JTC1 Ad Hoc November 2011 agenda

JTC1 Ad Hoc November 2011 agenda
July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 JTC1 Ad Hoc November 2011 agenda 9 Nov 2011 Authors: Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 This presentation will be used to run the JTC1 Ad Hoc meetings in Atlanta in Nov 2011 This presentation contains a proposed running order for the IEEE JTC1 Ad Hoc committee meeting in Nov 2011, 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 Andrew Myles, Cisco

Participants have a duty to inform in relation to patents
July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 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 Andrew Myles, Cisco

There are a variety of patent related links
July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 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 IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual Material about the patent policy is available at If you have questions, contact the IEEE-SA Standards Board Patent Committee Administrator at or visit This slide set is available at Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 A call for potentially essential patents is not required in the JTC1 Ad Hoc 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 Andrew Myles, Cisco

July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 The JTC1 Ad Hoc 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 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 Andrew Myles, Cisco

Links are available to a variety of other useful resources
July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 Links are available to a variety of other useful resources Link to IEEE Disclosure of Affiliation Links to IEEE Antitrust Guidelines Link to IEEE Code of Ethics Link to IEEE Patent Policy Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 The JTC1 Ad Hoc 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 Andrew Myles, Cisco

The JTC1 Ad Hoc has three slots at the Atlanta meeting
July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 The JTC1 Ad Hoc has three slots at the Atlanta meeting Tuesday PM1 Wednesday PM1 Thursday 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 Andrew Myles, Cisco

The JTC1 Ad Hoc has a detailed list of agenda items to be considered
July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 The JTC1 Ad Hoc has a detailed list of agenda items to be considered Approve minutes from July in Okinawa Review extended goals Select delegation for SC6 meeting Review liaisons to SC6 Review status of WAPI in SC6 (802.11i replacement) Review status of 802.1X/AE and security replacements Review status of N-UHT (802.11ac replacement) Review plan for ISO/IEC 8802 standards (will be considered on Tuesday) Consider other matters Consider any motions Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

The JTC1 Ad Hoc will consider approving its agenda
July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 The JTC1 Ad Hoc will consider approving its agenda Motion to approve agenda The JTC1 Ad Hoc approves the agenda for its meeting in Atlanta in Nov 2011, as documented on pages of <this slide deck> Moved: Seconded Result Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

The JTC1 Ad Hoc will consider approval of previous minutes
July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 The JTC1 Ad Hoc will consider approval of previous minutes Motion to approve minutes The JTC1 Ad Hoc approves the minutes for its meeting in Okinawa in Sept 2011, as documented in Moved: Seconded: Result: Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 The JTC1 Ad Hoc 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 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 Andrew Myles, Cisco

July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 met in San Diego in June 2011 and will meet in Guangzhou, China in Feb 2012 SC6 has a F2F meeting every 9 months or so The last meeting was held on June 2011 in San Diego All WGs met in San Diego WG1: Physical and data link layers WG7: Network and transport layers (also known as Future Network) WG8: Directory WG9: ASN.1 and registration The next meeting is in Guangzhou, China in February 2012 Now confirmed for week of 20 Feb 2012, which is the same week as the Wi-Fi Alliance meeting in Vienna Only two WGs are planning to meet WG7: Network and transport layers Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

The IEEE 802 needs to select a delegation for the SC6 meeting
Do we have volunteers for the IEEE 802 delegation to the SC6 meeting? Is Bruce Kramer available as HoD? Names of potential delegates? We will have a motion at the end of the week empowering Bruce Kraemer to appoint the IEEE 802 delegation. Andrew Myles, Cisco

July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 The WG has liaised various Sponsor Ballot drafts to ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 Task Group After SD After Hawaii After Dallas After LA Sing. After Palm Sp After SanFran After Okinawa July 10 Sept 10 Nov 10 Jan 11 Mar 11 May 11 July 11 Sept 11 TGae - D5.0 TGaa D6.0 TGac TGmb D8.0 D10.0 TGs Ratified TGu D11.0 D13.0 TGv D15.0 TGz D12.0 The latest set of documents were liaised on 18 Oct 2011 The WG has told SC6 it will liaise ac as soon as it passes a LB Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 It was recognised by the ad hoc in September 2009 that WAPI is of vital interest to the JTC1 Ad Hoc It was agreed by the JTC1 ad hoc in Hawaii in Sept 09 that WAPI remains an important and constant issue for consideration This is the case for a variety of reasons, possibly including: WAPI appears to duplicate functionality of i The promoters of WAPI continue to assert that i is insecure It is unclear how or whether i and WAPI can coexist The issues related to WAPI are similar to those for the proposed 802.1X/AE and security replacements … Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

The formal WAPI NP proposal process started in October 2009 …
July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 The formal WAPI NP proposal process started in October 2009 … N14123 Text for NP ballot … for use with ISO/IEC Multiple NBs submitted comments 9-Oct-09 N14228 Summary of Voting on 6N14123, …for use with ISO/IEC IEEE 802 submitted comments (N14142) 1-Feb-10 Renumbered draft responding to UK NB comment 10 of 18 NB’s voted “yes” (10 required) & 5 NB’s stated they would participate (5 required) N14435 ISO/IEC WD Alternative security mechanism for use with ISO/IEC N14436 Disposition of Comments on the ISO/IEC NP 20011 6-Oct-10 6-Oct-10 IEEE 802 comments ignored in proposed disposition  Invited NBs to submit comments on proposed disposition (closing Jan 11) Andrew Myles, Cisco

