1 / 44

TGac PHY AdHoc Agenda, Minutes, and Strawpolls – September 2011

TGac PHY AdHoc Agenda, Minutes, and Strawpolls – September 2011. Date: 2011-09-22. Authors:. Slide 1. Abstract. Agenda, Minutes, and Stawpolls for the TGac PHY AdHoc September 2011. Slide 2. Important IEEE Links.

joshua-gay
Download Presentation

TGac PHY AdHoc Agenda, Minutes, and Strawpolls – September 2011

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 PHY AdHoc Agenda, Minutes, and Strawpolls – September 2011 Date: 2011-09-22 Authors: Slide 1 Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

  2. Abstract Agenda, Minutes, and Stawpolls for the TGac PHY AdHoc September 2011 Slide 2 Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

  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 Don’t forget attendance check during PHY AdHoc session. Slide 3 Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

  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 Slide 4 Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

  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 Slide 5 Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

  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 Slide 6 Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

  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 Slide 7 Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

  8. 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. IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards 2 Slide 8 Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

  9. 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. IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards 3 Slide 9 Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

  10. 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. IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards 4 Slide 10 Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

  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 Slide 11 Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

  12. Important Questions about Patents 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. Slide 12 Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

  13. Ad Hoc Operating Rules (1/2) • 11ac selection procedure (11-09-0059r5) 5. b. A straw poll result of >=75% is required within an Ad Hoc to approve the resolution of all or part of an issue and forward that resolved item to the Taskgroup where it becomes a motion that requires >=75% approval to modify the specification framework or the draft specification. c. In the case a consensus can not be reached within an Ad Hoc group (a stalemate that prohibits further progress), the subject is moved to the Taskgroup if an Ad Hoc straw poll vote to move the subject to the Taskgroup achieves >50% approval. Slide 13 Slide 13 Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

  14. Ad Hoc Operating Rules (2/2) d. A motion passing with >50% in the Taskgroup shall be sufficient to move an issue previously assigned to an Ad Hoc group to any Ad Hoc group. A straw poll vote of >50% is required in an Ad Hoc group to refuse an issue from the Taskgroup. e. An issue may be sent from one Ad Hoc to another if both the sending Ad Hoc and the receiving Ad Hoc approve straw polls for taking the respective actions with >50% approval. A notice should be sent to the reflector indicating the approval of a straw poll to move an issue. f. To be accepted into the TGac Draft specification, proposals from Ad Hoc group require a motion that passes with >=75% Taskgroup approval Slide 14 Slide 14 Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

  15. Pre-motions or Straw Polls • Before November 2010, • All the straw polls in the PHY Ad-hoc session were done as a conventional name ‘straw poll’, regardless of whether they are for Task Group motion or not • From November 2010 on, • All the straw polls have been classified between pre-motions and (just) straw polls according to authors’ intention • Pre-motions are for Task Group motion • Straw polls are just sounding-out questions • Both can be voted by every attendee at the PHY Ad-hoc, regardless of the status of his/her WG11 voting right • This classification was suggested by Brian Hart (Cisco) Slide 15 Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

  16. PHY AdHoc Topics PHY AdHoc group discussion topics in document 11-09-1175-01-00ac-ad-hoc-groups-scope.ppt: Pilots Data tones Preamble Enhanced MCS Sounding Higher Bandwidth modulation Parsing and Interleaving Coding, STBC Spatial Mapping & Cyclic Delays Mask, Regulatory, ACI, Sensitivity, etc. - additional possible topics Slide 16 Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

  17. Interpretive Guide – Text Coloring 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 Slide 17 Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

  18. PHY Ad-Hoc Agenda Slide 18 Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

  19. PHY Ad-Hoc Agenda Sept. 19-22, 2011 • 11/1260, Proposed resolution for CID 2934 on L-SIG parity bit, Peter Loc • This will be revisited in Atlanta meeting in November 2011 • 11/1208r2, “D1.0 Comment Resolution”, Chao-ChunWang • Only on CID3253 (rate rounding up or down) • 11/1199r0, “D1.0 Comment Resolution – Various PHY CIDs”, Reza Hedayat • R1 will be revisited in the upcoming conference call • 11/1235r0, “D1.0 Comment Resolution - Misc. PHY Comments Part 2 , Youhan Kim • 11/1284r1, “D1.0-comment-resolution-equation-errors”, Minho Cheong • 11/1216r1, “D1_comment_resolution_brianh_part6”, Brian Hart • R2 will be revisited on CID 2464 in the upcoming conference call Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

