Background Information on Amendment and Standard

1. Background Information on Amendment and Standard Authors: Date: 2008-05-12 Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

2. Overview • Historical background on EC decisions • Re-use of technology from existing standard in a new standard Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

3. Historical background on EC decisions • Historically a WG was tied to one MAC • if WG came up with a new MAC it would become a new WG • e.g. 100 Mbps Ethernet vs. Demand Priority.  Demand Priority became 802.12 • However, there are counter examples • 802.15 has multiple standards with different MACs • In 802.3ah, the passive optical network portion of Ethernet in first mile has a TDMA protocol and nothing to do with CSMA.  It barely has any coupling to Ethernet. • Presenting to EC • For either amendment or new standard, need to show in PAR technical coupling to 802.11 as rationale for new TG to remain in 802.11 WG • with amendment, highly unlikely to go against WG • with new standard, need to address technical coupling Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

4. Re-use of Technology from Existing Standard in a New Standard • There has been several mentions of the necessity of maintaining backwards compatibility or interoperability of 60GHz to baseline 802.11 • 11-08-0498-00-0vht-modified-60ghz-par.ppt • 11-08-0223-01-0vht-proposal-for-60ghz-vht-par.doc • 11-08-0364-01-0vht-wlan-overlay-with-60ghz-channels.ppt • There has also been mention of utilizing the 802.15.3c PHY • LOA • LOAs of a standard do not carry forward to a new standard • if new VHT 60 GHz standard re-uses portions of the 802.11 baseline that were associated with existing LOAs, new LOAs would be required from those old LOA holders for the new standard • If VHT 60 GHz standard or amendment re-uses 802.15.3c, new LOAs would be required from those 802.15.3c LOA holders for 802.11 Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

5. Quote from PatCom FAQ Regarding LOA • http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/faq.pdf • 12. How should Working Groups handle existing Letters of Assurance provided to IEEE when developing an amendment, corrigendum, edition, or revision of the particular standard referenced in the Letter of Assurance? An Accepted Letter of Assurance referencing an existing standard, amendment, corrigendum, edition, or revision will remain in force for the application of the Essential Patent Claim(s) to the technology specified in another amendment, corrigendum, edition, or revision of the same IEEE Standard but only if (a) the application of the technology required by the amendment, corrigendum, edition, or revision of the same IEEE Standard has not changed from its previous usage and (b) the same Essential Patent Claims covered by the prior Accepted Letter of Assurance remain Essential Patent Claims in the same IEEE Standard or revision thereof. The Working Group Chair shall initiate a request for a new Letter of Assurance from a known Submitter when re-using portions of or technologies specified in an existing [Proposed] IEEE Standard, amendment, corrigendum, edition, or revision referenced in an Accepted Letter of Assurance in a different [Proposed] IEEE Standard. Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation