1 / 61

IEEE 802 JTC1 Standing Committee July 2012 agenda

IEEE 802 JTC1 Standing Committee July 2012 agenda. 17 May 2012. Authors:. This presentation will be used to run the IEEE 802 JTC1 SC meetings in San Diego in July 2012.

wilma
Download Presentation

IEEE 802 JTC1 Standing Committee July 2012 agenda

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. IEEE 802 JTC1 Standing CommitteeJuly 2012 agenda • 17 May 2012 Authors: Andrew Myles, Cisco

  2. This presentation will be used to run the IEEE 802 JTC1 SC meetings in San Diego in July 2012 • This presentation contains a proposed running order for the IEEE 802 JTC1 Standing Committee meeting in July 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 San Diego plenary meeting Tuesday 17 July, PM1 Wednesday 18 July, PM1 Thursday 19 July, 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 • Interim meeting in May 2012 in Atlanta • 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 JTC1 ballot on IEEE 802.11-2012 • Review any changes to status of proposals to SC6 related to IEEE 802 • WAPI, TLSEC, TePA-AC, EUHT, etc Andrew Myles, Cisco

  11. The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC has a detailed list of agenda items to be considered • In no particular order: • Review draft SC6/WG1 agenda for meeting in September in Austria • Appoint and empower IEEE 802 delegation to SC6 meeting • Develop final responses as part of process to develop an agreement related extensions by SC6 to IEEE 802 standards • Based on a 2nd round of questions & comments by Swiss & Chinese NBs • Consider IEEE 802 response to Swiss NB input to SC6 on process improvements after WAPI experience 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 San Diego in July 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 • Motion to approve minutes • The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC approves the minutes for its meeting in Atlanta in May 2012, as documented in 11-12-0777r0 • 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 IEEE 802.11 WG has liaised various Sponsor Ballot drafts to ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 • 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 • It is possible that IEEE 802.1 and IEEE 802.3 could also be submitted for ratification by ISO/IEC if an agreement is reached on maintenance procedures • This topic will be discussed later in the meeting this week 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 its membership that 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 • The IEEE 802.11 WG has not received any feedback on the ballot from any NBs so far Andrew Myles, Cisco

  19. 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

  20. ... but there was 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 • The details of any protest from the China SC6 Mirror Committee or any response from ISO/IEC are unavailable • Any details may become available at the next SC6 meeting ... • ... although there is no agenda item related to WAPI on the SC6/WG1 agenda Andrew Myles, Cisco

  21. 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

  22. 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

  23. 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 July 2012 Andrew Myles, Cisco

  24. 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 July 2012 Andrew Myles, Cisco

  25. 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 July 2012 Andrew Myles, Cisco

  26. 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

  27. 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 have been approved as voluntary Chinese National Standards • This occurred after a somewhat unusual process in CCSA that effectively ignored the concerns of many Chinese and non-Chinese companies • The actual text appears to be unavailable as of July 2012, even in hard copy • It is not known what the implications of UHT/EUHT standardisation in China are for the 5GHz bands in China • 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 • Nufront have not released any products Andrew Myles, Cisco

  28. 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 late 2011 when it was claimed that the band may be opened up for UHT/EUHT only • The 12th Five Year Plan for Wireless Radio Development provides support for a UHT/EUHT only approach (published in 2011) • 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

  29. 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, 5470-5725MHz and 5725-5850MHz Andrew Myles, Cisco

  30. 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 • There has been no further communication as of July 2012 Andrew Myles, Cisco

  31. ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 met in in Guangzhou, China in Feb 2012 and will meet in Graz, Austria in Sept 2012 • SC6 has a F2F meeting every 6 (future) - 9 (past) months or so • The last meeting was held in Guangzhou, China in February 2012 • The next meeting is in Graz, Austria in Sept 2012 • Same week as IEEE 802.11 WG meeting in Palm Springs, with a generic agenda that includes: • WG 1 - Physical and Data Link Layers • WG 7 - Network, Transport, and Future Network • WG 8 – Directory • WG 9 - ASN.1 and Registration • It is expected that IEEE will be represented by at least • Bruce Kraemer (IEEE 802.11 WG Chair) • Jodi Haasz (IEEE staff) • Andrew Myles also expects to attend as US NB HoD Andrew Myles, Cisco

  32. The draft agenda for the SC6/WG1 meeting has been announced with a few items for IEEE 802 • … • 5. SC6 WG1 Active Work Items • 5.1 Wireless Power Transfer • 5.1.1 In-band Control Protocol based on MFAN • 5.1.2 Incubator Group on 'ICT over WPT‘ • 5.2 Study Group Report on PLC Harmonization • 5.3 IEEE 802 Liaison <- IEEE 802 liaisons & proposed agreement • 5.4 NFC • 5.5 Liaison report from Ecma • 5.6 Revision • 5.6.1 ISO/IEC 24771 • 5.6.2 ISO/IEC 29157 • 5.9 Others • 5.9.1 Procedures <- Procedure review by Swiss NB based on WAPI experience • … Andrew Myles, Cisco

  33. The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC will empower the IEEE 802 HoD to the SC6 meeting in Sept 12 • Motion • The JTC1 ad hoc recommends that Bruce Kraemer be appointed as HoD to the SC6 meeting in Sept 2012 and be authorised to: • Appoint the IEEE 802 delegation • Approve any necessary submissions • Call any necessary preparation teleconferences • Moved: • Seconded: • Result: • Note: this is the same as motion in November 2011 before SC6 meeting in Feb 2102 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 a liaison that was in response to a UK NB proposal for the disposition of various ISO/IEC 8802 standards • See N15106 • It was ultimately agreed that the table of proposed dispositions proposed by IEEE 802 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 (Liaison to IEEE 802) • 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 (Instructions to SC6 NBs) • 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 for 1st round comments • Questions were received from two NBs • China NB – see N15226 • Switzerland NB – see N15227 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 Andrew Myles, Cisco

  42. 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 comfort to allow the 802.1 WG and 802.3 WG? Andrew Myles, Cisco

  43. Additional questions were received from two SC6 NBs by the 1 July deadline for 2nd round comments • Additional questions/comments were received from two NBs • China NB – see N15335 • Switzerland NB – see N15325 • The SC will consider possible responses to the 2nd round comments • See 11-12-0767 for proposed response to China NB comments • See 11-12-0768 for proposed response to Switzerland NB comments • See 11-12-0769 for slightly modified proposed agreement Andrew Myles, Cisco

  44. The draft “agreement” has changed only slightly since the Hawaii meeting in March 2012 • 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

  45. The draft “agreement” has not changed only slightly since the Hawaii meeting in March 2012 • 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

  46. The proposed agreement between SC6 and IEEE 802 does not apply to ISO/IEC 8802-15-4 • A member of IEEE 802.15 WG asked whether the proposed agreement between SC6 and IEEE 802 would apply to ISO/IEC 8802-15-4? • ISO/IEC 8802-15-4 was fast tracked by SC31 under the PSDO • The answer is no because the proposed agreement would only apply to IEEE 802 standards submitted to ISO/IEC JTC1 through SC6 under the PSDO • That said, there would be no harm, and probably lots of good, if IEEE 802.15 WG and SC31 also decided to follow similar principles Andrew Myles, Cisco

  47. ITU-T is also struggling with the issue of who can modify standards • The Germany NB in ITU-T proposed a mechanism by which ITU-T could change the meaning of standards from other SDOs • It was initially directed at a number of IETF standards, including MPLS, but could also be applied to IEEE standards • In both ITU-T and ISO/IEC cases the fundamental question is whether it makes sense for one SDO to modify the work of another without permission? • The IEEE Board of Governors submitted a document to ITU-T articulating its views Andrew Myles, Cisco

  48. The IEEE 802 JTC1 ad hoc will review the Swiss NB comments and a possible IEEE 802 response Andrew Myles, Cisco

  49. The IEEE 802 JTC1 ad hoc will review the Chinese NB comments and a possible IEEE 802 response Andrew Myles, Cisco

  50. The IEEE 802 JTC1 ad hoc will discuss the “signing” of any agreement • It appears that neither IEEE 802 or SC6 have the authority to formally sign an agreement • One approach is for both parties to pass motions among its membership that approves the agreement • Either party could then renege at any time by passing a motion to rescind the approval • The agreement would be based on a “moral imperative” rather thsn any legal force • Is the IEEE 802.1 WG and IEEE 802 sufficiently satisfied with this arrangement? • If so then we can move forward • If not then there is no obvious path • Discuss … Andrew Myles, Cisco

More Related