… and the WAPI NP approval process was still continuing in Sept 2011
July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 … and the WAPI NP approval process was still continuing in Sept 2011 IEEE 802 submitted comments on proposed disposition (N14551) USNB submitted comments on proposed disposition (N14549) Inappropriately changed title so document is no longer a disposition of NP ballot comments  N14620 Disposition of Comments on 1st WD 20011 17-Mar-11 Dismisses all substantive USNB comments on basis the process is beyond the NP stage  US NB asserts NP process incomplete & summarizing situation (N14742, N14743) Responds to most comments with assertions & false statements rather than reasoned arguments  IEEE 802 submits document asserting security of i (N14778) Dismisses all (but one) substantive IEEE 802 comments on basis the process is beyond the NP stage  N14770 Revised disposition of Comments on 1st WD 20011 8-Jun-11 Andrew Myles, Cisco

July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 SC6 decided in June 2011 that the WAPI project was still at NP stage; and not WD stage Most discussion at the SC6 meeting in San Diego related to WAPI was focused on process Was the WAPI project at New Project or Working Draft stage? US NB asserted that the WAPI project was still at NP stage because the comments on the ballot had not been resolved and approved by SC6 China/Swiss NB asserted the WAPI project was at WD stage because the ballot passed and that SC6 had sent a working draft out for comment in Sept 10 It was ultimately determined the WAPI project is at NP stage Based on ruling by SC6 Chair that was confirmed by JTC1 Secretariat China NB indicated at the time that they would be appealing There has been no appeal so far The China NB have been participating in the comment resolution process since the San Diego meeting, although under informal protest Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 The WAPI NP comments must be resolved to progress the project to WD stage The ruling that WAPI is at NP stage means that the comments made during the NP ballot process (back in Jan 2010!) must be resolved and agreed by SC6 before the WAPI project formally progresses There have been a series of teleconferences starting on 10 August that have attempted to resolve the comments The next teleconference is scheduled for 21 Nov 2011 It appears the earliest the comments can approved by SC6 is at their F2F meeting in February 2012 In the meantime, it is likely the China NB and other interested NBs will continue to develop the WAPI Working Draft Although no evidence of that so far Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

The ISO Project portal lists an incorrect stage for the WAPI project
July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 The ISO Project portal lists an incorrect stage for the WAPI project It was noted during debate that the official ISO database has the WAPI project marked as WD stage Document title: Information technology -Telecommunications and information exchange between systems - Local and metropolitan area networks - Specific requirements- Part XX: Alternative security mechanism for use with ISO/IEC Registration date of project: 6 Oct 2010 Current stage of project: (Preparatory – Complet. of main action) Date of current stage: 5 Jan 2011 Limit date for next stage: 6 Apr 2012 The SC6 Chair stated that this entry in the ISO database is incorrect and he did not know how it happened; the project should be at NP stage At this time, the error has not been corrected, and it is unclear whether it will be corrected by the ISO Directorate Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

The timeframes relevant to the WAPI project are still unclear
July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 The timeframes relevant to the WAPI project are still unclear The SC6 Chair also noted that the WAPI project is at risk of being cancelled because it is supposed to meet certain deadlines It is not clear what those deadlines are from a reading of the JTC1 Directives, particularly given the disagreement about the current stage The ISO project portal currently lists a “Limit date for next stage” as 6 April 2012 At the time of SC6 meeting it was listed as 6 Oct 2011; it is unclear why it subsequently changed It is not definitively known how this date was determined It is 18 months after the “registration date” for the project, which happened to align with the date of the first proposed comment resolution (N14436) This gives 6 months to develop a Working Draft (in NP stage) ... and an additional 12 months to develop a Committee Draft (in WD stage) Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 The IEEE 802 delegation’s goal in the CRM is to get claims of “loop holes” repudiated & removed The WAPI NP ballot form asserts that i contains security loopholes It is a well known fact that current WLAN international standards contains serious security loopholes which need to be dealt with by enhanced security mechanisms Various documents from the China NB and the Swiss NB indicate these loopholes include WPA2 functionality Although lately they have been backtracking, which raises a more fundamental question of why we need WAPI if WPA2 does not represent a loophole It is the goal of the IEEE 802 delegation to have these claims repudiated in the DoC (Disposition of Comments) and removed from the resulting revised NP ballot form Note: it appears the US NB has additional goals related to other aspects of the WAPI NP ballot Related to the accuracy & completeness of regulatory & demand justifications Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 There have been attempts to make progress on WAPI NP at a series of CRM teleconferences In San Diego, the US NB proposed that progress could be made on resolving the WAPI NP comments by teleconference SC6 subsequently agreed to hold a weekly comment resolution meetings (CRMs) using Webex starting on 10 August (at 6pm PT on 9 August) Yes: US, UK, Japan No: Switzerland, China Abstain: others The CRMs were actually held less frequently Convenor: Mr Seung Ok Lim (Korea) – also new WG1 Chair 10 Aug, 31 Aug, 15 Sept held so far, 21 Nov scheduled (probably last!) US, UK, Switzerland, China, Korea and IEEE 802 have been represented After the first two teleconference made little progress, it was decided to use as well Hundreds of s resulted Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 The Chair would like to thanks various individuals for representing IEEE 802 at the CRMs 10 August 31 August 15 September Bruce Kraemer Dan Harkins Dorothy Stanley Jodi Haaz Brian Weis Bruce Kraemer Dan Harkins Dorothy Stanley Jodi Haaz Brian Weis Bruce Kraemer Dan Harkins Dorothy Stanley Jodi Haaz Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

