CID 4261 should be CID 6198 • The changes were approved by the MAC ad hoc by unanimous consent. • Assignment of CID 6790 • transferred from MU and current has no assignee • Submission • 11-12/0855, “LB188 Subclause 9.19.2.5 Comment Resolution”, Liwen Chu • 11-12/1067, “Resolutions for CIDs related to DLS and TDLS”, James Wang • 11-12/0988, LB188 Comment Resolutions for Clause 10.39.1 thru 10.39.3, Eric Wong • 11-12/1056, “LB188 Miscellaneous Comment Resolutions for Clause 10”, Eric Wong • 11-12/1007r6, “LB188 Stephens Remaining Resolutions”, Adrian Stephens • 11-12/1004/6, “LB188 Clause 9.7 resolutions”, Adrian Stephens • 11-12/0994 “LB 188 Comments Resolutions for Sub-Clause 9.19 (Part 1)” - Allan Zhu • 11-12/1021, “lb188 cid 6558 mu exchange“, Matt Fischer Agenda for PM2, Wed 9/19 Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  37. Do you agree to reject CID 6790 with the reason “commenter has not shown a benefit of the proposed change that would warrant its acceptance.”? Note: the reason of rejection was taken from the resolution of CID 4910 of LB 187, which covered the same comment. Passed by unanimous consent in MAC ad hoc meeting Pre-Motion # 15(PM2, Wed, 09/19/2012) Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  38. Do you agree to accept the resolution to CID 6631 as described in Doc # 11-12/1067r4? Passed by unanimous consent in MAC ad hoc meeting Pre-Motion # 16(PM2, Wed, 09/19/2012) Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  39. Do you agree to accept the resolutions to CIDs 6124 and 6156 as described in Doc # 11-12/988r4? Passed by unanimous consent in MAC ad hoc meeting Pre-Motion # 17(PM2, Wed, 09/19/2012) Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  40. Do you agree to accept the resolutions to CIDs 6494 and 6495 as described in Doc # 11-12/1056r1? Y: 19 N: 0 A: 1 Pre-Motion Passed Pre-Motion # 18(PM2, Wed, 09/19/2012) Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  41. Do you agree to accept the resolution to CID 6145 as described in Doc # 11-12/1007r6? Passed by unanimous consent in MAC ad hoc meeting Pre-Motion # 19(PM2, Wed, 09/19/2012) Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  42. Do you agree to accept the resolution to CID 6502 as described in Doc # 11-12/1004r6? Y: 18 N: 0 A: 1 Pre-motion passed. Pre-Motion # 20(PM2, Wed, 09/19/2012) Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  43. Do you agree to accept the resolution to CID 6417 as described in Doc # 11-12/994r4? Passed by unanimous consent in MAC ad hoc meeting Pre-Motion # 21(PM2, Wed, 09/19/2012) Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  44. Submission • 11-12/0855, “LB188 Subclause 9.19.2.5 Comment Resolution”, Liwen Chu • 11-12/1021, “lb188 cid 6558 mu exchange“, Matt Fischer • 11-12/1004/7, “LB188 Clause 9.7 resolutions”, Adrian Stephens • 11-12/1048, “LB 188 Comments Resolutions for Sub-Clause 9.19 (Part 2)”, Allan Zhu • 11-12/1167, “LB188-comment-resolutions-for-sub-clause-9.19 (Part 3)”, Allan Zhu • 11-12/1161, “LB188-comment resolution 10.39.4 part 2 ”, Chao-Chun Wang • 11-12/1163, “LB188 (D3.0) resolution for the term "non-HT“”, Mark Rison • 11-12/1037, “LB188 (D3.0) resolution for regulatory generalisation”, Mark Rison Agenda for AM1, Thu 9/20 Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  45. Do you agree to accept the resolution to CID as described in Doc # 11-12/r? Pre-Motion # 22(AM1, Thu, 09/20/2012) Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  46. MAC adhoc operating rules • SEE 11-09-0059r5 • Attendance recorded outside of the 802.11 meeting week if the meeting is adhoc-only • Straw poll outcomes will be recorded • In particular, for straw poll votes to bring an issue to the task group, such as the resolution of an issue, or the failure to resolve an issue • Email concerning TGac MAC adhoc will be sent to the TGac reflector with the subject beginning with MAC ADHOC (or MAC Adhoc) • >=75% straw poll result is required to forward an item to the task group for a binding motion vote • >50% straw poll result is required to move an issue from the MAC adhoc to the task group for further debate • Only after at least one failed MAC adhoc vote to forward an item to the task group for a binding motion vote • >50% straw poll result is required to move an issue from the MAC adhoc to another adhoc for further debate • >50% straw poll result required to refuse an issue that is being moved from another adhoc into the group • Issues forwarded from TGac cannot be refused, must be subject to one failed MAC adhoc vote to forward an item to the task group for a binding motion vote before an attempt to move the item again • (See 11-09-0059-05-00ac-802-11ac-proposed-selection-procedure.doc) Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  47. TGac MAC adhoc Nov 19, 2009 minutes • IEEE patent policy discussed, no one asked for a reading • In response to the question of essential claims (see slide 12), no response was elicited • Attendance • Matthew Fischer, Broadcom • Reviewed submission: • Straw polls: TEMPLATE Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  48. TGac MAC straw poll 100119_a • Background • Topic • Relevant documents 11-08-xxxxRy • General nature • Adhoc straw poll result • #xxx NOT REALLY A STRAW POLL – to forward the mechanism in 11-09/xxxxry to the task group as a motion to become part of the specification framework or draft specification for TGac • 09-11-19 PM1 TGac action xxxx TEMPLATE Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  49. References • 11-09-1175-r0-00ac-AdHoc Groups Scope_v3.ppt • 11-09-1181-00-00ac-ad-hoc-lifecycle.ppt • 11-09-1167-00-00ac-tgac-ad-hoc-group-operation-and-chair-selection-procedure.pptx • 11-09-0059-05-00ac-802-11ac-proposed-selection-procedure.doc • 11-09-0838-02-00ac-supporting-document-for-tgac-evaluation-methodology.ppt • 11-09-0451-09-00ac-tgac-functional-requirements-and-evaluation-methodology.doc • 11-09-0992-02-00ac-proposed-specification-framework-for-tgac.doc • 11-06-0689-01-000n-tgn-MAC-LB84-Ad-Hoc-Operation.ppt • Suggested rules document Fischer, Lee, Zhu

More Related