1 / 75

IEEE 802 Meeting Protocols & Guidelines

Access important information regarding attendance, voting, and document status. Follow the guidelines provided for an efficient and productive IEEE 802 meeting.

rdunn
Download Presentation

IEEE 802 Meeting Protocols & Guidelines

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 Orlando, FL, US 802 Plenary – 17-21 Mar ‘08 Authors: Date: 2008-03-17 5488 Marvell Lane, Santa Clara, CA, 95054 +1 (408) 245-3120 555 Mathilda Ave, Sunnyvale, CA 94085 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  2. Primary Meeting Documents • Chair’s Report 11-08-0310 r0 • Editors Report 11-08-0275 r0 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  3. Welcome to OrlandoMar 17-21Caribe Royale Hotel Meeting RoomSierra E Monday (starting at 16:00) 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 • Back of badge • http://ieee802.facetoface-events.com/attendee/ • https://murphy.events.ieee.org/imat/index • 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. Current 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/policies-and-procedures.pdf Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  10. Instructions for the WG Chair The IEEE-SA strongly recommends that at each WG meeting the chair or a designee: • Show slides #1 through #5 of this presentation • Advise the WG attendees that: • The IEEE’s patent policy is consistent with the ANSI patent policy and 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 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 the five slides 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) that the participant believes 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. • It is recommended that the WG chair review the guidance in the Standards Companion on inclusion of potential Essential Patent Claims by normative reference. Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. TGn Minutes Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  18. TGn Minutes of January ’08 08/0090 r0 • Executive Summary: • Executive Summary (also see Chairs’ meeting doc 11-08-0022r6 and closing report doc. 11-08-0171r0): • Session was devoted to LB115 comment resolution • At the close of the meeting only 151 comments left to complete processing. • Next AdHoc scheduled for March 12-14 in Orlando (week prior to IEEE 802 Plenary) • TGn Editor’s report 11-08-0007r3 • No Timeline changes were made. Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  19. Approve Minutes • Motion to approve Jan ‘07 (Taipei) TGn minutes as contained in 08-0090-r0 • Move: • Second: Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

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

  21. 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) • 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. Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  22. Draft 4.0 – Activity PlanFocus on Technical Comments 906 total to resolve Current • 282 • 0 • 0 • 324 • 0 • 190 • 190 Activity • Review submissions • Review submissions • Prepare subs for voting • Resolution approvals • Review submissions • Prepare subs for voting • Resolution approvals Nov ‘07 Plan • 282 editorial • 0 • 0 • 324 • 0 • 0 • 300 Event • Nov Plenary (Atlanta) • Telecons • Jan ad hoc (Taipei) • Jan interim (Taipei) • Telecons • Mar ad hoc (Orlando) • Mar Plenary (Orlando) 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

