IEEE 802 JTC1 Standing Committee May 2012 agenda

1. IEEE 802 JTC1 Standing CommitteeMay 2012 agenda • 14 May 2012 Authors: Andrew Myles, Cisco

2. This presentation will be used to run the IEEE 802 JTC1 SC meetings in Atlanta in May 2012 • This presentation contains a proposed running order for the IEEE 802 JTC1 Standing Committee meeting in May 2012, including • Proposed agenda • Other supporting material • It will be modified during the meeting to include motions, straw polls and other material referred to during the meeting Andrew Myles, Cisco

3. Participants have a duty to inform in relation to patents • All participants in this meeting have certain obligations under the IEEE-SA Patent Policy (IEEE-SA SB Bylaws subclause 6.2). 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 • Early identification of holders of potential Essential Patent Claims is strongly encouraged; there is no duty to perform a patent search Andrew Myles, Cisco

4. There are a variety of 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 Andrew Myles, Cisco

5. A call for potentially essential patents is not required in the IEEE 802 JTC1 SC • 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 Andrew Myles, Cisco

6. The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC will operate using general guidelines for IEEE-SA 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. Andrew Myles, Cisco

7. Links are available to a variety of other useful resources • Link to IEEE Disclosure of Affiliation • http://standards.ieee.org/faqs/affiliationFAQ.html • Links to IEEE Antitrust Guidelines • http://standards.ieee.org/resources/antitrust-guidelines.pdf • Link to IEEE Code of Ethics • http://www.ieee.org/web/membership/ethics/code_ethics.html • Link to IEEE Patent Policy • http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.ppt Andrew Myles, Cisco

8. The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC will operate using accepted principles of meeting etiquette • IEEE 802 is a world-wide professional technical organization • Meetings are to be conducted in an orderly and professional manner in accordance with the policies and procedures governed by the organization. • Individuals are to address the “technical” content of the subject under consideration and refrain from making “personal” comments to or about the presenter. Andrew Myles, Cisco

9. The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC has three slots at the Atlanta interim meeting Tuesday 15 May, PM1 Wednesday16 May, PM1 Thursday 17 May, PM1 • Call to Order • Select recording secretary <- important! • Approve agenda • Details on next page • Conduct meeting according to agenda • Recess • Call to Order • Select recording secretary <- important! • Conduct meeting according to agenda • Recess • Call to Order • Select recording secretary <- important! • Conduct meeting according to agenda • Adjourn Andrew Myles, Cisco

10. The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC has a detailed list of agenda items to be considered • In no particular order: • Approve minutes • Plenary meeting in March 2012 in Hawaii • Review extended goals • From IEEE 802 ExCom in Nov 2010 • Review IEEE 802.11 WG liaisons to SC6 • Review latest liaisons of Sponsor Ballot drafts • Review status of submission of IEEE 802.11-2012 to JTC1 ballot • Discuss possible communications with JTC1 NBs about ballot • Review submitted IEEE 802 responses to China & Swiss NB related to proposed agreement on extensions to IEEE 802 standards • Respond to any responses received from SC6 NBs • ... Andrew Myles, Cisco

11. The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC has a detailed list of agenda items to be considered • In no particular order: • ... • Review any changes to status of proposals to SC6 related to IEEE 802 • Status of WAPI (802.11i replacement) • Status of proposed 802.1X/AE and 802.16 security replacements • Status of EUHT (proposed 802.11ac replacement) • Discuss other submissions to SC6 of interest to IEEE 802 • Swiss NB input to SC6 on process improvements after WAPI experience • Consider any motions Andrew Myles, Cisco

12. The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC will consider approving its agenda • Motion to approve agenda • The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC approves the agenda for its meeting in Atlanta in May 2012, as documented on pages 9-11 of <this slide deck> • Moved: • Seconded • Result Andrew Myles, Cisco

13. The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC will consider approval of previous minutes (Hawaii in March 2012) • The detailed minutes of the meeting were misplaced by the Chair  • The proposed minutes contain a high level summary • Motion to approve minutes • The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC approves the minutes for its meeting in Hawaii in March 2012, as documented in11-12-0576r0 • Moved: • Seconded: • Result: Andrew Myles, Cisco

14. The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC reaffirmed its general goals in Sept 09, but they were extended in Nov 2010 • Agreed (with changes from Nov 2010) goals • Provides a forum for 802 members to discuss issues relevant to both: • IEEE 802 • ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 • Recommends positions to ExCom on ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 actions affecting IEEE 802 • Note that 802 LMSC holds the liaison to SC6, not 802.11 WG • Participates in dialog with IEEE staff and 802 ExCom on issues concerning IEEE ’s relationship with ISO/IEC • Organises IEEE 802 members to contribute to liaisons and other documents relevant to the ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 members • Extensions • The extensions to our goals came out of the 802 ExCom ad hoc held in November 2010 on the Friday evening Andrew Myles, Cisco

15. The 802.11 WG has liaised various Sponsor Ballot drafts to ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 • IEEE 802.11ad D7.0 is in process • Normally the 802.11 WG liaises Sponsor Ballot documents. However, the WG told SC6 it would liaise 802.11ac as soon as it passed a LB; we did! Andrew Myles, Cisco

16. Publication of IEEE 802.11-2012 is important so we can submit it to ISO/IEC for “International” ratification • One of the issue that comes up continuously is claims that IEEE 802.11 is not “International” • This has been repeated continuously by various Chinese stakeholders, particularly in relation to the amendments that have not been sent to ISO/IEC • Interestingly, the Swiss NB rep recently agreed that IEEE 802.11 is “international” in practice • One way of resolving this issue is to submit IEEE 802.11-2012 to ISO/IEC for ratification as soon as possible Andrew Myles, Cisco

17. SC6 agreed in Feb 2012 to invite IEEE 802 to submit 802.11-2012 for processing under the PSDO • The IEEE 802 delegation explained the status of IEEE 802.11-2012 at SC6 meeting in Feb 12 • It was also reiterated it was going to be submitted to ISO/IEC JTC1 for ratification under the PSDO agreement as soon as it was published • It was also noted that the PSDO process could be accelerated if SC6 formally invited the submission of IEEE 802.11-2012 • Saves need for a 60 day pre-ballot before the 5 month ballot • SC6 ultimately issued the invitation, with one “disapprove” vote from the China NB • Resolution 6.1.6: Based on the ISO/IEEE PSDO Agreement, Clause 3.2, SC6 invites the IEEE 802.11 Working Group to submit IEEE 802.11-2012 for processing as an ISO/IEC International Standard once it is published by IEEE Andrew Myles, Cisco

18. IEEE 802.11-2012 has been sent to ISO/IEC for balloting according to the process in the PSDO agreement • Now that IEEE 802.11-2012 has been ratified by the IEEE Standards Board, IEEE staff has sent it to ISO/IEC for processing • The JTC1 Secretariat have informed the 5 month ballot will start on 18 May 2012, closing on 18 Oct 2012 • This means it will close after the next SC6 meeting • The ballot cannot be discussed at all during the meeting • There is no impact on comment resolution because this ballot does not have any comments Andrew Myles, Cisco

19. Should IEEE 802 send a letter to each JTC1 NB in relation to the ballot on IEEE 802.11-2012? • One benefit of the PSDO process is that IEEE 802.11-2012 is subject to an up/down vote • The downside is that if it fails then then is no obvious recovery mechanism • We believe that the IEEE 802.11 WG has followed a sensible and comprehensive process in liaising Sponsor Ballots drafts to SC6 over an extended period, thus allowing SC6 NBs every opportunity to review the drafts • A short and factual letter outlining this process might be useful to provide NBs who have not been involved comfort that this is not a “rubber stamp” but rather a reasonable process • Does anyone have any objection to such a letter to be sent once the (5 month ballot) actually starts? Andrew Myles, Cisco