The first CRM made little progress except to agree to a second CRM
July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 The first CRM made little progress except to agree to a second CRM There was very little progress at the first CRM See N14896 WAPI PE presented proposed DoC See N14770 It included claims that WPA2 is insecure US NB provided a position statement See N14880 The lack of evidence supporting the WAPI NP means a new Purpose & Justification clause is required No agreement was reached ... except to have a second CRM Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 The second CRM made some progress with the technical issues becoming clearer but not agreed The second CRM only made some progress See N14927 Dan Harkins (see ) explained how either: both WAPI and RSN provide “mutual authentication”; OR Neither WAPI nor RSN provide “mutual authentication”. This was a very revealing technical presentation for a number of NBs China NB stated it was “out of scope” and too technical The US NB proposed explicit comment resolutions and a revised NP ballot form See N14915, N14916 There was some discussion about actual demand for WAPI today but no agreed conclusion Ultimately the CRM decided to have a 3rd CRM and to start using between CRMs Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 The third CRM consisted mainly of position statements and no agreements China NB made a statement Continues to assert “11i loophole is factually existing” US NB made a statement Wants to move WAPI to WD stage with an appropriate compromise DoC IEEE 802 made a statement Bruce Kraemer explained IEEE 802 goals Dan Harkins explained how WAPI is really just a duplication of a subset of RSN functionality (see ) Switzerland NB made a statement Mostly aligned with China NB; he is a consultant to IWNCOMM UK NB made a statement Supports the US NB proposed comment resolution or cancellation Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

There will be one final (4th) CRM on 21 November ...
July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 There will be one final (4th) CRM on 21 November ... The CRM convenor stated that there will only be one more CRM It will be held on 21 November discussion is encouraged in the meantime The various parties are far apart ... Latest s are not very encouraging China NB & Swiss NB technical experts do not seem to understand the implementation of functional entities defined by i Swiss NB rep is continuing to asserting that all of i is insecure because it includes WEP and TKIP US NB, UK NB and IEEE 802 reps appear to be aligned SC6 Chair has stated, “Unless the allegations around 'serious security loopholes' in the NP are deleted and the NP form is revised, it's chair's position not to accept the DoC” Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 ... SC6 may be left with three options in Feb 2012 if consensus cannot be achieved on WAPI DoC ... unless there is a breakthrough it is likely the issue will be decided at the F2F meeting in February 2012 with uncertain results Without consensus, there are three main choices: The US NB DoC proposal is accepted WAPI will go ahead with all false claims about repudiated The Chinese/Swiss/PE DoC proposal is accepted WAPI will go ahead with all false claims about on the record No DoC proposal is accepted The WAPI project could be cancelled This choice would no doubt result in in an appeal It is not clear which option will be accepted The first and third are probably acceptable to IEEE WG Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

The Swiss NB has submitted a compromise solution for the CRM
The silence related to the CRM was recently broken The Swiss NB has submitted two documents It appears that most of the IEEE goals have been achieved The JTC1 ad hoc will spend some time reviewing these documents Andrew Myles, Cisco

IEEE 802 members are encouraged to get involved in their SC6 NBs
July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 IEEE 802 members are encouraged to get involved in their SC6 NBs IEEE 802 members are important stakeholders in the WLAN industry around the world You are encouraged to participate in the NB activities in whatever country your employer operates and ensure your view is reflected in the NB position Usually NB positions are set by a “mirror committee” of some sort In the US there is a Project 5 TAG that covers the MAC/PHY activities of JTC1/SC6/WG1 In the UK there is also a mirror committee – at least one IEEE member participates Is anyone eligible to join the Swiss NB mirror committee to ensure they have an accurate understanding of the situation? Does anyone plan to join any of the NB mirror committees mentioned on the next page? Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 IEEE 802 members are eligible to participate in the activities of many SC6 NBs SC6 P-Members Korea - KATS Spain – AENOR USA – ANSI UK – BSI Germany – DIN Greece – ELOT Russia - GOST R Luxemburg – ILNAS Tunisia – INNORPI Japan - JISC Kazakhstan – KAZMEMST Kenya – KEBS Belgium - NBN Netherlands – NEN China – SAC Canada – SCC Finland – SFS Switzerland – SNV Czech Republic - UNMZ Bold = it is known that voting members come from these countries Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

There has been no progress on other security related proposals in SC6
July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 There has been no progress on other security related proposals in SC6 China NB are apparently planning to propose two other security related proposals to SC6 An 802.1X/AE replacement An security replacement Both these proposals are based on TePA, the three part authentication protocol underlying WAPI There has been no known progress on these proposals It is expected they will be raised again at the next SC6 meeting in February 2012 Although the current generic agenda does not mention either topic Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

N-UHT was a “hot topic” at the SC6 meeting in San Diego
July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 N-UHT was a “hot topic” at the SC6 meeting in San Diego Rolf DeVegt presented a discussion of ac and N-UHT at the SC6 meeting in San Diego N IEEE ’s perspectives on document 6N14746 The China NB responded with a presentation at the end of the last day The presentation did not get an official document number, and the version sent to the IEEE 802 delegation was modified from that presented The Nufront rep wrote in an accompanying note I think both MSR and 11 are good at data access applications, but only optimized for different scenarios. So, we are also open to discuss and communicate. Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

N-UHT could be linked to the opening up of 5GHz spectrum in China
July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 N-UHT 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 However, there had been an effort within China led by Chinese SPs and supported by MIIT State Radio Regulatory Commission (SRRC) to open up 5GHz This effort had been going very well, until recently when it was asserted that the band may be opened up for N-UHT only The recently published 12th Five Year Plan for Wireless Radio Development provides support for an N-UHT only approach 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 Andrew Myles, Cisco

July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 The standardisation status of UHT & N-UHT within China is becoming clearer ... unfortunately! A meeting of CCSA before the SC6 meeting in San Diego considered the standardisation of N-UHT in China, and a vote indicated little support Nufront voted yes; a number of Chinese companies abstained; a number of Chinese and non Chinese companies voted no The Nufront rep informed the SC6 meeting in San Diego that N-UHT would use an “alternate” process within CCSA UHT (an 11n extension) also used this “alternate” process It appears “alternate” means a group of specially selected “experts” It now appears CCSA has approved both UHT & N-UHT and forwarded them to MIIT for final ratification CCSA ran a final 15 day comment period on N-UHT a few months ago Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