  23. TGn Ad Hoc Organization Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  24. Draft 3.0 – Technical Comment Distribution (624 unique technical) Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  25. Comment Spreadsheets P Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  26. Snapshot Progress Report At start of January Session 503 unresolved At start of March ad hoc Resolutions Approved 190 incomplete 5 recycles 137 reviewed in ad hoc 38 assigned Speculative Edits D3.04, D3.05 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  27. Draft 3.03 – Remaining Technical Comment Distribution 56 128 2 2 1 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  28. Speculative editing • Comments approved in ad-hocs before the meeting have been speculatively edited. • MAC: 25 comments (D3.04 Speculative edits 1) • Coex: 110 comments (D3.04 Speculative edits 2) • Beam: 2 comments (D3.05 Speculative edits) Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  29. 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 Mar ‘08 Mar ‘08 Oct ‘07 Nov ‘07 Dec ‘07 Feb ‘08 Mar ‘08 Mar ‘08 3.05 3.07 3.01 3.02 3.03 3.04 3.06 3.0 115 Comment Resolution Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  30. TGn Draft – Page History 3.06 3.0 2.0 1.0 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  31. TGn Voting & History Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  32. TGn Document History Ballot authorization Ballot close Apr 2 9 ‘06 Jan 19 ‘07 LB 84 D1.0 Comment Resolution 265 days Mar 09 ‘07 Sep 21 ‘07 95 LB 97 D2.0 Comment Resolution 196 days Oct 27 ‘07 Mar 21 ‘08 115 D3.0 Comment Resolution 146 days Jul 18 ‘08 Apr 12 ‘08 12x D4.0 97 days Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  33. Ballot Authorization date TGn Resolution History Ballot close date Apr 2 9 ‘06 Jan 19 ‘07 LB 84 D1.0 Comment Resolution 265 days 11.8/day Mar 09 ‘07 Sep 21 ‘07 8.1/day 95 LB 97 D2.0 Comment Resolution 196 days Oct 27 ‘07 Mar 21 ‘08 4.1/day 115 D3.0 Comment Resolution 146 days Jul 18 ‘08 Apr 12 ‘08 3.1/day 12x D4.0 97 days Unique Technical Comment Resolution Rate CIDs/day Sep 12 ‘08 Aug 05 ‘08 4.7/day D5.0 38 days 13x Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  34. March TGn Agenda Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  35. March WG11 Agenda am1 am2 lunch pm1 pm2 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  36. TGn – Mar ‘08 Schedule Mar 17 Mar 18 Mar 19 Mar 20 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  37. Agenda Plan and Topics • Primary topic: Comment Resolution • General Order – TGn Full with topics introduced by ad hoc where appropriate • Monday – TGn summary, ad hoc status and comment resolution discussions • Strawpolls if useful • Tuesday – Discussion and Votes • Wednesday – Discussion and Votes • Thursday - Voting on prepared comment resolutions • Vote on Draft (if time allows) • Timeline review • Plans • Teleconferences • Approval of adhoc in Jacksonville during May ‘08 • Any other Business for the agenda? Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  38. Approve Agenda • Motion to approve Mar ’08 TGn agenda as contained on slide 36 - 38 (with any minuted amendments). • Move: • Second: Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  39. Technical Editor’s Report11-08-0275r1Ad hoc reports Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  40. Thursday topicsPlans from March to MayTime LineAd hoc meetingTeleconferences Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  41. 15 day Ballot T5 T0 T3 Friday March 21 Wednesday April 16 Monday May 12 Prepare submissions 23 days 22 29 5 12 19 26 3 10 17 15 day ballot Saturday April 12 Friday March 28 Fri + Sat Ad hoc May 9+10 T2 T1 T4 T0 = Closing Plenary T1 = Ballot start T2 = Ballot close T2-T3 = Collect and categorize comment results T3 = 1st TGn teleconference, submission assignees T4 = start of 2 day ad hoc T5 = Opening Interim Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  42. 20 day Ballot T5 T3 T0 Monday April 20 Friday March 21 Monday May 12 Prepare submissions 18 days 22 5 19 26 3 10 15 day ballot Thursday April 17 Friday March 28 Fri + Sat Ad hoc May 9+10 T2 T1 T4 T0 = Closing Plenary T1 = Ballot start T2 = Ballot close T2-T3 = Collect and categorize comment results T3 = 1st TGn teleconference, submission assignees T4 = start of 2 day ad hoc T5 = Opening Interim Would request for special telecon day for April 20 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  43. 802.11 Timeline Events Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  44. TGn Teleconference Plan Call number: 916-356-2663 Call time: 11:00 – 13:00 ET Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  45. Ad hoc in May 2008 Request authorization for TGn to hold an ad hoc • on May 08,09 2008 (Thu, Fri) • in Jacksonville, FL, US • with the venue of choice being the 802 Plenary conference hotel (Hyatt Regency Jacksonville) • for the purpose of resolving comments received during LB12x on Draft 4.0 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

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

  47. ad hoc Reports Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  48. Any other business? Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  49. Recess Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  50. TGn Tuesday am2 update Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

More Related