1 / 35

TGac MAC ad hoc agenda and report

TGac MAC ad hoc agenda and report. Authors:. Date: 2011-05-10. Abstract. Agenda, Pre-Motions and Straw Polls for the TGac MAC ad hoc group, for May 2011 interim meeting. Important IEEE Links.

paxton
Download Presentation

TGac MAC ad hoc agenda and report

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. TGacMAC ad hoc agenda and report Authors: Date:2011-05-10 Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  2. Abstract • Agenda, Pre-Motions and Straw Polls for the TGac MAC ad hoc group, for May2011 interim meeting Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  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 Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  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 Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  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 Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  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 Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  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 Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  8. 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 Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  9. 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 Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  10. 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 Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  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 Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  12. 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. Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  13. Current MAC adhoc meeting agenda-notes pages Most recent agenda-notes pages are at the top of this document (i.e. have lower slide numbers). Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  14. Interpretive guide • 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 Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  15. Agenda for May 09th, 2011 – PM2 • Affiliation policy • Reviewed by TGac chair during opening block (must be done within conf calls) • IEEE Patent policy review • Reviewed by TGac chair during opening block (must be done within conf calls) • Question of IP claims (See slide 12) • Reviewed by TGac chair during opening block (must be done within conf calls) • Attendance recording • Conf call attendance required – send email to chairs • Minutes – review • 11-11-0478r00 • Review rules for adhocs • 11-09-0059r5 • MAC topics (11-09-1175-01-00ac-ad-hoc-groups-scope.ppt) • Power saving • Capability negotiations • Frame formats • Submissions • (see next page) • Conference calls • To be decided by the TG Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  16. Submissions Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  17. May 9th, PM2 (Room I, Indian Wells) • MAC related comment resolutions presented in the TGac session • 11-11/603r4 Matt (motion #7 as in 11/0582r1, Motion passed) • 11-11/701r0 Illsoo (motion #9 as in 11/0582r1, Motion passed) • 11/730r0, CID 1271 661 1187 proposed text, Matthew Fischer (Broadcom) Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  18. May 9th, PM3 (Room K, Indian Wells) • 11/740r0, Comment resolution CIDs 1781 1359, Simone Merlin (Qualcomm) • 11/729r1, D0.1 Comment Resolution – CID 808 Reza Hedayat(Cisco ) • 11/710r1, “TGac Comments resolutions on TXOP PS bit in VHT-SIG-A”, PatilSandhya (Samsung) • 11/662r0, Comment Resolution PLME SAP Interface, Yongho Seok (LG) • 11/645r3, TGac AP as BFmee, BF in IBSS and mBSS, Liwen Chu (STMicroelectronics) Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  19. May 10th, AM2 (Room K, Indian Wells) • 11/705r0, TGac Comment resolutions on miscellaneous CIDs in 9.9.1.4 ,Jae Seung Lee (ETRI) • 11/711r0, Clause 9.15 Comments Resolution, Osama Aboul-Magd (Samsung Electronics) • Robert discussed CID 1286, the group agreed to remove the sentence (assigned to Allan to be included in 11/606r1). • Robert went through the MAC comments that are not resolved. • CID #697 was resolved during the session. No objection to the resolution (reflected in master comment spreadsheet directly). Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  20. May 11th, AM1 (Room I, Indian Wells) • 11/706r0, TGac Comment resolutions on TXOP Bandwidth in 9.9.1.4 , Jae Seung Lee (ETRI) • 11/606r1, Comment resolutions – TXOP sharing, Allan Zhu (Samsung) • Robert Stacy • Peter Loc (counter proposal to CID 808) Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  21. Pre-Motion #1 • Do you agree on the comment resolutions to CIDs 1781 and 1359 as described in Doc # 11/740r0? • Yes • No • Abs • Pre-Motion passed without objections. Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  22. Pre-Motion #2 • Do you agree on the comment resolutions to CIDs 808 as described in Doc # 11/729r1? • Yes: 7 • No: 7 • Abs: 8 • Pre-Motion failed Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  23. Pre-Motion #3 • Do you accept the resolutions provided to the CIDs 289, 970, 557, 610, 663, 971, 1619, 125, 1342, 851, 550, 549 and the changes to the spec text as presented in editing instructions section of 11/710r1? • Yes • No • Abs • Pre-Motion passed without objections. Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  24. Straw Poll #1 • Do you support the resolutions provided to the CIDs 1307 and 1308 in Doc # 11/662r0, without the MLME interfaces for Group ID and Operating Mode Notification? • Yes: 18 • No: 0 • Abs Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  25. Pre-Motion #4 • Do you support changing the TGac spec D0.1 as described in Slide #7 of Doc 11/645r4? • Yes: • No: • Abs • Pre-Motion passed without objections. Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  26. Pre-Motion #5 • Do you support the resolutions provided to the CIDs 1307 and 1308 in Doc # 11/662r1? • Yes: • No: • Abs • Pre-Motion passed without objections. Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  27. Pre-Motion #6 • Do you support the resolutions provided to CIDs 114, 1492, 1715, 1491, 1493, and 8 in Doc # 11/705r1? • Yes: • No: • Abs • Pre-Motion passed without objections. Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  28. Pre-Motion #7 • Do you support the resolutions provided to CIDs 175,, and 159 in Doc # 11/711r0? • Yes: • No: • Abs • Pre-Motion passed without objections. Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  29. TGac MAC adhoc Nov 19, 2009 minutes • IEEE patent policy discussed, no one asked for a reading • In response to the question of essential claims (see slide 12), no response was elicited • Attendance • Matthew Fischer, Broadcom • Reviewed submission: • Straw polls: TEMPLATE Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  30. TGac MAC adhoc meeting agenda-notes from past sessions Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  31. For better viewing Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  32. TGac MAC adhoc Motions to be brought for vote in TGac task group All MAC adhoc motions are contained in this section, with the most recent motions appearing first. Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  33. May 2011 TGac MAC straw poll 100119_a • Background • Topic • Relevant documents 11-08-xxxxRy • General nature • Adhoc straw poll result • #xxx NOT REALLY A STRAW POLL – to forward the mechanism in 11-09/xxxxry to the task group as a motion to become part of the specification framework or draft specification for TGac • 09-11-19 PM1 TGac action xxxx TEMPLATE Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  34. MAC adhoc operating rules • SEE 11-09-0059r5 • Attendance recorded outside of the 802.11 meeting week if the meeting is adhoc-only • Straw poll outcomes will be recorded • In particular, for straw poll votes to bring an issue to the task group, such as the resolution of an issue, or the failure to resolve an issue • Email concerning TGac MAC adhoc will be sent to the TGac reflector with the subject beginning with MAC ADHOC (or MAC Adhoc) • >=75% straw poll result is required to forward an item to the task group for a binding motion vote • >50% straw poll result is required to move an issue from the MAC adhoc to the task group for further debate • Only after at least one failed MAC adhoc vote to forward an item to the task group for a binding motion vote • >50% straw poll result is required to move an issue from the MAC adhoc to another adhoc for further debate • >50% straw poll result required to refuse an issue that is being moved from another adhoc into the group • Issues forwarded from TGac cannot be refused, must be subject to one failed MAC adhoc vote to forward an item to the task group for a binding motion vote before an attempt to move the item again • (See 11-09-0059-05-00ac-802-11ac-proposed-selection-procedure.doc) Fischer, Lee, Zhu

  35. References • 11-09-1175-r0-00ac-AdHoc Groups Scope_v3.ppt • 11-09-1181-00-00ac-ad-hoc-lifecycle.ppt • 11-09-1167-00-00ac-tgac-ad-hoc-group-operation-and-chair-selection-procedure.pptx • 11-09-0059-05-00ac-802-11ac-proposed-selection-procedure.doc • 11-09-0838-02-00ac-supporting-document-for-tgac-evaluation-methodology.ppt • 11-09-0451-09-00ac-tgac-functional-requirements-and-evaluation-methodology.doc • 11-09-0992-02-00ac-proposed-specification-framework-for-tgac.doc • 11-06-0689-01-000n-tgn-MAC-LB84-Ad-Hoc-Operation.ppt • Suggested rules document Fischer, Lee, Zhu

More Related