1 / 61

NGP TG Sep. Agenda

This presentation outlines the agenda for the IEEE 802.11 NGP Study Group meeting in Bangkok, Thailand, covering attendance, voting, documents, logistics, and patent policies.

madore
Download Presentation

NGP TG Sep. 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. NGP TG Sep. Agenda Authors: • Date:2015-09-17 Jonathan Segev, Intel Corporation

  2. IEEE 802.11Task Group azNext Generation Positioning Bangkok , Thailand Sep. 13th-18th, 2015 Chair pro-tem: Jonathan Segev (Intel) Secretary pro-tem: Zhou Lan (MediaTek) Jonathan Segev, Intel Corporation

  3. Abstract • This presentation contains the IEEE 802.11 NGP (Next Generation Positioning) Study Group agenda for the Sep. meeting. Jonathan Segev, Intel Corporation

  4. Attendance, Voting & Document Status • Make sure your badges are correct • Please announce your affiliation when you first address the group during a meeting slot • If you plan to make a submission be sure it does not contain company logos or advertising • Questions on Voting status, Ballot pool, Access to Reflector, Documentation, member’s area • see Jon Rosdahl – Jon.Rosdahl@csr.com • Cell Phones Silent or Off Jonathan Segev, Intel Corporation

  5. Logistics • Attendance: • https://imat.ieee.org • You must register before logging attendance. • You must log attendance during each 2 hour session. • Documentation • http://mentor.ieee.org • Use “TGaz” folder for documents relating to the TGaz activity. • Note: • Per WG leadership guidance, attendance count at the midpoint of each timeslot will be conducted during each TG meeting slot. Jonathan Segev, Intel Corporation

  6. Patent Policy • Following 5 slides Jonathan Segev, Intel Corporation

  7. 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. Jonathan Segev, Intel Corporation Instructions for the WG Chair

  8. Jonathan Segev, Intel Corporation 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 #1

  9. Jonathan Segev, Intel Corporation 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/develop/policies/bylaws/sect6-7.html#6 IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/opman/sect6.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 #2

  10. Jonathan Segev, Intel Corporation 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 #3

  11. Jonathan Segev, Intel Corporation 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 #4

  12. TGaz - Schedule in a Glance Jonathan Segev, Intel Corporation

  13. Agenda Items for the Week • Patent policy • Approve previous meeting minutes (11-15/970r1). • Review CSD and PAR modifications coming from EC and NesCom approval process. • Generate TG officers recommendation for 802.11 chair approval. • Review TG development process and documentation. • Responding to liaison letter from ATIS (Alliance for Telecommunication and Industry Solution). • Presentations to inform the TG: • Continued development of the use case documents. • Problems statements • Channel models • Schedule teleconference times as needed. Jonathan Segev, Intel Corporation

  14. Submission List for the week Jonathan Segev, Intel Corporation

  15. Meeting Slot #1 Jonathan Segev, Intel Corporation

  16. Meeting Slot # 1 Agenda • Call Meeting to Order (1min) • Patent Policy and Logistics (5min) • Last call for Submission (0min) • Agenda Setting (4min) • Approval of previous meeting minutes (3min - Chair) • Review changes from PAR approval process (15min – Brian H.) • Closing the call for nominees for Task Group chair and nominees presentation (10min – Chair/nominees). • Review and adopt NGP SG updated use case document (30min – Brian H.) • TGaz development documentation (30min – Edward A.) • Further Use Cases for Next Generation Positioning (30min – Kare A. As time permits) • Recess Jonathan Segev, Intel Corporation

  17. Submission order – Slot 1 Jonathan Segev, Intel Corporation

  18. Presentations Jonathan Segev, Intel Corporation

  19. Preference • Strawpoll • For the development of TGaz amendment we prefer the following documents to be used: • Usage model/use case document • Functional requirement • Specification framework • Channel model • D1: 23 D2: 19 D3: 19 D4: 10 Jonathan Segev, Intel Corporation

  20. Adopting Use Case document baseline • Use case document (https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/15/11-15-0388-01-0ngp-ngp-use-case-template.pptx) dated August 29th . Motion: We approve document 11-15/0388r01 as our working draft baseline for the TG use case document. Move: Brian Hart 2nd: Ganesh Venkatesan Y: unanimous consent N: A: Jonathan Segev, Intel Corporation

  21. Preference • Strawpoll • For the development of TGaz amendment we prefer the following documents to be used: • Usage model/use case document • Functional requirement • Specification framework • Channel model • D1:Y: N:A: 23-0-0 D2:21-0-3 D3: 21-0-3 D4: 10-1-11 Jonathan Segev, Intel Corporation

  22. Documentation development preference • Motion • TGaz will use at least the following documents to develop the amendment text: • Usage model/use case document • Functional requirement • Specification framework • Move: Edward Au • 2nd: Bill Carney • Results: 15 – 0 – 3 • Motion passes. Jonathan Segev, Intel Corporation

