1 / 39

TGn Meeting Report - July 13 ‘09

Name. Company. Address. Phone. email. bkraemer@. marvell. .com. Bruce Kraemer. Marvell. +1. -. 321. -. 4. 27. -. 4098. TGn Meeting Report - July 13 ‘09. Authors:. Date: 2009-July-09. 5488 Marvell Lane, Santa Clara, CA, 95054.

fergal
Download Presentation

TGn Meeting Report - July 13 ‘09

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 bkraemer@ marvell .com Bruce Kraemer Marvell +1 - 321 - 4 27 - 4098 TGn Meeting Report - July 13 ‘09 Authors: Date: 2009-July-09 5488 Marvell Lane, Santa Clara, CA, 95054 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  2. Welcome to San Francisco, CAJuly 13-16Hyatt EmbarcaderoMeeting Room = N (Pacific Concourse) One room – no parallel sessions Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  3. Meeting Protocol Please announce your affiliation when you first address the group during a meeting slot Slide 3 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  4. Attendance https://murphy.events.ieee.org/imat/attendance/index Register Indicate attendance See document 11-09-0517r0 for more details Slide 4 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  5. 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 Adrian Stephens – adrian.p.stephens@intel.com Cell Phones Silent or Off Slide 5 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  6. 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 July 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/PNP/2008-11/LMSC_OM_approved_081114.pdf Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  7. Participants, Patents, and Duty to Inform All participants in this meeting have certain obligations under the IEEE-SA Patent Policy. 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 July 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 Quoted text excerpted from IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws subclause 6.2 • Early identification of holders of potential Essential Patent Claims is strongly encouraged • No duty to perform a patent search Slide #1 - July 08 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  8. 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 Slide #2 – July 08 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  9. Call for Potentially Essential Patents • 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 Slide #3 – July 08 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  10. 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 July 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. Slide #4 – July 08 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  11. TGn Minutes Slide 11 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  12. TGn Minutes of May ’09 11-09-0565r0 Executive Summary: TGn met for 5 time slots. During this session, the resolutions for comments from SB2 were resolved and a P802.11n D10.0 has been created and the draft shall be sent out for recirculation. A plan for completion was crafted. A new timeline will be published. Contingency plans noting a path for completion, using various options was presented. Dependency on TGw was documented as part of the contingency planning. Slide 12 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  13. Approve Minutes Motion to approve May ‘09 (Montreal) TGn minutes as contained in 11-09-0565r0 Move: Jon Rosdahl Second: Slide 13 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  14. TGn CRC Teleconference Minutes • SB#3 CRC minutes 11-09-0681 r0 (posted Jun 14) • SB#4 CRC minutes 11-09-0693 r0 (posted Jun 25) • SB#5 CRC minutes 11-09-0738 r0 (posted Jul 08) • Motion to approve TGn telecon minutes as listed. • Move: Jon Rosdahl • Second: Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  15. TGn Quick Reviewof Events prior to this meeting Slide 15 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  16. TGn Ad Hoc Organization Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  17. 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 (July 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 July ‘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) July 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 July 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. Approved 190 technical comment resolutions (Mar ’08 Orlando). Approved recirculation ballot for TGn draft 4.0 (547p). Approved 349 comment resolutions (May ’08 Jacksonville). Approved recirculation ballot (LB129) for TGn draft 5.0 (547p). Ballot closed June 12 with 1112 comments. Approved 1112 comment resolutions (July ’08 Denver). Approved recirculation ballot (LB134) for TGn draft 6.0 (557p). Ballot closed August 12 with 195 comments. Approved 195 comment resolutions (Sep ’08 Waikoloa). Approved recirculation ballot (LB136) for TGn draft 7.0 (557p). Ballot closed Sep 30 with 48 comments. Approved 48 comment resolutions resulting from LB136 (Nov ’08 Dallas). Approved recirculation ballot (LB138). Granted conditional approval to move to Sponsor ballot. Zero no votes received. Moved ahead with Sponsor ballot. Sponsor Ballot closed Jan 10 ’09. 