1 / 35

TGn Meeting Report - May 09 ‘09

Read the meeting report from the TGn Meeting held on May 09, 2009 in Montreal. Get information on attendance, voting, document status, and meeting protocols.

mhoyt
Download Presentation

TGn Meeting Report - May 09 ‘09

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. Name Company Address Phone email bkraemer@ marvell .com Bruce Kraemer Marvell +1 - 321 - 4 27 - 4098 TGn Meeting Report - May 09 ‘09 Authors: Date: 2009-May-09 5488 Marvell Lane, Santa Clara, CA, 95054 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  2. Welcome to Montreal, QC, CAMay 11-15FairmontThe Queen ElizabethMeeting Room = Duluth One room – no parallel sessions Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  3. Meeting Protocol Please announce your affiliation when you first address the group during a meeting slot Slide 3 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  4. Attendance https://murphy.events.ieee.org/imat/attendance/index Register Indicate attendance See document 11-09-0517r0 for more details Slide 4 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  5. Attendance, Voting & Document Status Make sure your badges are correct 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 Adrian Stephens – adrian.p.stephens@intel.com Cell Phones Silent or Off Slide 5 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  6. Policies • Policies and Procedures: • IEEE Patent Policy - http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.ppt • 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. • Affiliation FAQ - http://standards.ieee.org/faqs/affiliationFAQ.html • Anti-Trust FAQ - http://standards.ieee.org/resources/antitrust-guidelines.pdf • Ethics - http://www.ieee.org/portal/cms_docs/about/CoE_poster.pdf • IEEE 802.11 Policies and Procedures - http://www.ieee802.org/11/DocFiles/06/11-06-0812-03-0000-802-11-policies-and-proceedures.htm • IEEE 802 Policies and Procedures – • http://www.ieee802.org/PNP/2008-11/LMSC_OM_approved_081114.pdf Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  7. Participants, Patents, and Duty to Inform All participants in this meeting have certain obligations under the IEEE-SA Patent Policy. 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 Quoted text excerpted from IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws subclause 6.2 • Early identification of holders of potential Essential Patent Claims is strongly encouraged • No duty to perform a patent search Slide #1 - May 08 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  8. 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 Slide #2 – May 08 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  9. 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 – May 08 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  10. 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 – May 08 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  11. TGn Minutes Slide 11 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  12. TGn Minutes of March ’09 11-09-0326r0 Executive Summary: Sponsor ballot Recirculation #1 completed with 80% approval and 77 comments Responses and draft changes for all 77 comments completed Plan to go to Sponsor Ballot Recirculation #2 as soon as Draft 9 is available Slide 12 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  13. Approve Minutes Motion to approve March ‘09 (Vancouver) TGn minutes as contained in 11-09-0326r0 Move: Jon Rosdahl Second: Slide 13 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  14. TGn Quick Reviewof Events prior to this meeting Slide 14 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  15. TGn Ad Hoc Organization Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  16. One Page History of TGn HTSG formed – First meeting (Sep-11-’02 Monterey) TGn formed – First meeting (Sep-15-’03 Singapore) Began call for proposals (May 17 ’04 Garden Grove) 32 First round presentations (Sep 13 ’04 Berlin) Down selected to one proposal (Mar ’05 Atlanta) –first confirm vote failed. Confirmation vote #2 failed - reset to 3 proposals -left the May ‘05 meeting with a serious deadlock. (Cairns) 3 proposal groups agreed to a joint proposal activity (Jul ’05 San Francisco) JP proposal accepted by vote of 184/0/4, editor instructed to create draft (Jan ’06 Waikoloa) Baseline specification converted into Draft 1.0 (335p). Letter ballot issued (LB84) May 20, ’06 (Denver) and closed on April 29, ‘06 (failed) Draft 1.0 Comment resolution begins (May ’06 Jacksonville) Approved 6711 editorial and 1041 technical resolutions; Created Draft 1.03 (Jul ’06 San Diego) Approved 568 technical resolutions (Sep ’06 Melbourne); Created Draft 1.06 (388p) Approved 703 technical resolutions (Nov ’06 Dallas); Created Draft 1.09 (444p) Approved 496 technical resolutions (Jan ’07 London); created D 1.10 (500p); went to WG letter ballot Feb 7, ’07 with D 2.0; closed May 9, ’07 LB97 on TGn D2.0 passed with 83.4% approval. (Mar ’07 Orlando) Began comment resolution on with target of Draft 3.0 completion and release to ballot in Sep ’07. Approved 1470 editorial resolutions and approved TGn draft 2.02. Also approved 450 technical comment resolutions. (May 07 Montreal) Cumulative insertion of resolutions contained in TGn draft 2.04. (494p) Approved 750 technical resolutions and approved TGn draft 2.05. (July 07 San Francisco) Cumulative insertion of resolutions now contained in TGn draft 2.07. (498p) Approved 507 technical resolutions and approved recirculation ballot for TGn draft 3.0 (544p). (Sep 07 Waikoloa) Recirculation passed. Approved 282 editorial resolutions and approved TGn draft 3.01. Approved 97 technical resolutions. (Nov 07 Atlanta) Cumulative insertion of resolutions now contained in TGn draft 3.02. (558p) Approved 313 technical comment resolutions (Jan ‘08 Taipei). Cumulative approved comments now in D3.03. Additional ad hoc comment resolutions contained in speculative edits D3.04, D3.05, D3.06. Approved 190 technical comment resolutions (Mar ’08 Orlando). Approved recirculation ballot for TGn draft 4.0 (547p). Approved 349 comment resolutions (May ’08 Jacksonville). Approved recirculation ballot (LB129) for TGn draft 5.0 (547p). Ballot closed June 12 with 1112 comments. Approved 1112 comment resolutions (July ’08 Denver). Approved recirculation ballot (LB134) for TGn draft 6.0 (557p). Ballot closed August 12 with 195 comments. Approved 195 comment resolutions (Sep ’08 Waikoloa). Approved recirculation ballot (LB136) for TGn draft 7.0 (557p). Ballot closed Sep 30 with 48 comments. Approved 48 comment resolutions resulting from LB136 (Nov ’08 Dallas). Approved recirculation ballot (LB138). Granted conditional approval to move to Sponsor ballot. Zero no votes received. Moved ahead with Sponsor ballot. Sponsor Ballot closed Jan 10 ’09. 241 comments received, 77.8 % affirmative. TGn CRC began Sponsor ballot comment resolution (Jan ’09 Los Angeles). Completed comment resolution, prepared D8.0 and began 1st SB recirc 19 Feb 09 which closed 06 Mar 09. 77 Comments received. 80.1 % affirmative. In Completed comment resolution (Mar ’09 Vancouver) and began 2nd sponsor recirc which closed April 04 and generated 28 Comments for which resolutions are underway. Slide 16 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  17. TGn – Sponsor Ballot Recirc #1 • IEEE 802.11 Recirculation Sponsor Ballot #1 asked the question “Should P802.11N Draft 8.0 be forwarded to RevCom?” • The official results for the 15 day Recirculation Sponsor Ballot #1 follow: • Ballot Opening Date:   Thursday February 19 , 2009 - 23:59 ETBallot Closing Date:   Friday March 06, 2009 - 23:59 ET  • RESPONSE RATE:This ballot has met the 50% returned ballot ratio requirement • This ballot has met the <30% abstention ratio requirement277 eligible people are in this ballot group.169 affirmative votes   42 negative votes   • 17 abstention votes • ======= • 232 votes received  =  83 % valid returns                                  =  7 % valid abstentionsAPPROVAL RATE:169  affirmative votes       =   80.1 % affirmative  42  total negative votes  =     19.9 % negative Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  18. TGn - Sponsor Ballot Recirc #2 • IEEE P802.11n 15 day Recirculation Sponsor Ballot #2 asked the question “Should  P802.11n  Draft 9.0 be forwarded to RevCom?” • Ballot Opening Date:  Thursday  March 20 , 2009 - 23:59 ETBallot Closing Date:     Friday       April 04, 2009 - 23:59 ET  • RESPONSES:277 eligible people are in this ballot group.171  affirmative votes   41  negative votes     17 abstention votes ======= 229 votes received  =  83 % valid returns                                 =   7 % valid abstentionsAPPROVAL RATE:171  affirmative votes       =      80.7 % affirmative   41  total negative votes  =     19.3  % negative Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  19. SB Recirc #2 Ad hoc Documents Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  20. Primary Montreal Meeting Documents • SB #02 Comment Composite 11-09- 0024 r8 • Meeting Report 11-09- 0421 r0 • Editors Report 11-09- 0445 r0 • Closing Report 11-09- 0534 r0 • SB#2 Telecon minutes 11-09- 0430 r5 • May Meeting Minutes 11-09- 0565 r0 • TGn Draft 9.0 • COEX presentation 11-09-0511 r1 • COEX presentation 11-09-0576 r0 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  21. May TGn CRC Agenda Slide 21 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  22. Master Schedule Plan • Nov ’08 - Requested (conditional) approval for sponsor ballot • Sponsor ballot pool formed during July/August ‘08 • Released Draft 7.0 to SB #0 in November ’08 • Released Draft 8.0 to SB #1 recirc in Feb ‘09 • Begin & Complete SB #1 comment resolution in May • Release Draft 9.0 for SB #2 before April 1 • Release Draft 10.0 for SB #3 by May 18 • Prepare for July EC Request to go to RevCom • unconditional approval preferred Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  23. May WG11 Agenda am1 am2 lunch pm1 pm2 dinner eve Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  24. TGn CRC – May ‘09 Schedule – Topics May 11 May 12 May 13 May 14 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  25. Agenda Plan and Topics Primary topic: Comment Resolution General Order – TGn Full with topics introduced by appropriate ad hoc Monday – TGn summary Process to publication Introduction of unresolved comment resolutions and plans for time slots during the week PHY: CID 2027 NDP MAC: CID 2012 unencrypted HT action frames for MCS feedback COEX: CIDs 2016, 2024, 2023, 2022, 2021, 2015, 2014 40MHz behavior in 2.4 GHz GEN: CIDs 2002, 2007 IP Tuesday – Discussion and Votes Wednesday – Discussion and Votes Thursday - Discussion and Votes CRC Plans from May to July Revised Teleconferences? Timeline review Any other Business for the agenda? Slide 25 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  26. Approve Work Plan Agenda Motion to approve May ’09 TGn agenda as contained on slide 22 - 25 (with any minuted amendments) as contained in 0421 r0. Move: Second: Slide 26 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  27. TGn Timeline – January 19, 2009 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  28. End of Chair's Opening Report Slide 28 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  29. Technical Editor Report 11-09-0445 r0 Slide 29 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  30. Agenda Plan and Topics Monday – TGn summary Process to publication Introduction of unresolved comment resolutions and plans for time slots during the week PHY: CID 2017 NDP MAC: CID 2012 unencrypted HT action frames for MCS feedback COEX: CIDs 2016, 2024, 2023, 2022, 2021, 2015, 2014 40MHz behavior in 2.4 GHz GEN: CIDs 2002, 2007 IP Slide 30 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  31. Initial TGn Tuesday Agenda Plan and Topics Tuesday time slots – am2, pm1, eve TGn discussion topics Introduction of unresolved comment resolutions and plans for time slots during the week Am2 Continue PHY: CID 2017 NDP Am2 Continue COEX: SB #2 CIDs 2016, 2024, 2023, 2022, 2021, 2015, 2014 40MHz behavior in 2.4 GHz Responses to SB email Am2 Telcon minute approval Pm1 Begin GEN: CIDs 2002, 2007 IP Slide 31 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  32. Update 1- TGn Tuesday Agenda Plan and Topics Tuesday time slots – am2, pm1, eve TGn discussion topics Introduction of unresolved comment resolutions and plans for time slots during the week am2 Telecon minute approval Continue PHY: CID 2017 NDP Continue COEX: SB #2 CIDs 2016, 2024, 2023, 2022, 2021, 2015, 2014 40MHz behavior in 2.4 GHz 11-09-0587 BT over the air Demonstration 11-09-0590 BT experiments 11-09-0576 Coexistence Presentation Responses to SB email pm1 Continue PHY: CID 2017 NDP Continue COEX: SB #2 CIDs 2016, 2024, 2023, 2022, 2021, 2015, 2014 40MHz behavior in 2.4 GHz Begin GEN: CIDs 2002, 2007 IP Slide 32 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  33. Update 2- TGn Wednesday Agenda Plan and Topics Tuesday time slots – am1, pm1 TGn discussion topics Introduction of unresolved comment resolutions and plans for time slots during the week am1 Continue COEX: SB #2 CIDs 2016, 2024, 2023, 2022, 2021, 2015, 2014 40MHz behavior in 2.4 GHz 11-09-0587 BT over the air Demonstration 11-09-0590 BT experiments 11-09-0576 Coexistence Presentation Responses to SB email Continue PHY: CID 2017 NDP resolution text GEN: CIDs 2002, 2007 IP pm1 TBD resolution Plan going forward Slide 33 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  34. Any other business? Slide 34 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  35. Recess Slide 35 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

More Related