20. The SC will consider possible content of a letter to JTC1 NBs in relation to ballot on IEEE 802.11-2012 • Possible content includes: • Explain that requesting approval using PSDO • The PSDO ballot process is up/down • However, it is important that ISO/IEC NBs have a real opportunity to provide review and input as early as possible • Therefore IEEE 802.11 WG has liaised many drafts to SC6 over a number of years, requesting review and comment • List them • 802.11-2012 is the result of the IEEE standards development process taking into account the limited input received from SC6 NBs • The IEEE 802 looks forward to working with ISO/IEC JTC1 in the future Andrew Myles, Cisco

21. The SC will consider approving a letter to JTC1 NBs in relation to ballot on IEEE 802.11-2012 • Motion • The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC recommends to the IEEE 802.11 WG that the IEEE 802.11 WG Chair be given authority to approve a letter to JTC1 NBs that: • describes the process that has led to the JTC1 ballot on IEEE 802.11-2012 • asks for their support in the JTC1 ballot on IEEE 802.11-2012 • Moved: • Seconded: Andrew Myles, Cisco

22. The “WAPI story” has been going on for a very, very, very long time ... and was thought to be over ... • Brief summary of highlights/lowlights • 2003: WAPI mandated for use in China, implemented by named firms • 2004: Mandate withdrawn after China agrees to standardise WAPI first • 2005: WAPI submitted to ISO/IEC fast track ballot in parallel to IEEE submitting 802.11i, after much controversy and appeals • 2006: WAPI fails ISO/IEC fast track ballot and 802.11i passes, amid much controversy and appeals • 2009: WAPI mandated in handsets and for SPs in China • 2009: WAPI submitted to ISO/IEC as NP • 2010: WAPI NP ballot passes but comments not resolved • Nov 2011: China NB announced that they had withdrawn the WAPI NP • Feb 2012: SC6 formally cancelled the WAPI NP Andrew Myles, Cisco

23. ... but there may be some sort of protest from the China NB relating to the WAPI NP process • The China NB stated they withdrew the project because: • The project has “experienced and still been suffering many unreasonable obstacles” • It is likely the project will not complete within required time limits because of an “unfair and unjustified environment,” • It is believed that the China SC6 Mirror Committee has protested to ISO/IEC about various aspects the WAPI NP process • Any details of any protest from the China SC6 Mirror Committee or any response from ISO/IEC are not available • Any details may become available at the next SC6 meeting Andrew Myles, Cisco

24. Any un-cancelling of the WAPI NP will require ballots of SC6 NBs, JTC1 NBs & comment resolution • The China NB suggested at the time of cancellation they may resubmit WAPI “when a more favorable standardization environment is available” • The ISO/IEC Directives are not very clear on the process for a project to be re-established once it has been cancelled • The best hint comes from the latest NP Ballot form, which includes an option for: • “THIS PROPOSAL RELATES TO THE RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF A CANCELLED PROJECT AS AN ACTIVE PROJECT” • This form and the latest ISO/IEC Directives (plus JTC1 supplement) suggest if there was a proposal to re-establish WAPI then: • It would have be sent to a new letter ballot of SC6 NBs • Assuming the ballot passed, any resulting negativecomments would have to be resolved and balloted by the JTC1 NBs if the JTC1 Secretariat judges the comment “will influence the acceptance of the new work item proposal” Andrew Myles, Cisco

25. It is unclear what is next for WAPI, from either a regulatory or standards perspective Regulations Standards • WAPI is still required by Type Approval regulations in handsets in China • These regulations are not available in written form, although their existence was disclosed by China in WTO discussions • WAPI is still also informally required by SPs in China • It is hoped any requirement for WAPI in devices will be repealed soon given that WAPI will not become an ISO/IEC standard • WAPI is a Chinese National Standard • There are no known plans to standardise WAPI internationally • It is possible that WAPI may be taken to IS status through “other” processes • Please provide the SC any updates to this regulatory and standards situation Andrew Myles, Cisco

