1 / 43

TGn Chairs’ Report Taipei, TW 802 Interim – 14-18 Jan ‘08

Name. Company. Address. Phone. email. +1. -. 321. -. 4. 27. -. bkraemer@. marvell. .com. Bruce Kraemer. Marvell. 4098. 5402 East Ben White,. +1 (512) 602. -. Garth.hillman@amd.com. Garth Hillman. AMD. Austin TX 78741. 7869. sli@sibeam.com. Sheung Li. SiBEAM.

pascal
Download Presentation

TGn Chairs’ Report Taipei, TW 802 Interim – 14-18 Jan ‘08

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 +1 - 321 - 4 27 - bkraemer@ marvell .com Bruce Kraemer Marvell 4098 5402 East Ben White, +1 (512) 602 - Garth.hillman@amd.com Garth Hillman AMD Austin TX 78741 7869 sli@sibeam.com Sheung Li SiBEAM 15 JJ Thompson +1 (503) 616 - adrian.p.stephens@intel.c Adrian Intel om Avenue, Cambridge, 3800 Stephens Corporation CB3 0FD, UK TGn Chairs’ Report Taipei, TW 802 Interim – 14-18 Jan ‘08 Authors: Date: 2008-01-13 5488 Marvell Lane, Santa Clara, CA, 95054 +1 (408) 245-3120 555 Mathilda Ave, Sunnyvale, CA 94085 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  2. Welcome to TaipeiMonday – Friday, Jan 14-18This document 08/0022TGn Howard Meetings Rooms TGN 1 (Main Room) = B2 Banquet I TGN 2 (second room) = B2 Peony Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  3. Call for Secretary(s) for this week • Garth Hillman is unable to attend this session. • Arrangements were made for Sheung Li to handle the minutes for the 4 full TGn sessions. • Sheung had an emergency that required him to stay in California this week. • Volunteer (s): Jon Rosdahl Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

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

  5. Attendance • http://newton.events.ieee.org • Register • Indicate attendance See document 11-08-0058r0 for more details Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  6. Word Documents –Page 1 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  7. [place presentation subject title text here] PowerPoint Documents –Page 1 Date: YYYY-MM-DD Authors: Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  8. 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 Harry Worstell – hworstell@att.com • Cell Phones Silent or Off Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  9. 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 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  10. 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 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  11. 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 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  12. 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 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  13. 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 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  14. 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 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  15. 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 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  16. 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 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  17. 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. Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  18. 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 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  19. TGn Minutes Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  20. TGn Minutes of November ’07 07/2829 r0 • Executive Summary (also see Chairs’ meeting doc 11-07-2775r3 and closing report doc. 11-07-2925r0): • Session was devoted to LB115 comment resolution • Approximately 100 of 602 technical comments were resolved in 7 motions • There will be 4 teleconferences (Nov 28, Dec 5,12,19) held between this meeting and the Interim meeting in Taipei Jan 14-18,2008 • There will be an ad hoc likely (see minutes Thursday line 6) in Taipei Jan 10,11,12 • The time line was modified after much discussion (see minutes Thursday line item 7) and now realistically projects a ratified standard in July 2009. • Jan interim meeting focus will be on LB115 Comment resolution • Goal for recirc LB is after the Mar 2008 meeting on Draft D4.0 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  21. Approve Minutes • Motion to approve Nov ‘07 (Atlanta) TGn minutes as contained in 07-2829-r0 • Move: • Second: Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

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

  23. 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) March 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 March 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) Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  24. Draft 3.0 – Technical Comment Distribution Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  25. Draft 4.0 – Activity PlanFocus on Technical Comments 906 to resolve Activity • Review submissions • Technical Resolutions • Review submissions • Prepare subs for voting • Resolution approvals • Review submissions • Prepare subs for voting • Resolution approvals Nov ‘07 Plan • 282 edit • 0 • 324 • 0 • 0 • 300 Jan ‘08 • 282 edit • 99 • (197) • 324 • 0 • 0 • 300 Event • Nov Plenary (Atlanta) • Nov Plenary • Telecons • Jan ad hoc (Taipei) • Jan interim (Taipei) • Telecons • Mar ad hoc (Orlando) • Mar Plenary (Orlando) Goal: Following the Mar ‘08 meeting, assuming all comments are resolved and the WG approves them, Draft 4.0 will prepared by the Technical Editor based upon approvedinstructions to the editor in the Mar interim. Draft 4.0 will then be distributed as a 15 day WG recirculation letter ballot. Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  26. Draft 3.02 – Remaining Technical Comment Distributionat Close of November 149 176 53 37 18 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  27. Letter Ballot #115 Draft 3.0 Comments 906 Editorial & Technical Unique - 884 DUP +W = 25 Editorial - 279 Technical - 602 Nov close Editorial - 279 99 Technical - 503 Jan start Editorial - 279 99 Technical - 306 70 127 Processed by ad hoc Unresolved Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  28. More Details on Resolution Status • Editor Report 11-08-0007-r1 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  29. Comment Spreadsheets P Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  30. TGn Draft – Page History 3.0 2.0 1.0 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  31. TGn Document History Mar ‘06 Jul ‘06 Sep ‘06 Nov ‘06 Jan ‘07 1.0 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 LB 84 Comment Resolution Feb ‘07 May ‘07 July ‘07 Sep ‘07 2.0 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 2.07 95 LB 97 Comment Resolution Oct ‘07 Nov ‘07 Dec ‘07 3.0 3.01 3.02 115 Comment Resolution Jan ’08 session Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  32. January TGn Agenda Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  33. 802.11 WG Schedule Jan 08 Jan 14 Jan 15 Jan 16 Jan 17 Mon Tue Wed Thu TGN 1 VHT SG TGN 1 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  34. Agenda Topics • Primary topic: Comment Resolution • General Order – “water fill” TGn Full with ad hoc topics where appropriate • Review agenda afternoon of Tues, Wed if needed • Thursday Topics: • Voting on prepared comment resolutions • Timeline review • Plans • Teleconferences • Approval of adhocs in Orlando during March ‘08 • Any other Business for the agenda? Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  35. Thursday Discussion on ad hoc Plans Proposal • March ad hoc: 12,13,14 Wed, Thu, Fri • Orlando at conference hotel (Caribe Royale) • March meetings Sun Mar 16 to Fri Mar 21 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  36. TGn – January ‘08 Meeting Hours Jan 14 Jan 15 Jan 16 Jan 17 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  37. TGn Taipei Session Room assignments TGn1 Main room: B2 Banquet Room I & II (350) TGn1 B2 BQT I+II or B2 Banquet Room I (150) TGn1 B2 BQT I TGn2 B2 Peony Room I & II (30) TGn2 B2 Peony Schedule page designation Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  38. TGn – January ‘08 Schedule Jan 14 Jan 15 Jan 16 Jan 17 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  39. TGn – January ‘08 Schedule Jan 14 Jan 15 Jan 16 Jan 17 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  40. Approve Agenda • Motion to approve Jan ’08 TGn agenda as contained on slide 33 - 39 (with any minuted amendments). • Move: • Second: Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

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

  42. Technical Editor’s Report11-08-0007r1 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  43. Recess Convert into COEX ad hoc Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

More Related