241 comments received, 77.8 % affirmative. TGn CRC began Sponsor ballot comment resolution (Jan ’09 Los Angeles). Completed comment resolution, prepared D8.0 and began 1st SB recirc 19 Feb 09 which closed 06 Mar 09. 77 Comments received. 80.1 % affirmative. Completed comment resolution (Mar ’09 Vancouver) and began 2nd sponsor recirc which closed April 04 and generated 28 Comments for which resolutions are underway. Completed resolution of 28 comments from SB2 (May’09 Montreal), generated new draft (D10.0) for SB3 which received 20 comments. Prior to July meeting also completed comment resolution, created D11.0 for SB4 which generated 15 comments and subsequently SB5 which received one comment. No additional draft changes or ballots are planned. Slide 17 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  18. TGn – Sponsor Ballot Recirc #1 • IEEE 802.11 Recirculation Sponsor Ballot #1 asked the question “Should P802.11N Draft 8.0 be forwarded to RevCom?” • The official results for the 15 day Recirculation Sponsor Ballot #1 follow: • Ballot Opening Date:   Thursday February 19 , 2009 - 23:59 ETBallot Closing Date:   Friday March 06, 2009 - 23:59 ET  • RESPONSE RATE:This ballot has met the 50% returned ballot ratio requirement • This ballot has met the <30% abstention ratio requirement277 eligible people are in this ballot group.169 affirmative votes   42 negative votes   • 17 abstention votes • ======= • 232 votes received  =  83 % valid returns                                  =  7 % valid abstentionsAPPROVAL RATE:169  affirmative votes       =   80.1 % affirmative  42  total negative votes  =     19.9 % negative Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  19. TGn - Sponsor Ballot Recirc #2 • IEEE P802.11n 15 day Recirculation Sponsor Ballot #2 asked the question “Should  P802.11n  Draft 9.0 be forwarded to RevCom?” • Ballot Opening Date:  Thursday  March 20 , 2009 - 23:59 ETBallot Closing Date:     Friday       April 04, 2009 - 23:59 ET  • RESPONSES:277 eligible people are in this ballot group.171  affirmative votes   41  negative votes     17 abstention votes ======= 229 votes received  =  83 % valid returns                                 =   7 % valid abstentionsAPPROVAL RATE:171  affirmative votes       =      80.7 % affirmative   41  total negative votes  =     19.3  % negative Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  20. TGn - Sponsor Ballot Recirc #3 • IEEE P802.11n 15 day Recirculation Sponsor Ballot #3 asked the question “Should  P802.11n  Draft 10.0 be forwarded to RevCom?” • Ballot Opening Date:  Friday  May 15 , 2009 - 23:59 ETBallot Closing Date:     Saturday   May 30, 2009 - 23:59 ET  • RESPONSES:277 eligible people are in this ballot group.190  affirmative votes   26  negative votes     17 abstention votes ======= 237 votes received  =  86 % valid returns                                 =   7 % valid abstentionsAPPROVAL RATE:190  affirmative votes       =      88.0 % affirmative   26  total negative votes  =     12.0  % negative Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  21. TGn - Sponsor Ballot Recirc #4 • IEEE P802.11n 15 day Recirculation Sponsor Ballot #4 asked the question “Should  P802.11n  Draft 11.0 be forwarded to RevCom?” • Ballot Opening Date:  Friday  June 05 , 2009 - 23:59 ETBallot Closing Date:     Saturday       June 20, 2009 - 23:59 ET  • RESPONSES:277 eligible people are in this ballot group.195  affirmative votes   22  negative votes     17 abstention votes ======= 238 votes received  =  83 % valid returns                                 =   7 % valid abstentionsAPPROVAL RATE:195  affirmative votes       =      89.9 % affirmative   22  total negative votes  =     10.1  % negative Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  22. TGn - Sponsor Ballot Recirc #5 • IEEE P802.11n 10 day Recirculation Sponsor Ballot #5 asked the question “Should  P802.11n  Draft 11.0 be forwarded to RevCom?” • Ballot Opening Date:  Tuesday  June 23 , 2009 - 23:59 ETBallot Closing Date:     Friday       July 03, 2009 - 23:59 ET  • RESPONSES:277 eligible people are in this ballot group.198  affirmative votes   20  negative votes     17 abstention votes ======= 238 votes received  =  86 % valid returns                                 =   7 % valid abstentionsAPPROVAL RATE:198  affirmative votes       =      90.8 % affirmative  20  total negative votes  =      9.2  % negative Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  