26. There is no further news related to TLSec, the proposed 802.1AE replacement • In previous SC6 meetings the China NB have proposed a protocol called TLSec, which is roughly an 802.1AE replacement • At the SC6 meeting in February 2012, an IWNCOMM representative presented TLSEc again, emphasising its use of TePA, and concluding • “It is necessary to do more research on LAN layer 2 security. • TLSec in N14402 is different from IEEE 802.1AE” • IWNCOMM asserted that China Telecom were supporting this work • The IEEE 802 delegation responded with a technical presentation prepared and some background on the IEEE 802.1 WG • The discussion concluded with the China NB informing SC6 that further standardisation work on TLSec would continue in BWIPS • BWIPS is the organisation under CESI that standardised WAPI • There is no further news related to TLSec as of May 2012 Andrew Myles, Cisco

27. There is no further news related to TePA-AC, the proposed 802.1X replacement • In previous SC6 meetings the China NB have proposed a protocol called TePA-AC, which is roughly an 802.1X replacement • At the SC6 meeting in February 2012, an IWNCOMM representative presented TePA-AC again, emphasising its use of TePA, and concluding • “Network access control is widely used in many network environments. • TePA-AC in N14399 is different from IEEE 802.1x.” • IWNCOMM claimed that TePA-AC covered a different application space from 802.1X, but Swiss NB rep appeared to disagree • The discussion concluded with the China NB informing SC6 that further standardisation work on TePA-AC would continue in BWIPS • BWIPS is the organisation under CESI that standardised WAPI • There is no further news related to TePA-AC as of May 2012 Andrew Myles, Cisco

28. There is no further news related to TAAA, the proposed LRWN security replacement • In previous SC6 meetings the China NB have proposed a protocol called TAAA, which is roughly WAPI for Long Range Wireless Networks • At the SC6 meeting in February 2012, an IWNCOMM representative presented TAAA again, emphasising its use of TePA, and concluding • “TAAA applies to various LRWN. • The details of the solution may be discussed further.” • It appears from the subsequent discussion that a LRWN could include both LTE & 802.16 • The IEEE delegation provided a response, which informed SC6 that this activity is actually within the scope of ITU IMT-2000 and IMT-Advanced • This information appeared to be a surprise to the IWNCOMM rep and there was no further discussion, or indication of next steps for TAAA • There is no further news related to TAAA as of May 2012 Andrew Myles, Cisco

29. There was no mention of UHT or EUHT at the SC6 meeting in China in February 2012 • Nufront and the China NB had previously proposed standardisation of UHT (an 802.11n extension) and EHUT (an 802.11ac replacement) by SC6 • EUHT is also known as N-UHT • The IEEE 802 delegation expressed concern about various aspects of this proposal at the San Diego SC6 meeting in June 2011 • It was expected that the issue would be raised again at the China meeting of SC6 in February 2012 • UHT/EUHT were not mentioned at all, although Nufront representatives were in attendance Andrew Myles, Cisco

30. The recent standardisation UHT or EUHT in China raises a number of unknowns • Since the SC6 meeting in Feb 12, MIIT has announced that UHT and EUHT will be published as voluntary Chinese National Standards • After a somewhat unusual process in CCSA that effectively ignored the concerns of many Chinese and non Chinese companies • It is not known what the implications of UHT/EUHT standardisation in China are for the 5GHz bands in China • They could be opened up for 802.11ac and UHT/EUHT • They could be opened up for UHT/EUHT only, although this was previously denied by MIIT • They could remain mostly closed, which is the current status quo • It is not known if type approval regulations will be used to mandate UHT/EUHT, similar to those used for WAPI • It is not even known if UHT or EUHT have been implemented although recent reports indicate Nufront is continuing its implementation efforts Andrew Myles, Cisco