It now appears that UHT & N-UHT are in final review by MIIT!
July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 It now appears that UHT & N-UHT are in final review by MIIT! MIIT ran a 15 day comment period, closing on 4 Oct It is believed that various organisations made submissions, including: USITO European Union Chamber of Commerce in China Digital Europe Japanese trade asscoiation ... some companies Most of the submissions focus on procedural issues, some of the submissions also raise technical issues UHT/EUHT are incompatible with current WLAN products & EUHT EUHT systems require, interference free spectrum bands There is only one 80MHz channel available in China\ UHT & EUHT have significantly higher sensitivity to frequency error and phase noise compared to the 802. UHT & EUHT introduces new techniques that add significant complexity Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 MIIT has not yet provided a timeline for the next steps ... whatever they are It is reported that MIIT (S&T Dept) has stated that they are in the process of reviewing the relatively large amount of comment feedback received MIIT have not provided a timeline for any standard being released. … Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 It is not clear what will happen next ... but everyone needs to get involved! There is much speculation on what is going to happen next Will N-UHT will be made mandatory in China? Will 5GHz be opened to UHT/N-UHT only in China? Will N-UHT be sent to SC6 as an NP proposal? There is some evidence for a number of poor scenarios A common justifying statement from Chinese regulators is that n/ac are not international standards, hinting that issue could used to mandate N-UHT This is primarily not a technical issue and so it is hard for the IEEE 802 to get involved However, IEEE 802 could review the spec – does anyone have a translation? A number of industry and trade organisations are following this issue in China, US and Europe Please encourage your employer to get involved, particularly using people with standards policy and trade expertise Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 Approval of 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 is not “International” This 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 (who is a consultant to IWNCOMM) recently agreed that is “international” in practice One way of solving this issue is to submit IEEE to ISO/IEC as soon as possible Currently is scheduled for ratification in Mar 2012 Can we make it earlier so that it can be submitted to ISO/IEC under the PSDO before the next SC6 meeting in February 2012? Potentially, this could be used as evidence that WAPI is no longer needed Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 The SC6 meeting in San Diego discussed a proposal from UK NB to withdraw the ISO/IEC 8802 series At the SC6 meeting in San Diego the UK NB made a proposal to withdraw a number of standards including the 8802 series :1997 (based on 802.1H-1997) :1995 (based on 802.1D-1998) 8802-2:2001 (based on IEEE ) 8802-3:2000 (based on IEEE ) 8802-5:1998 (based on IEEE ) :2005 (based on IEEE g-2003, .11h-2004, .11i-2004) The proposal was based on the observation that the ISO versions of these standards are either obsolete or significantly out of date This is less true for the series The proposal also noted that IEEE WG has explicitly requested that :2000 be withdrawn After some discussion, it was agree to postpone any decisions on this proposal until Feb 2012 to give IEEE 802 an opportunity to consider associated issues Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 The proposals to withdraw the ISO/IEC 8802 series raised a variety of general issues for the IEEE Issues include (with conclusions from SFO in red): Is it important for an IEEE 802 standards to be recognized as “international” and thus protected by international trade treaties? Yes Does the WTO consider an IEEE 802 standard to be international? Don’t know Do all countries recognize the an IEEE 802 standard as international? No Is there any additional value in submitting IEEE 802 standards to ISO/IEC JTC1 for ratification? Yes, universal international recognition What is the value to IEEE 802 and ISO/IEC JTC1 NBs? Better relationship Do we expect any technical value? Limited, based on history, but some possible Are the answers different for each 802 WG? Probably not How should IEEE 802 submit standards for ratification? Using the PSDO? Yes, because it is an agreed method between IEEE & ISO Using the traditional fast track method? No, don’t want comments at that point … Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 The proposals to withdraw the ISO/IEC 8802 series raises a variety of specific questions for the IEEE Specific questions include (with conclusions from SFO in red): Should the IEEE WG execute its plan to send to ISO/IEC JTC1 for ratification? Yes Should the IEEE WG send to ISO/IEC JTC1 in the meantime to bring the ISO/IEC series “up to date”? No, because the approval process would overlap with approval process Should the IEEE and WGs send their latest standards to ISO/IEC JTC1? Yes, to ensure universal international recognition Should the other IEEE 802 WG’s consider sending standards to ISO/IEC? Maybe, depending on particular circumstances Note: is working with ITU-T instead Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 The Chair of the IEEE International ad hoc provided a “discussion starter” in San Francisco Phil Wennblom (Intel) is the Chair of the IEEE International ad hoc This committee has been considering similar issues Phil provided a presentation that: Described the importance of international standards Provided an overview of the PSDO Summarized the IEEE experience with the PSDO Afterwards the IEEE 802 JTC1 ad hoc has a discussion with participation by representatives from: 802.1 WG 802.3 WG WG WG Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 The discussion in San Francisco decided to send 802 standards to ISO/IEC under certain conditions Summary from San Francisco 802 plenary meeting There was consensus that it was important for 802 standards to have “International” status There was an understanding that 802 standards are not considered to be “International” by many countries On that basis, 802 WGs should probably consider on what basis and under what conditions they might send 802 standards to ISO/IEC for “registration” 802.1 reps expressed concern about method 1 & 3 in the PSDO agreement; they would like ISO/IEC to agree to not modify the 802 standards except through 802 processes ... Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 The discussion in San Francisco decided to send 802 standards to ISO under certain conditions Summary from San Francisco 802 plenary meeting ... It was thought possible that such an agreement could be negotiated between SC6 and 802 There was also discussion about how to avoid SC6 duplicating 802 functionality It was agreed that this was a more difficult issue because NBs always have the right to make standards One idea was that discussed was that SC6 standards should avoid adding functionality to 802 standards without agreement from IEEE 802 WAPI would come under this rule Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 The Chair of subsequently reported the discussion to the WG plenary 802.3 Chair reports … I just wanted to record what I reported at the closing IEEE 802 EC in July in respect to IEEE 802.3's thoughts on ISO/IEC SC6 submittals The summary I reported was: Proposal to restart submission of IEEE to SC6 Circulate sponsor ballot drafts to SC6 Submit approved IEEE standards to SC6 SC6 will make no changes to published IEEE Std 802.3; will be balloted at FDIS level The proposal to restart submission of IEEE to SC6 would only apply to revisions of IEEE (amendments would not be submitted) ... … and the process followed would be to circulate sponsor ballot drafts of IEEE revisions to SC6, and then submit the final ratified IEEE revision for adoption by SC6 This will only be done if there are assurances that the vote to adopt IEEE is an up/down vote, and that modification can not be made. I have received verbal confirmation that this is the case as the adoption would be a Final Draft International Standard (FDIS) Ballot (comments may be submitted on an FDIS ballot, but the document will not be updated based on those comments), but this needs to be confirmed before we move forward. Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 The IEEE 802 JTC1 ad hoc will put together a liaison for consideration in Atlanta in November Rough outline based on input from San Francisco Request SC6 not to withdraw 8802 series In particular /2/3/5/11 Could stabilize in interim ... but probably not worthwhile Inform SC6 that IEEE 802 WGs intend to liaise Sponsor Ballot drafts to SC6 for comment Similar to what WG already does Idea is to give NBs an opportunity to comment early Would all 802 WG’s want to liaise all amendment or only rollup drafts Inform SC6 that IEEE 802 intend to send rollups to ISO/IEC for ratification In particular 802.1/3/11 Using PSDO process with up/down votes – no actionable comments Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 The IEEE 802 JTC1 ad hoc will put together a liaison for consideration in Atlanta in November Rough outline based on input from San Francisco Request SC6 agreement that they will not modify or amend or extend 8802 standards in any way without agreement from IEEE 802 As required by WG As suggested by WG reps This would have affected WAPI in the past, but probably not now Request that SC6 agreement that they “will not generate any new projects which fall in direct conflict or duplication with the existing IEEE 802 projects” without agreement from IEEE 802 As suggested by an SC6 NB This might affect 802.1X/AE, security and ac replacements Withdraw all relevant existing standards and TRs once up to date IEEE 802 standards are in place in ISO/IEC Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