  20. PHY Ad-Hoc Agenda Sept. 19-22, 2011 (2) • 11/0928r3, “MCS Tables”, Eldad Perahia • Resolution change to CID3050, 3051, 3052, 3053, 3054, 3055, 3056 to match to the pre-motioned CID3502 • 11/1282r1, “D1.0-comment-resolution-clause-22.3.4”, Minho Cheong • 11/1293r2, “Draft1-1-PHY-Comment-Resolution-Section-22-1-2-to-22-1-4”, Allert van Zelst • 11/1128r3, “D1_comment_resolution_brianh_part5”, Brian Hart • Only on CID 3301, 2811 • 11/1042r1, “D1 comment resolution brianh part3”, Brian Hart • Only on CID 2938 (40+40MHz) • 11/1284r2, “D1.0-comment-resolution-equation-errors”, Minho Cheong • Resolution change only to CID2215, 2217 Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

  21. PHY Ad-Hoc Agenda Sept. 19-22, 2011 (3) • 11/1313r0, “Draft 1.1 Comment Resolutions for Section 22.2.2”, Allert van Zelst • 11/1168r2, “misc phy mac cids”, Eldad Perahia • Resolution change only to CID3139 • 11/1324r1, “D1.0-comment-resolution-clause-22.3.7”, Minho Cheong • 11/1302r1, “D1.0 Comment Resolution - CID 2668”, Youhan Kim (re-assigned from MU to PHY) • 11/1325r1, “D1.0-comment-resolution-clause-22.3.8.2.6”, Minho Cheong Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

  22. PHY Ad-Hoc Minutes Slide 22 Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  23. PHY Ad-Hoc Minutes Sept. PM#1 19, 2011 • Document 11/1208r2 • “D1.0 Comment Resolution”, (Chao-Chun) • Discussion only one remaining CID#3253 • There have been agreement that don’t need to change how to represent the rate in unit of 1Mbps. Still rounding up. • Pre-motion on comment resolution to CID3253 passes • Document 11/1199r0 • “D1.0 Comment Resolution – Various PHY CIDs”, (Reza) • Pointed out that resolution to 3390 is already partially introduced in Draft 1.1. • Reza will prepare revision 1 for the next meeting (No pre-motions this session) • Document 11/1235r0 • “D1.0 Comment Resolution - Misc. PHY Comments Part 2”, (Youhan) • Allert presented instead of Youhan. • Pre-motion on all the comment resolution passes Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  24. PHY Ad-Hoc Minutes Sept. AM#1 20, 2011 • Document 11/1284r0 • “D1.0-comment-resolution-equation-errors”, (Minho) • Pre-motion on resolutions to all the CIDs passes • Document 11/1216r1 • “D1_comment_resolution_brianh_part6”, (Brian) • Pre-motion on resolutions to CID 2466 passes • Pre-motion on resolutions to CID 2464 deferred • This will be revisited with revision 2 for the upcoming conference call • Document 11/0928r3 • “MCS Tables”, (Eldad) • Pre-motion on resolution changes to CID 3050, 3051, 3052, 3053, 3054, 3055, 3056 passes to match to the already pre-motioned resolution to CID 3502 Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  25. PHY Ad-Hoc Minutes Sept. PM#1 20, 2011 • Document 11/1282r1 • “D1.0-comment-resolution-clause-22.3.4”, (Minho) • Pre-motion on resolutions to all the CIDs passes • Document 11/1293r2 • “Draft1-1-PHY-Comment-Resolution-Section-22-1-2-to-22-1-4”, (Allert) • Pre-motion on resolutions to all the CIDs passes • Document 11/1128r3 • “D1_comment_resolution_brianh_part5”, (Brian) • Pre-motion on resolution to the remaining CID 3301, 2811 passes • Document 11/1042r1 • “D1 comment resolution brianh part3”, (Brian) • Pre-motion on resolution to the remaining CID 2938 passes Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  26. PHY Ad-Hoc Minutes Sept. AM#2 22, 2011 • Document 11/1282r2 • “D1.0-comment-resolution-clause-22.3.4”, (Minho) • Pre-motion on resolution changes to CID 2215, 2217 passes • Document 11/1313r0 • “Draft 1.1 Comment Resolutions for Section 22.2.2”, (Allert) • Pre-motion on resolutions to all the CIDs passes • Document 11/1168r2 • “misc phy mac cids”, (Eldad) • Pre-motion on resolution to the remaining CID 3139 passes • Document 11/1324r1 • “D1.0-comment-resolution-clause-22.3.7”, (Minho) • Pre-motion on resolution to all the CIDs passes Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  27. PHY Ad-Hoc Minutes Sept. AM#2 22, 2011 (2) • Document 11/1302r1 • “D1.0 Comment Resolution - CID 2668”, (Youhan) • Pre-motion on resolution to CID 2668 passes • Document 11/1325r1 • “D1.0-comment-resolution-clause-22.3.8.2.6”, (Minho) • Pre-motion on resolutions to all the CIDs fails by (Y11/N 5/A2) • But, this is brought to the task group session by author’s request and passed in the task group motion by (Y34/N4/A0) Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  28. PHY Ad-Hoc Pre-Motions and Straw polls Slide 28 Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

  29. Pre Motion #1 (PM#1 19) Do you support resolution to CID 3253 in document 11/1208r2? Yes: No: Abs: Pre Motion passes with no objection. Slide 29 Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

  30. Pre Motion #2 (PM#1 19) Do you support resolution to CID 3814, 3447, 3815 in document 11/1235r0? Yes: No: Abs: Pre Motion passes with no objection. Slide 30 Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

  31. Pre Motion #3 (AM#1 20) Do you support resolution to CID 3450, 3635, 3661 in document 11/1284r1? Yes: No: Abs: Pre Motion passes with no objection. Slide 31 Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

  32. Pre Motion #4 (AM#1 20) Do you support resolution to CID 2466 in document 11/1216r1? Yes: No: Abs: Pre Motion passes with no objection. Slide 32 Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

  33. Pre Motion #5 (AM#1 20) Do you support resolution to CID 3050, 3051, 3052, 3053, 3054, 3055, 3056 in document 11/0928r3? Yes: No: Abs: Pre Motion passes with no objection. Slide 33 Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

  34. Pre Motion #6 (PM#1 20) Do you support resolution to CID 2985, 2216, 2386, 2389, 2215, 2376, 2217, 2387, 2384, 2383, 2375, 2377, 2378, 2692, 3678 in document 11/1282r1? Yes: No: Abs: Pre Motion passes with no objection. (FYI, resolutions to CID 2215, 2217 is changed later by Pre Motion #10) Slide 34 Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

  35. Pre Motion #7 (PM#1 20) Do you support resolution to CID 2049, 2139, 2200, 2140, 2201, 2141, 2202 in document 11/1293r2? Yes: No: Abs: Pre Motion passes with no objection. Slide 35 Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

  36. Pre Motion #8 (PM#1 20) Do you support resolution to CID 3301, 2811 in document 11/1128r3? Yes: No: Abs: Pre Motion passes with no objection. Slide 36 Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

  37. Pre Motion #9 (PM#1 20) Do you support resolution to CID 2938 in document 11/1042r1? Yes: No: Abs: Pre Motion passes with no objection. Slide 37 Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

  38. Pre Motion #10 (AM#2 22) Do you support resolution to CID 2215, 2217 in document 11/1282r2? Yes: No: Abs: Pre Motion passes with no objection. Slide 38 Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

  39. Pre Motion #11 (AM#2 22) Do you support resolution to CID 2204, 2346, 3723, 2351, 3596, 2206, 2051, 2354 in document 11/1313r0? Yes: No: Abs: Pre Motion passes with no objection. Slide 39 Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

  40. Pre Motion #12 (AM#2 22) Do you support resolution to CID 3139 in document 11/1168r2? Yes: No: Abs: Pre Motion passes with no objection. Slide 40 Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

  41. Pre Motion #13 (AM#2 22) Do you support resolution to CID 2393, 2394, 2963, 2395, 3606, 2396, 2397, 2398, 2401, 3142, 2403 in document 11/1324r1? Yes: No: Abs: Pre Motion passes with no objection. Slide 41 Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

  42. Pre Motion #14 (AM#2 22) Do you support resolution to CID 2668 in document 11/1302r1? Yes: No: Abs: Pre Motion passes with no objection. Slide 42 Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

  43. Pre Motion #15 (AM#2 22) Do you support resolution to CID 3393, 3394, 3395, 3452, 3453, 2904, 3276 in document 11/1325r1? Yes: 11 No: 5 Abs: 2 Pre Motion fails (But, this is directly brought to the task group session by author’s request) Slide 43 Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

  44. Straw poll • No straw poll is done during Okinawa meeting Fei Tong, CSR

More Related