31. It was feared that EUHT could be linked to the opening up of 5GHz spectrum in China • Most of the 5GHz band in China is not currently open for WLAN • Even in 5725-5850MHz, users must apply for government approval (and in some cases, must pay fee) to use the band • However, there was an effort led by Chinese SPs & supported by MIIT State Radio Regulatory Commission (SRRC) to open up 5GHz in China • This effort had been going very well, until recently when it was claimed that the band may be opened up for EUHT only • The recently published 12th Five Year Plan for Wireless Radio Development provides support for an N-UHT only approach • The plan calls for China to make strategic use of its wireless spectrum resources to support broadband, cloud computing, and IoT development • It also calls for allocation of spectrum to indigenous Chinese technologies, and that it increase the amount of domestic IP in wireless radio equipment used in China Andrew Myles, Cisco

32. Recent reports suggest that the risk to 5GHz from EUHT interest in China might be overstated • It was reported (as of March 2012) that: • MIIT have indicated they WERE looking at opening up the lower 5 GHz band (e.g. 5150-5350MHz) to WLAN in 2012. • China still has unresolved issues regarding radio interference from radar, but MIIT will use experience with radar in US & Europe • MIIT have made clear that it would NOT grant exclusive access to any specific technology for access to the 5GHz band, • MIIT have made clear all internationally standardized 802.11 products were eligible for use in China • Of course, this does not include 802.11ac which has not been standardised, even by the IEEE; technically, it does not include 802.11n yet either • It was reported (as of May 2012) that: • During 2012 US–China Joint Commission on Commerce & Trade (JCCT) Information Industry Working Group (IIWG), MIIT told the USTR that China would allocate the lower 5GHz band (5150–5350Mhz) for unlicensed, public use • At least one Chinese SP is requiring testing of devices in 2012 using 5150-5350MHz, 54755725MHz and 5725-5850MHz Andrew Myles, Cisco

33. Nufront sent a letter to the IEEE 802.11 WG Chair suggesting some sort of interaction • Before the SC6 meeting in Feb 12, Nufront sent a letter (in Chinese!) to the IEEE 802.11 WG Chair, asking: • What is IEEE 802.11’s view towards China developing EUHT? • Does an opportunity exist for cooperation between IEEE 802 and EUHT promoters? • The IEEE 802.11 WG Chair responded (in Chinese!) noting: • He does not know the opinion of the 802.11 WG yet • The 802.11 WG is interested in discussions, and learning about EUHT • The 802.11 WG members are likely to have a variety of technical questions, particularly in relation to coexistence of CSMA/CA and TMDA systems • Nufront is invited to present to 802.11, or alternatively a meeting could be arranged in Beijing next February for a limited audience • The 802.11 WG Chair may provide an update ... Andrew Myles, Cisco

34. In Feb 12, SC6 approved a table with proposed dispositions for various ISO/IEC 8802 standards • The IEEE 802 delegation presented the liaison that was in response to the UK NB proposal for the disposition of various ISO/IEC 8802 standards • See N15106 • It was ultimately agreed that the table of proposed dispositions in the liaison should be accepted • Resolution 6.1.7: Noting the liaison response from IEEE 802 in 6N15106, SC6 instructs its Secretariat to revise the SC 6 Program of Work based on the table below Andrew Myles, Cisco

35. In Feb 12, SC6 approved the table on the status of 8802 standards Andrew Myles, Cisco

36. The proposal that only IEEE 802 “maintain, alter & extend” ISO/IEC 8802 standards was controversial • The IEEE 802 liaison also indicated that IEEE 802 would be willing to submit standards (particularly 802.1 and 802.3) to ISO/IEC under certain conditions • “…it is essential that ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 agrees that the responsibility to maintain, alter or extend the functionality of IEEE 802 standards ratified by ISO/IEC remains solely with IEEE 802” • This condition was particularly controversial among most NBs • The main issue of contention appeared to revolve around the definition of “extend”; many NBs considered a restriction of extensions as limiting SC6’s ability to do their normal work Andrew Myles, Cisco