The potential liaison is somewhat problematic
July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 The potential liaison is somewhat problematic The liaison is somewhat problematic because we are suggesting clarifications to the PSDO agreement on multiple levels The PSDO agreement was made at ISO/IEC level The PSDO agreement involves votes at JTC1 level The agreement to change the way it works is with SC6 The IEEE International ad hoc and IEEE staff have been asked for advice ... Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

The UK NB made some comments related to ISO/IEC 8802-3:2000 - Specific LANS – CSMA/CD
UK NB notes on ISO/IEC :2000 The corresponding IEEE 802.3–1996 standard has been superseded by IEEE 802.3–2008 and the IEEE WG has indicated, in their liaison statement to SC 6, that the 1996 standard is now obsolete. The UK proposes that the ISO/IEC standard should be withdrawn as its retention is not within the spirit of the PDSO agreement with IEEE. Andrew Myles, Cisco

There appear to be good reasons to eventually replace ISO/IEC 8802-3:2000
Previously the IEEE WG had requested that ISO/IEC :2000 be withdrawn It is now agreed that it is important to have an ISO/IEC version of IEEE revisions, as discussed in July However, it has also been agreed that IEEE revisions should only be submitted to ISO/IEC for ratification subject to certain conditions: IEEE WG will submit sponsor ballot drafts of IEEE revisions to SC6 for information IEEE WG will submit ratified IEEE revisions to JTC1 for approval by an up/down vote under the PSDO agreement All maintenance, amendments and extensions of IEEE will only occur within the IEEE WG Any proposals in ISO/IEC to substantially duplicate the functionality of existing or developing IEEE standards will be referred to the IEEE WG It is suggested that ISO/IEC :2000 be left in its current state while an agreement is negotiated, thus avoiding “make work” Andrew Myles, Cisco

It is proposed that ISO/IEC :2000 is left in its current state until it is replaced by the latest version Recommendation The JTC1 ad hoc recommends that ISO/IEC :2000 is left in its current ISO/IEC approval state while agreement is concluded between IEEE and ISO/IEC that addresses the process and conditions of submitting IEEE revisions to ISO/IEC for ratification Moved Seconded Result Andrew Myles, Cisco

The UK NB made some comments related to ISO/IEC TR 8802-1:2001 - SPECIFIC LANS Overview
UK NB notes on ISO/IEC TR :2001 TR was published in 2001 as an ISO-only publication. Subsequently, a PDTR for a revised edition of TR was approved by the SC 6 meeting in Xian, April 2007. This was to include the proposals in the ISO/IEC cooperative agreement with IEEE 802 but not the overview of the 8802 standards as they were subject to continuous improvement. The ISO Council has recently approved a revised Partner Standards Development Organization (PSDO) cooperation agreement with IEEE. This agreement does not include any specific reference to ISO/IEC 8802 standards and the UK considers that these is no need to include this material as a Part 1 of the ISO/IEC 8802 series of standards. The UK, therefore, proposes that the project ( ) for the revision of TR should be deleted from the ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6 programme of work. In addition the UK proposes that the existing TR :2001 should be withdrawn as the overview of the 8802 standards is seriously out of date. Andrew Myles, Cisco