23. Primary San Francisco Meeting Documents • SB #0-5 Comment Composite 11-09- 0024 r16 • July Meeting Report 11-09- 0659 r0 • Closing Report 11-09- 0775 r0 • May Meeting Minutes 11-09- 0565 r0 • SB#3 Telecon minutes 11-09- 0681 r0 • SB#4 Telecon minutes 11-09- 0693 r0 • SB#5 Telecon minutes 11-09- 0738 r0 • TGn Draft 11.0 • EC presentation 11-09-0674 r1 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  24. July TGn CRC Agenda Slide 24 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  25. Master Schedule Plan • Nov ’08 - Requested (conditional) approval for sponsor ballot • Sponsor ballot pool formed during July/August ‘08 • Released Draft 7.0 to SB #0 in November ’08 • Released Draft 8.0 to SB #1 recirc in Feb ‘09 • Begin & Complete SB #1 comment resolution in July • Release Draft 9.0 for SB #2 before April 1 • Release Draft 10.0 for SB #3 by May 18 • Prepare for July EC Request to go to RevCom • unconditional approval preferred Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  26. July WG11 Agenda July 13 July 14 July 15 July 16 am1 am2 lunch pm1 pm2 dinner eve Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  27. TGn CRC – July ‘09 Schedule – Topics July 13 July 14 July 15 July 16 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  28. Agenda Plan and Topics Primary topic: Review Status General Order – TGn Full Monday – no meetings Tuesday – no meetings Wednesday – Opening report , Status review, EC presentation CRC Plans from July to September Teleconference plan? Timeline review Thursday - Fix any problems unresolved on Wednesday Any other Business for the agenda? Slide 28 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  29. Approve Work Plan Agenda Motion to approve July ’09 TGn agenda as contained on slide 26 - 28 (with any minuted amendments) as contained in 0659 r1. Move: Second: Slide 29 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  30. May Schedule Plans Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat July SB#3 ballot start July TGw ballot close SB#3 ballot close July Jun telecon SB#4 ballot start telecon Jun Jun EC package SB#4 ballot close Jun Clean draft ballot start telecon telecon Jul Jul Clean draft ballot close telecon Jul EC presentation Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  31. Actual Events Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat July SB#3 ballot start July TGw ballot close SB#3 ballot close July Jun telecon SB#4 ballot start telecon Jun Jun EC package SB#4 ballot close Jun Clean draft ballot start telecon Jul Clean draft ballot close Jul telecon Jul EC presentation Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  32. July Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 2009 Timeline – July EC Unconditional Prelim EC package Wed Jun 17 EC review Fri Jul 17 RevCom Package Fri Jul 31 RevCom Meeting Thu Sep 10 StdsBd Meeting Fri Sep 11 Oct Jul Aug Sep 40 days 13-17 09 10 11 31 Oct Nov Dec 16-20 50 days 09 7 8 9 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  33. TGn Timeline – Published Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  34. 802 OM- Clause 13- Conditional Approval Conditions: a) Recirculation ballot is completed. Generally, the recirculation ballot and resolution should occur in accordance with the schedule presented at the time of conditional approval. b) After resolution of the recirculation ballot is completed, the approval percentage is at least 75% and there are no new valid DISAPPROVE votes. c) No technical changes, as determined by the WG Chair, were made as a result of the recirculation ballot. d) No new valid DISAPPROVE comments on new issues that are not resolved to the satisfaction of the submitter from existing DISAPPROVE voters. e) If the WG Chair determines that there is a new invalid DISAPPROVE comment or vote, the WG Chair shall promptly provide details to the Sponsor. f) The WG Chair shall immediately report the results of the ballot to the Sponsor including: the date the ballot closed, vote tally and comments associated with any remaining disapproves (valid and invalid), the WG responses and the rationale for ruling any vote invalid. Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  35. Moving thru EC to RevCom • TGn EC RevCom report in preparation • 11-09-0674- r1 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  36. July ’09 to Sep ‘09 TGn Teleconference Plan Call number: 916-356-2663 Call time: 11:00 – 13:00 ET Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  37. End of Chair's Opening Report Slide 37 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  38. Any other business? Slide 38 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  39. Recess Slide 39 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

More Related