37. The SC6 NBs had a variety of objections to the proposed IEEE condition • China NB had some concerns • Stated that they believe it is based on a misinterpretation of “one standard worldwide” • Objected to the “alter” and “extend” conditions • Suspected it violates anti-trust laws – will need legal advice • Suspected it contradicts ISO/IEC Directives – will need to ask staff • UK NB had some concerns • Stated it was unreasonable to limit “extensions” by SC6, on the basis that any document that normatively referenced an 8802 standard could be considered an extension • Swiss NB had not reviewed • Stated they had not seen the liaison in time Andrew Myles, Cisco

38. SC6 ultimately decided on a process to help resolve issues related to the IEEE 802 proposal • SC6 Resolution 6.1.4 • SC 6 instructs its Secretariat to forward the following liaison statement to IEEE 802: • “SC6 appreciates and acknowledges IEEE 802’s proposal (6N15106) for an agreement. • SC 6 will forward an initial list of related questions from its NBs and LO to IEEE 802 by 2012-03-09 • SC 6 requests a response and a draft MoU from IEEE 802 by 2012-05-01. A second list of questions will be provided to IEEE 802 by 2012-07-01 • SC 6 requests a response and updated MoU from IEEE 802 by 2012-08-01.” • Approved unanimously Andrew Myles, Cisco

39. SC6 ultimately decided on a process to help resolve issues related to the IEEE 802 proposal • SC6 Resolution 6.1.5 • SC 6 requests its NBs and LO to provide any questions related to IEEE 802 proposal (6N15106) for an agreement to the SC 6 Secretariat by 2012-03-07 • SC 6 Secretariat is instructed to forward them to IEEE 802 by2012-03-09 • The replies from IEEE 802 and a first draft MoU will be distributed to the SC 6 NBs and LO • SC6 NBs may provide additional comments related to these replies and MoU for an agreement by 2012-06-22 • The replies from IEEE 802 and a second draft MoU will be distributed to the SC 6 NBs and LO and discussed at the SC 6 plenary in Gratkorn/Graz • Approved unanimously Andrew Myles, Cisco

40. Additional questions were received from two SC6 NBs by the 7 March deadline • Questions were received from China NB • Questions were received from Swiss NB Andrew Myles, Cisco

41. In March 12, the IEEE 802 JTC1 SC developed a draft “agreement” and a set of responses • The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC developed a draft agreement and a set of responses to the Chinese and Swiss questions • See 11-12-0456-00-0jtc-mar-2012-Hawaii-output.ppt • The key issue was a definition of what we meant by an extension; this was defined to mean, “functionality that makes use of internal interfaces, which were designed solely for the use of IEEE 802 members within the context of approved IEEE 802 projects” • This document was subsequently approved by the IEEE 802 EC with authority given for editorial changes • Bruce Kraemer and Paul Nikolich subsequently approved a revised version, which was then liaised to SC6 • See N15271 • No responses have yet been received from any SC6 NB’s Andrew Myles, Cisco

42. The draft “agreement” has not changed since the Hawaii meeting • IEEE 802 and SC6 agree that: • Best practice indicates a single SDO should have responsibility for developing or maintaining a standard, albeit in cooperation with all relevant stakeholders • IEEE 802 will have sole responsibility for developing, maintaining, altering and extending all IEEE 802 standards adopted by ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6 as ISO/IEC 8802 standards • An extension is defined as functionality that makes use of internal interfaces, which were designed solely for the use of IEEE 802 members within the context of approved IEEE 802 projects . • … Andrew Myles, Cisco

43. The draft “agreement” has not changed since the Hawaii meeting • IEEE 802 and SC6 agree that: • …. • SC6 may request clarification from IEEE 802 as to whether a particular interface in an IEEE 802 standard is an internal interface • SC6 may request that IEEE 802 define any external interfaces required to enable SC6 to define additional functionality for ISO/IEC 8802 standards that originated in IEEE 802 • IEEE 802 will consult with SC6 as necessary to produce IEEE 802 standards and their ISO/IEC 8802 equivalents that reflect the needs of a broad range of stakeholders Andrew Myles, Cisco

44. It is likely that the “agreement” will not be a signed legal document • The proposed “agreement” document is between SC6 and IEEE 802 • It is doubtful that either group have the legal authority to sign such a document • Instead, it is envisaged that both groups will pass motions approving the agreement • This of course leaves open the risk that either group will reneg in the future • The only thing stopping this is the “moral imperative” • Is that enough? Andrew Myles, Cisco

45. The Swiss NB has made some process suggestions in the light of WAPI experience • The Swiss NB has made a set of suggestions to SC6 in the light of the WAPI experience • And probably EUHT, TLSEc, TePA-AC, etc • The suggestions are in three categories • a new process for reviewing IEEE 802 drafts • more socialisation of the NP proposals, including the NP form • a new focus on identifying experts for participation in projects • The IEEE 802 does not need to take any action now, but need to be aware of possible outcomes and be ready for the discussion in September Andrew Myles, Cisco

46. Swiss NB is suggesting a new process for reviewing IEEE 802 drafts • A. Review of IEEE 802 drafts • Since some time the IEEE 802.11 group has been submitting drafts to SC6/WG1 for comment. • This practice is expected to be continued and possibly also attained by other IEEE 802 groups. • However, so far only part of the received drafts have been reviewed. • To change this, the item "Review of IEEE drafts" shall be included in the WG1 agenda to • report about review results since the previous meeting, • announce drafts to be received before the next meeting, • call for volunteers to review these drafts. • The results of the discussion under this agenda item shall be reported in the WG1 meeting minutes. Andrew Myles, Cisco

47. What is the IEEE 802 reaction to “a new process for reviewing IEEE 802 drafts”? Andrew Myles, Cisco

48. Swiss NB is suggesting a new focus on identifying experts for participation in projects • B. Support of Project Editors • In NP ballots, Q3 asks for active participation to the project. According to the ISO/IEC Directives, P-members answering "Yes" to Q3 are requested to nominate experts for such participation. • However, so far, in Wg1 only exceptionally these experts have been actively involved into the projects. • To change this, in WG1 the Project Editors shall • include the names of these experts in their NP ballot report, • pro-actively involve these experts in the project, • report to Wg1 about project activities • The reports of the Project Editors shall be included in the WG1 meeting minutes. • If a P-member answering "Yes" to Q3 fails to nominate an expert, or if an expert nominated fails to collaborate with the Project Editor, then WG1 shall request the Sc6 Secretariat to ask that P-member for proper action. Andrew Myles, Cisco

49. What is the IEEE 802 reaction to “a new focus on identifying experts for participation in projects”? Andrew Myles, Cisco

50. Swiss NB is suggesting more socialisation of the NP proposals, including the NP form • C. Consultation on NPs • The JTC1 Supplement, Annex JA.2.1, advises National Bodies to consult the subcommittee prior to submission of a NP for ballot, because (cit.) "… without prior consultation of the subcommittee, there is a risk that the ballot may fail because the necessary consensus and support are absent". • So far, WG1 has been presented NPs in a fairly informal manner, mostly in the form of PowerPoint presentations, and with focus on the technical content of the proposal. • However, to minimize the risk that the ballot may fail, and to substantiate the envisaged consensus and support, essential elements of the NP proposal should be included in these consultations. • To this end, presentations of NPs should provide the following: • Title and scope, Andrew Myles, Cisco