Eventual withdrawal of ISO/IEC TR 8802-1:2001 is justified once all its functions are replaced
Reasons to withdraw ISO/IEC TR :2001 Document is seriously out of date Processes described has been superseded by the PSDO Reasons to delay withdrawal of ISO/IEC TR :2001 According to Glen Parsons (IEEE RAC) this document serves the purpose of defining MAC address in ISO/IEC, which is required for the MAC registry agreement with ISO/IEC; ISO/IEC can serve the same purpose, as could a new revision of IEEE 802 O&A (and what else?) Reasons to cancel ISO/IEC TR :2001 revision project No activity for a number of years Document has been superseded by the PSDO All technical content was removed from draft (eg MAC addressing definition) and if approved would delete the current value of Andrew Myles, Cisco

It is proposed that ISO/IEC TR 8802-1:2001 is left in its current state
Recommendation The JTC1 ad hoc recommends that ISO/IEC TR :2001 is left in its current approval state by ISO/IEC in the expectation that its function will be replaced by ISO/IEC ratified versions of various IEEE 802 standards in the near future It is recommended that any submission of any necessary IEEE 802 standards are subject to the same agreement that will govern the submission of IEEE revisions to ISO/IEC for ratification The JTC1 ad hoc recommends that the ISO/IEC TR :2001 revision project ( ) is cancelled Moved Seconded Result Andrew Myles, Cisco

The UK NB made some comments related to ISO/IEC 8802-2:1998 - Specific LANS - Logical Link Control
ISO/IEC :1998 is currently “stabilized” It appears to have a corrigendum; ISO/IEC :1998/Cor 1:2000 Is it stablized UK NB notes on ISO/IEC :1998 The corresponding IEEE 802.2–1998 standard was withdrawn by IEEE in 2010 The UK proposes that the ISO/IEC standard should be withdrawn as its retention is not within the spirit of the PDSO agreement with IEEE Andrew Myles, Cisco

It is proposed that ISO/IEC 8802-2:1998 remain in its stabilized state
It has been suggested that ISO/IEC :1998 should remain “stabilized” in ISO/IEC even though it has been “withdrawn” by the IEEE From JTC1 document, “A stabilized standard has on-going validity and effectiveness; is mature; and insofar as can be determined will not require further maintenance of any sort. While a standard is in stabilized status it will no longer be subject to systematic maintenance but will be retained to provide for the continued viability of existing products or servicing of equipment that is expected to have a long working life.” From IEEE, “Withdrawn: Standards that are no longer maintained and may contain significant obsolete or erroneous information. (See 9.4).” From IEEE, “Stabilized: Approved standards that : a) Are not health or safety standards b) Address mature technologies or practices c) Are required for use in connection with existing implementations or for reference purposes d) Contain no identified significant erroneous information e) Are not likely to require revisions. (See 9.3). “ Will no longer exist as state after 1 Jan 2012 Andrew Myles, Cisco

Not withdrawing ISO/IEC 8802-2:1998 allows it to continue to exist with maintenance work
Geoff Thomson explains the reasons for stabilizing ISO/IEC :1998 The reason for stabilizing LLC/dash/dot 2 rather than withdrawing it is because it is still an active reference document for 802.3, and I believe somewhere in The reason for picking the ISO/IEC version to keep and letting the IEEE version go is that: In IEEE, stabilization was not a zero maintenance state. There was a requirement to run a reaffirmation every 10 years. In addition, as of Jan 1, 2012 stabilization will no longer exist in the IEEE-SA. The new requirements will require that a full revision activity be run AND completed within 10 years. In ISO/IEC, stabilization takes the current standard, leaves in an active but not maintained state indefinitely. That is exactly what we want for LLC. What we need to do to get to the desired state is: Get the JTC1 version of LLC (ISO/IEC ) into the stabilized state Migrate all of the 802 references to LLC from IEEE to ISO/IEC Andrew Myles, Cisco

It is proposed that ISO/IEC 8802-2:1998 remains in the stabilized state in ISO/IEC
Recommendation The JTC1 ad hoc recommends that ISO/IEC :1998 remains in the stabilized state in ISO/IEC and that relevant IEEE standards are revised to reference the ISO/IEC version The JTC1 ad hoc also recommends any associated corrigendum are stabilized Moved Seconded Result Andrew Myles, Cisco

The UK NB made some comments related to ISO/IEC 8802-5:1998 - Specific LANS – Token Ring
ISO/IEC :1998 is currently “stabilized” What about the amendments? UK notes on ISO/IEC :1998 The corresponding IEEE 802.5–1998 standard has been withdrawn by IEEE The UK proposes that the ISO/IEC standard, together with its Amendment 1, should be withdrawn as their retention is not within the spirit of the PDSO agreement with IEEE Andrew Myles, Cisco

It is proposed that ISO/IEC 8802-5:1998 and its amendments are stabilized
It is not known if there are any remaining references to IEEE 802.5; however, stabilization in ISO/IEC is a low cost mechanism to enable any necessary references Regardless, it may make sense to maintain ISO/IEC :1998 and its amendments as stabilized ISO/IEC standards given token ring equipment still exists Andrew Myles, Cisco

It is proposed that ISO/IEC 8802-5:1998 and its amendments remain in a stabilized state
Recommendation The JTC1 ad hoc recommends that ISO/IEC :1998 and it amendments remain in a stabilized state in ISO/IEC Moved Seconded Result Andrew Myles, Cisco

The UK NB made some comments related to ISO/IEC 8802-11:2005 - Specific LANS – Wireless PHY/MAC
UK NB notes on ISO/IEC :2005 The corresponding IEEE –1997 standard is now obsolete and has been replaced by IEEE The UK proposes that the ISO/IEC standard, together with its Amendments 4, 5 and 6, should be withdrawn as their retention is not within the spirit of the PDSO agreement with IEEE Andrew Myles, Cisco