  23. Attendance reminder Jonathan Segev, Intel Corporation

  24. Recess Jonathan Segev, Intel Corporation

  25. Meeting Slot #2 Jonathan Segev, Intel Corporation

  26. Meeting Slot # 2 Agenda • Call Meeting to Order (1min) • Patent Policy and Logistics (5min) • Agenda Setting (4min) • Generating TG chair recommendation for WG chair approval (10min). • Review and respond to liaison letter form ATIS (45min). • Presentations to inform the group on use cases, process, timelines (55min) Jonathan Segev, Intel Corporation

  27. Submission order – Slot 2 Jonathan Segev, Intel Corporation

  28. ATIS Liaison Response • Motion • Approve document “11-15-1172-00-Response to ATIS ELOC liaison communication.docx" as the IEEE 802.11 response to ATIS ELOC TF requestand grant the 802.11 chair editorial licence. • Moved: Ganesh Venkatesan • 2nd: Peter Ecclesine • Approvedunanimous consent. Jonathan Segev, Intel Corporation

  29. Attendance remainder Jonathan Segev, Intel Corporation

  30. Recess Jonathan Segev, Intel Corporation

  31. Meeting Slot # 3 Agenda • Call Meeting to Order (1min) • Patent Policy and Logistics (5min) • Agenda Setting (4min) • Approve previous meeting minutes(10min). • Review presentations (50min). • Initial TG timeline, goals, telecons (20min) • AOB. Jonathan Segev, Intel Corporation

  32. Submission order – Slot 3 Jonathan Segev, Intel Corporation

  33. How long to develop an amendment? • The number of unknowns when evaluating a project timelines are substantial: • Technical unknowns – channel development, different technical approaches, one protocol needs to solves several usages, selection between multiple options. • Schedule unknowns – dependency on other amendments, comment resolution and technical quality of submissions, time needed to develop agreements. Jonathan Segev, Intel Corporation

  34. How long to develop an amendment? • How to evaluate the schedule then? • Compare to other amendments – do we have any reason to believe we’ll do better? • Compare to one or more projects with similar complexity and size –easier in some then others. • Extrapolate from past projects. • Close the loop and perform sanity check by receiving inputs from ITAs (e.g. WFA) as to the timing of market demand for products. Jonathan Segev, Intel Corporation

  35. How long to develop an amendment? • Risk reduction for process evaluation • Agree on a process that decreases the unknowns and helps to build agreements amongst group members. We already agreed onhaving: • Use case document • Functional requirements. • Spec Framework Document Jonathan Segev, Intel Corporation

  36. Timelines Jonathan Segev, Intel Corporation

  37. TGaz Timeline 2015 2016 2018 2020 2017 2019 PAR Approved (Sep. 2015) We are here NGP SG Launch (Jan. 2015) TG formation meeting (Sep. 2015) .11azDraft 1.0(Sep. 2017) .11azDraft 2.0(Mar 2018) .11azFinal (Mar.. 2020) Amendment text FRD UCD 11az SFD Spec Frame work (May 16 – Mar. 17) UC doc. (May 15 – Nov. 17) Amendment text (Mar 17 – Mar. 20) Func. Req. Doc. (Nov 15 - May 16) Jonathan Segev, Intel Corporation

  38. Timeline • Motion: • To approve the timeline depicted by slide 37 of 11-15/1003r5 as our timeline for project development. • Move: Peter Ecclesine • 2nd: Praveen Dua • Y-N-A: unanimous consent. Jonathan Segev, Intel Corporation

  39. Goals for the Nov. meeting • Completion and approval of the Use Case document. • Initiation of a function requirement document. • Technical presentation. Jonathan Segev, Intel Corporation

  40. Teleconference Schedule - TBD • Oct. 7th10:00 ET for 1hr. • Do we need anymore calls? • Strawpoll: • We agree to the conference call schedule depicted above. • Y: 9 • N: 1 • A: 9 Jonathan Segev, Intel Corporation

  41. Teleconference Schedule • Oct. 7th10:00 ET for 1hr- do we need anymore calls? • Motion: • We agree to the conference call schedule depicted above. • Move: Liang Jin • 2nd: Peter Ecclesine • Results: Y: 2 N: 2 A: 13 • Motion fails - no telecon scheduled. Jonathan Segev, Intel Corporation

  42. Reminder to do attendance Jonathan Segev, Intel Corporation

  43. AOB? Jonathan Segev, Intel Corporation

  44. Adjourned Jonathan Segev, Intel Corporation

  45. Backup Jonathan Segev, Intel Corporation

  46. References Jonathan Segev, Intel Corporation

  47. Some history Jonathan Segev (Intel)

  48. Historical performance data Jonathan Segev, Intel Corporation

  49. Study Group Timeline - modified Jonathan Segev, Intel Corporation

  50. Timelines 2015 2016 2018 2020 2017 2019 PAR Approved (Sep. 2015) We are here NGP SG Launch (Jan. 2015) TG formation meeting (Sep. 2015) .11azDraft 1.0(Sep. 2017) .11axDraft 2.0(Mar 2017) .11az Final Amendment text FRD UCD 11az SFD Spec Frame work (May 16 – Mac. 17) UC doc. (May 15 – Nov. 17) Spec Frame work (Mar 17 – Jan. 19) Func. Req. Doc. (Nov 15 - May 16) Jonathan Segev, Intel Corporation

More Related