It is proposed that ISO/IEC :2005 is left in it current state until it is replaced by the latest version Previously, the IEEE WG had informed SC6 that it intends to submit IEEE for ratification under the PSDO This is likely to occur in early 2012 The IEEE WG is likely to submit IEEE for ratification regardless of any additional agreements between ISO/IEC and IEEE However, the IEEE WG supports and would want to be subject to the type of agreement envisaged by IEEE WG It does not seem worthwhile to go through the process of changing the status of ISO/IEC :2005 and it amendments given it is likely to be replaced very soon anyway Andrew Myles, Cisco

It is proposed that ISO/IEC :2000 be left in it current state until it is replaced by the latest version Recommendation The JTC1 ad hoc recommends that ISO/IEC :2005 and it amendments are left in their current state by ISO/IEC in the expectation that they will be replaced by IEEE sometime in 2012. The JTC1 ad hoc also recommends that the process and conditions being proposed for IEEE submissions to ISO/IEC also apply to IEEE submissions Moved Seconded Result Andrew Myles, Cisco

The UK NB made some comments related to ISO/IEC TR 11802-1:2005
UK NB notes on ISO/IEC TR :2005 This is an ISO-only Technical Report. It is based on, and references ISO/IEC :2001 which is proposed for withdrawal The UK proposes that this TR should be withdrawn at same time as the ISO/IEC 8802 standards. The ISO/IEC product store (CHF 50) describes ISO/IEC TR :2005 as providing: a description of the ISO/IEC LLC addressing conventions, and the consideration for the manner in which new LLC address uses are assigned a value. Andrew Myles, Cisco

It is proposed that ISO/IEC TR :2005 is left in its current state until its function is replaced It is likely the IEEE RAC will want to maintain ISO/IEC TR :2005 in its current (or a stabilized state) until another mechanism is found to define MAC addresses in the context of the MAC address registry agreement with ISO/IEC Other mechanisms could include a fast tracked revision of IEEE 802 with its amendments IEEE IEEE 802a™-2003 IEEE 802b™-2004 Is IEEE 802 sufficient? The RAC will be meeting on Thursday evening to discuss ... Andrew Myles, Cisco

Recommendation The JTC1 ad hoc recommends that ISO/IEC TR :2005 is left in its current state by ISO/IEC in the expectation that its function will be replaced by ISO/IEC ratified versions of various IEEE 802 standards in the near future It is recommended that any submission of any necessary IEEE 802 standards are subject to the same agreement that will govern the submission of IEEE revisions to ISO/IEC for ratification Moved Seconded Result Andrew Myles, Cisco

UK NB notes on ISO/IEC TR : LAN Guidelines - Standard Group MAC Addresses This is an ISO-only Technical Report. It is based on, and references ISO/IEC :2008 which is proposed for withdrawal. The UK proposes that this TR should be withdrawn at same time as the ISO/IEC 8802 standards. Andrew Myles, Cisco

Recommendation The JTC1 ad hoc recommends that ISO/IEC TR :2005 is left in its current state by ISO/IEC in the expectation that its function will be replaced by ISO/IEC ratified versions of appropriate IEEE 802 standards in the near future It is recommended that any submission of necessary IEEE 802 standards are subject to the same agreement that will govern the submission of IEEE revisions to ISO/IEC for ratification Moved Seconded Result Andrew Myles, Cisco

UK NB notes on ISO/IEC TR : LAN Guidelines - MAC Bridging The corresponding IEEE 802.1H–1997 standard was withdrawn in 2010. The UK proposes that ISO/IEC TR :2005 should be withdrawn as its retention is not within the spirit of the PDSO agreement with IEEE. Andrew Myles, Cisco

It is proposed that ISO/IEC TR 11802-5:2005 is left in its current state before eventual replacement
There does not seem to be a 2005 version in ISO store, just ISO/IEC TR :1997 Andrew Myles, Cisco

Recommendation The JTC1 ad hoc recommends that ISO/IEC TR :2005 (or 1997) is left in its current state by ISO/IEC in the expectation that its function will be replaced by ISO/IEC ratified versions of various IEEE 802 standards in the near future It is recommended that any submission of necessary IEEE 802 standards are subject to the same agreement that will govern the submission of IEEE revisions to ISO/IEC for ratification Moved Seconded Result Andrew Myles, Cisco

The UK NB made some comments related to ISO/IEC 15802-1:1995
UK NB notes on ISO/IEC : Common LANS - MAC Service Glen Parsons is verifying that it is being replaced by 802.1AC He said it is so! The ISO/IEC product store (CHF 92) describes ISO/IEC :1995 as providing: Forms one of a set of International Standards produced to facilitate the interconnection of information processing systems. It is related to other International Standards in the set as defined by ISO/IEC The reference model described by ISO/IEC subdivides the area of standardization for Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) into a series of layers and allows for each layer to be further divided into sublayers. Andrew Myles, Cisco

It is proposed that ISO/IEC 15802-1:1995 is left in its current state
Recommendation The JTC1 ad hoc recommends that ISO/IEC :1995 is left in its current state by ISO/IEC in the expectation that its function will be replaced by ISO/IEC ratified versions of various IEEE 802 standards in the near future It is recommended that any submission of necessary IEEE 802 standards are subject to the same agreement that will govern the submission of IEEE revisions to ISO/IEC for ratification Moved Seconded Result Andrew Myles, Cisco

The UK NB made some comments related to ISO/IEC 15802-3:1998
UK NB notes on ISO/IEC : Common LANS - MAC Bridges The corresponding IEEE 802.1–1998 standard has been superseded by IEEE 802-1D–2004. The UK proposes that ISO/IEC TR :1998 should be withdrawn as its retention is not within the spirit of the PDSO agreement with IEEE. Andrew Myles, Cisco

It is proposed that ISO/IEC 15802-3:1998 is left in its current state before eventual replacement
Recommendation The JTC1 ad hoc recommends that ISO/IEC :1998 is left in its current state by ISO/IEC in the expectation that its function will be replaced by ISO/IEC ratified versions of various IEEE 802 standards in the near future It is recommended that any submission of necessary IEEE 802 standards are subject to the same agreement that will govern the submission of IEEE revisions to ISO/IEC for ratification Moved Seconded Result Andrew Myles, Cisco

The JTC1 ad hoc will edit a letter to ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 ... para 1
Proposed content IEEE 802 thanks ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 for the opportunity to comment on the proposal by the UK NB (in 6N14713) to change the status in ISO/IEC of various standards and technical reports. IEEE 802 agrees with the UK NB that many of the standards and technical reports highlighted in 6N14713 are in urgent need of withdrawal, maintenance or replacement. This state has been reached because of a lack of effective liaison between IEEE 802 and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 over the last ten years, and does not reflect well on either organization. Andrew Myles, Cisco

Proposed content IEEE 802 recommends that the two organisations work to improve their liaison relationship, using the recent PSDO agreement between ISO and IEEE as the basis of a renewed relationship. In particular, the IEEE 802 propose to submit revision editions of selected IEEE 802 standards to ISO/IEC JTC1 for international standardisation using the process defined by the PSDO. Andrew Myles, Cisco

Proposed content IEEE 802 values the review of proposed standards by ISO/IEC NBs. However, the PSDO agreement only provides for up/down voting by ISO/IEC NBs with no comments. We propose to remedy the lack of a commenting process in the PSDO by requesting review and commentary from ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 NBs during the IEEE Sponsor Ballot phase, using the process already put in place for the review of IEEE standards by SC6 NBs. This will allow interested SC6 NBs an opportunity to comment and suggest changes to the proposed IEEE 802 standards before they are submitted to ISO/IEC for final ratification. Andrew Myles, Cisco

Proposed content IEEE 802 is proposing to submit its standards to ISO/IEC for ratification because it values the status and reputation of ISO/IEC as a pre-eminent international SDO. However, we are concerned by a number of situations in the past whereby attempts have been made by ISO/IEC SC’s to maintain, extend or duplicate IEEE 802 standards without our agreement. Such activities are contrary to “best practice” for standards development, and are also contrary to the documented principles of ISO/IEC and the WTO. Andrew Myles, Cisco

Proposed content IEEE 802 requests an agreement from ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 that it will not maintain, extend or duplicate the functionality of any IEEE 802 standards that are ratified as international standards by ISO/IEC. We plan to submit IEEE for ratification under the PSDO in early 2012, consistent with our previous liaisons to SC6 . However, we will not submit any revisions of any additional IEEE 802 standards for ratification until such an agreement is concluded . Once a formal agreement is concluded, we plan to submit the latest revision editions of IEEE 802, IEEE and IEEE to ISO/IEC JTC1 for consideration under the PSDO. Andrew Myles, Cisco

Proposed content 6N14713 proposes the withdrawal of a variety of documents. IEEE 802 understands the reasons for this proposal. However, given IEEE 802’s proposed plan to submit the latest IEEE 802 standards for ratification by ISO/IEC, we suggest that most of the existing standards and technical reports identified in 6N14713 not be formally withdrawn until the new standards are in place and ratified. This approach minimises any difficulties for those countries and organisations that prefer to reference an ISO/IEC document over an IEEE document. It also avoids any difficulties related to the MAC address registry agreements between IEEE and ISO and IEC. Andrew Myles, Cisco

Proposed content 6N14713 suggests that ISO/IEC and ISO/IEC , and their amendments, are withdrawn on the basis that the IEEE has withdrawn the IEEE 802 equivalents. We note that the IEEE 802 agreed to their withdrawal in IEEE partially based on the knowledge that these standards would continue to have a formal “stabilized” status in ISO/IEC, which would allow them to referenced by the IEEE, ISO/IEC and other organisations when necessary. We note that the ISO/IEC “stabilized” status is better than the IEEE “stabilized” status because it does not require on going maintenance. IEEE 802 requests that ISO/IEC and ISO/IEC , and their amendments, are maintained by ISO/IEC in “stablized” state. IEEE 802 will ensure all references to IEEE and IEEE are changed to reference the ISO/IEC versions. Andrew Myles, Cisco

The JTC1 ad hoc may consider approving the liaison letter to JTC1/SC6
This is the letter relating to the proposal to withdraw a number of 8802 associated documents The letter is still in preparation – and will go directly to EC after completion Andrew Myles, Cisco

The JTC1 ad hoc will review the US NB proposal for WAPI comment resolution
The US NB submitted their proposal for WAPI comment resolution It was similar to previous submissions No additional submissions from other NBs have yet been received A submission is expected from the China NB Andrew Myles, Cisco

July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 The JTC1 ad hoc will consider a motion related to the IEEE 802 delegation to SC6 Motion The JTC1 ad hoc recommends that Bruce Kraemer be appointed as HoD to the SC6 meeting in Feb 2012 and the WAPI CRMs and be authorised to: Appoint the IEEE 802 delegation Approve any necessary submissions Call any necessary preparation teleconferences Moved Seconded Result Action: Arrange date for teleconference Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

Are there any other matters?
July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 Are there any other matters? Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

The IEEE 802 JTC ad hoc will adjourn for the week
July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 The IEEE 802 JTC ad hoc will adjourn for the week Motion: The IEEE 802 JTC1 ad hoc, having completed its business in Altanta in November 2011, adjourns Moved: Seconded: Result Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

JTC1 Ad Hoc November 2011 agenda

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "JTC1 Ad Hoc November 2011 agenda"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

JTC1 Ad Hoc November 2011 agenda

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "JTC1 Ad Hoc November 2011 agenda"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback