doc.: IEEE /0321r3 Submission March 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 1 VHT SG March 2008 Report Date: Authors:

doc.: IEEE /0321r3 Submission March 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 2 Patent Policy Following 5 slides

doc.: IEEE /0321r3 Submission March 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 3 Highlights of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards –Participants have a duty to tell the IEEE if they know (based on personal awareness) of potentially Essential Patent Claims they or their employer own –Participants are encouraged to tell the IEEE if they know of potentially Essential Patent Claims owned by others This encouragement is particularly strong as the third party may not be a participant in the standards process –Working Group required to request assurance –Early assurance is encouraged –Terms of assurance shall be either: Reasonable and nondiscriminatory, with or without monetary compensation; or, A statement of non-assertion of patent rights –Assurances Shall be provided on the IEEE-SA Standards Board approved LOA form May optionally include not-to-exceed rates, terms, and conditions Shall not be circumvented through sale or transfer of patents Shall be brought to the attention of any future assignees or transferees Shall apply to Affiliates unless explicitly excluded Are irrevocable once submitted and accepted Shall be supplemented if Submitter becomes aware of other potential Essential Patent Claims –A “Blanket Letter of Assurance” may be provided at the option of the patent holder –A patent holder has no duty to perform a patent search –Full policy available at 1

doc.: IEEE /0321r3 Submission March 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide Policy IEEE standards may be drafted in terms that include the use of Essential Patent Claims. If the IEEE receives notice that a [Proposed] IEEE Standard may require the use of a potential Essential Patent Claim, the IEEE shall request licensing assurance, on the IEEE Standards Board approved Letter of Assurance form, from the patent holder or patent applicant. The IEEE shall request this assurance without coercion. The Submitter of the Letter of Assurance may, after Reasonable and Good Faith Inquiry, indicate it is not aware of any Patent Claims that the Submitter may own, control, or have the ability to license that might be or become Essential Patent Claims. If the patent holder or patent applicant provides an assurance, it should do so as soon as reasonably feasible in the standards development process. This assurance shall be provided prior to the Standards Board’s approval of the standard. This assurance shall be provided prior to a reaffirmation if the IEEE receives notice of a potential Essential Patent Claim after the standard’s approval or a prior reaffirmation. An asserted potential Essential Patent Claim for which an assurance cannot be obtained (e.g., a Letter of Assurance is not provided or the Letter of Assurance indicates that assurance is not being provided) shall be referred to the Patent Committee. A Letter of Assurance shall be either: a) A general disclaimer to the effect that the Submitter without conditions will not enforce any present or future Essential Patent Claims against any person or entity making, using, selling, offering to sell, importing, distributing, or implementing a compliant implementation of the standard; or b) A statement that a license for a compliant implementation of the standard will be made available to an unrestricted number of applicants on a worldwide basis without compensation or under reasonable rates, with reasonable terms and conditions that are demonstrably free of any unfair discrimination. At its sole option, the Submitter may provide with its assurance any of the following: (i) a not-to-exceed license fee or rate commitment, (ii) a sample license agreement, or (iii) one or more material licensing terms. IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards 2

doc.: IEEE /0321r3 Submission March 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 5 Copies of an Accepted LOA may be provided to the working group, but shall not be discussed, at any standards working group meeting. The Submitter and all Affiliates (other than those Affiliates excluded in a Letter of Assurance) shall not assign or otherwise transfer any rights in any Essential Patent Claims that are the subject of such Letter of Assurance that they hold, control, or have the ability to license with the intent of circumventing or negating any of the representations and commitments made in such Letter of Assurance. The Submitter of a Letter of Assurance shall agree (a) to provide notice of a Letter of Assurance either through a Statement of Encumbrance or by binding any assignee or transferee to the terms of such Letter of Assurance; and (b) to require its assignee or transferee to (i) agree to similarly provide such notice and (ii) to bind its assignees or transferees to agree to provide such notice as described in (a) and (b). This assurance shall apply to the Submitter and its Affiliates except those Affiliates the Submitter specifically excludes on the relevant Letter of Assurance. If, after providing a Letter of Assurance to the IEEE, the Submitter becomes aware of additional Patent Claim(s) not already covered by an existing Letter of Assurance that are owned, controlled, or licensable by the Submitter that may be or become Essential Patent Claim(s) for the same IEEE Standard but are not the subject of an existing Letter of Assurance, then such Submitter shall submit a Letter of Assurance stating its position regarding enforcement or licensing of such Patent Claims. For the purposes of this commitment, the Submitter is deemed to be aware if any of the following individuals who are from, employed by, or otherwise represent the Submitter have personal knowledge of additional potential Essential Patent Claims, owned or controlled by the Submitter, related to a [Proposed] IEEE Standard and not already the subject of a previously submitted Letter of Assurance: (a) past or present participants in the development of the [Proposed] IEEE Standard, or (b) the individual executing the previously submitted Letter of Assurance. IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards 3

doc.: IEEE /0321r3 Submission March 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 6 The assurance is irrevocable once submitted and accepted and shall apply, at a minimum, from the date of the standard's approval to the date of the standard's withdrawal. The IEEE is not responsible for identifying Essential Patent Claims for which a license may be required, for conducting inquiries into the legal validity or scope of those Patent Claims, or for determining whether any licensing terms or conditions are reasonable or non-discriminatory. Nothing in this policy shall be interpreted as giving rise to a duty to conduct a patent search. No license is implied by the submission of a Letter of Assurance. In order for IEEE’s patent policy to function efficiently, individuals participating in the standards development process: (a) shall inform the IEEE (or cause the IEEE to be informed) of the holder of any potential Essential Patent Claims of which they are personally aware and that are not already the subject of an existing Letter of Assurance, owned or controlled by the participant or the entity the participant is from, employed by, or otherwise represents; and (b) should inform the IEEE (or cause the IEEE to be informed) of any other holders of such potential Essential Patent Claims that are not already the subject of an existing Letter of Assurance. IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards 4

doc.: IEEE /0321r3 Submission March 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 7 Other Guidelines for IEEE WG Meetings All IEEE-SA standards meetings shall be conducted in compliance with all applicable laws, including antitrust and competition laws. Don ’ t discuss the interpretation, validity, or essentiality of patents/patent claims. Don ’ t discuss specific license rates, terms, or conditions. –Relative costs, including licensing costs of essential patent claims, of different technical approaches may be discussed in standards development meetings. Technical considerations remain primary focus Don ’ t discuss fixing product prices, allocation of customers, or dividing sales markets. Don ’ t discuss the status or substance of ongoing or threatened litigation. Don ’ t be silent if inappropriate topics are discussed … do formally object If you have questions, contact the IEEE-SA Standards Board Patent Committee Administrator at or visit 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. This slide set is available at 5

doc.: IEEE /0321r3 Submission March 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 8 Further Information IEEE Code of Ethics – IEEE-SA Affiliation FAQ – IEEE-SA Antitrust & Competition Policy – IEEE-SA LETTER OF ASSURANCE (LOA) FORM – IEEE-SA STANDARDS BOARD PATENT COMMITTEE (PATCOM) INFORMATION – IEEE-SA PATENT FAQ – IEEE 802 LAN / MAN STANDARDS COMMITTEE (LMSC) POLICIES & PROCEDURES – IEEE WLANS WORKING GROUP POLICIES & PROCEDURES –

doc.: IEEE /0321r3 Submission March 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 9 Essential Patents Are there any patent claim(s)/patent application claim(s) and/or the holder of patent claim(s)/patent application claim(s) that the participant believes may be essential for the use of this standard?

doc.: IEEE /0321r3 Submission March 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 10 Review from January Presentations –Wi-Fi Alliance (WFA) VHT Study Group Usage Models, 11-07/2988r0, presented by Rolf De Vegt –Legacy Coexistence – A Better Way?, 1107/3001r1, presented by Brian Hart –Mobile cooperation usage models, 11-08/0081r2, presented by Marc De Courville –VHT PAR Direction, 11-08/0130r0, presented by Gal Basson –IMT.Advanced aligned scope proposal, 11-08/0121, presented by Marc De Courville Decisions by SG, setting direction for PAR development –Should the study group develop two PAR &5C’s one for <6GHz band and one for 57-62GHz band? Y/N/A: 29/4/19 –Should the study group specify limited usage models in a <6 GHz PAR and a 60 GHz PAR? Y/N/A: 39/1/19 Goals for March –Presentations WFA update on usage models Analytical framework (Darwin Engwer) John Barr –Continue work on: PAR & 5 C’s for <6GHz band PAR & 5 C’s for 60 GHz band –Create rationale for SG extension for EC

doc.: IEEE /0321r3 Submission March 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 11 Review from Conference Calls Conference call on January 31 –Presentation of 08/0233r0 & 08/0224r0, PAR and 5C’s proposal for 60GHz –Summary of comments: How does the PAR & 5C’s differ from 15.3c? What does dot11 hope to accomplish differently? Amendment vs. new standard No mention of range –We should specify range in PAR –Not clear that we are improving user experience with regards to range Could PHY be the same as c? Improve distinct identity by separately discussing MAC and PHY –Channel modeling for 60GHz Vinko volunteered to look at applicability of c models Conference call on February 7 –Presentation of 08/0219r1, PAR and 5C’s proposal for <6GHz –Summary of comments: Many “the MAC SAPs” in a BSS, where do you measure? Is the proposal to have 20, 40, 80 MHz channels in 5 GHz band only? Premature to put ITU in purpose What do we mean by backward compatibility? Would like coexistence which feels is stronger VHT greenfield in 5GHz?

doc.: IEEE /0321r3 Submission March 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 12 Tentative Agenda for the Week Monday March 17 th, 8:00 – 9:30 –Patent policy, etc. –Review from January –Set agenda –Discussion of timeline –Call for submissions –Presentations vht vht-coexistence- mechanisms-at-5-ghz.ppt Tuesday March 18 th, 16:00 – 18:00 –Reaffirm agenda –Presentations WFA; 45min –< 6GHz PAR’s & 5C’s ; 1:15 Brian - fairness Wednesday March 19 th, 8:00 – 10:00 –Reaffirm agenda –Presentations Presention from John Barr/802.15; 15min –60GHz PAR’s & 5C’s – 1:15 –9:30am Rationale for SG extension for EC Motion for extension Review time line Goals for March Conference calls

doc.: IEEE /0321r3 Submission March 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 13 Time Line May 2007 (Interim) –Initial meeting July 2007 (Plenary) –Presentations –WG approval of SG extension to Nov Sept 2007 (Interim) –Presentations Nov 2007 (Plenary) –Presentations –SG motion for extension to March Jan 2008 (Interim) –Presentations –Initial version of PAR & 5 C’s Mar 2008 (Plenary) –Presentations –Work on PAR & 5 C’s –SG/WG/EC motion for extension to July May 2008 (Interim) –final version of PAR & 5 C’s –WG approval June 2008 –EC submission by June 17 July 2008 (Plenary) –EC approval on July 18 –SG/WG/EC motion for extension to Sept –VHT TG unofficially begins Aug 2008 –NesCom submission by Aug 8 Sept 2008 (Interim) –NesCom meeting on Sept 17 Nov 2008 (Plenary) –Task Group officially starts

doc.: IEEE /0321r3 Submission March 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 14 Call for Submissions Information on following subjects will assist us in creating a PAR and 5 Criteria: –Market needs, applications, usage scenarios –Technology & feasibility MAC efficiency evaluation and enhancements, including evaluation of 11n MAC with higher PHY rates PHY enhancements to 11n new MAC & PHY technology –Requirements metrics (i.e. throughput, network capacity, spectral efficiency, range) coexistence / interoperability –Spectrum availability & regulatory options relationship with IMT-Advanced

doc.: IEEE /0321r3 Submission March 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 15 Submissions r1, Update of WFA presentation on use cases vht-below-6ghz-11vht-par-5c-s- proposal.ppt vht-coexistence-mechanisms-at-5- ghz.ppt vht, On the feasibility of 1Gbps for various MAC/PHY architectures Presentation from John Barr/ Harkirat Singh – vht-potential-benefits- of-dual-radio-vht-systems.ppt, 15-20min

doc.: IEEE /0321r3 Submission March 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 16 Agenda Monday Timeline vht vht-coexistence-mechanisms-at-5- ghz.ppt

doc.: IEEE /0321r3 Submission March 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 17 Presentations for Monday March vht vht-coexistence-mechanisms-at-5- ghz.ppt

doc.: IEEE /0321r3 Submission March 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 18 Minutes for Monday March 17 Patent policy –Read/reviewed patent policy: no questions –Asked essential patent claim question: no patent claims Agenda for the week –1:15 for each of <6GHz PAR and 60GHz PAR discussion <6 GHz on Tues, 60GHz on Wed –WFA presentation first thing Tues PM2 –Presentation by John Barr & on 60GHz on Wed –Request to present by Harkirat Singh –Presentation on Monday 08/307 08/315 –no report on 60GHz channel model

doc.: IEEE /0321r3 Submission March 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 19 08/307 Presented by Roberta Fracchia, Motorola Discussion –Brian Hart: multi user capacity it great thing to shoot for; in 11n is weak in 40MHz coexistence –Andrew Myles: How much increase spectral efficiency (Mbps/Hz)? Looks like minimal increase. Multiple access channel mechanisms are proposed, but sound like research projects? Marc: bandwidth management in incremental improvement to 11n and is feasible –Richard Van Nee: question about assumptions on maximum MAC throughput with multiple channels –Solomon Trainin: questions on channel access and coexistence on parallel channels

doc.: IEEE /0321r3 Submission March 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 20 08/315 Presented by Brian Hart, Cisco Discussion –Solomon Trainin: in real systems, many of the stations are sleeping. Many preamble detection coexistence techniques will not work. Brian: stations need to wait for probe delay before accessing channel, need to set it to a non-zero value, then use a mid-packet CCA

doc.: IEEE /0321r3 Submission March 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 21 08/315 If VHT produced a PAR for 5 GHz operation, do you believe n should pre-define an optional, VHT5- friendly spoofing mechanism, that may be disabled/enabled via a MIB variable? –Y:16 –N: 8 –Abs:37

doc.: IEEE /0321r3 Submission March 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 22 Agenda for Tuesday March 18 Reaffirm agenda Presentations –WFA; 45min; < 6GHz PAR & 5C’s ; 1:15 –Brian – a few slides on fairness

doc.: IEEE /0321r3 Submission March 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 23 Presentations for Tuesday March liaison-from-wi-fi-alliance-to regarding-wfa-vht-study-group-consolidation-of- usage-models.ppt vht-below-6ghz-11vht-par-5c-s- proposal.ppt

doc.: IEEE /0321r3 Submission March 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 24 Minutes for Tuesday March , presented by Rolf de Vegt –Comments/questions: Mark Grodinsky: category 1 was changed from wireless docking to wireless display, why? –Rolf: Display was a better description of the category based on the usages since they were heavily weighted on display Mark de Courville: will match usages to <6GHz and 60GHz and present in May –Comments regarding scope Harry Worstell: procedural question, typically scopes of PARs are 5 lines in length; fix header page of submission Charles Wright: extra information in scope could be put in explanatory notes Andrew Myles: need to look at many other metrics: throughput at range, spectral efficiency. Can not look at throughput and just use lots of spectrum 30dB SNR, shannon Capacity is 20bits/sec/hertz, 11n at 13.5bps/Hertz is pretty high Jim Petronovich: with MAC overhead, efficiency is low; need to look at application throughput efficiency Andrew: metric needs to include “goodness / resources used”; resources being power and spectrum

doc.: IEEE /0321r3 Submission March 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide continued Comment regarding strawpoll 1 –Tushar Moorti: question regarding BSS throughput vs PHY and MAC rate –Myron Hattig: encourage group to not pursue PHY and use MAC; would not like aggregated, since message would be lost on most Marc: want to focus on multiple simultaneous served device scenario –Don Shultz: any intention on any limit on number of devices?

doc.: IEEE /0321r3 Submission March 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide continued Strawpoll 1: –What is the preferred metric to adopt as aggregated BSS throughput: 1.Peak PHY rate: 6 2.MAC SAP rate: 50 3.Don’t know: 24

doc.: IEEE /0321r3 Submission March 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide continued Comments regarding strawpoll 2 –Myron: based on wording of strawpoll 2, then only those who voted on #2 of strawpoll 1 should vote on this strawpoll; not sure about measurement technique to capture aggregated throughput –Philippe Chambelin: looking at WFA usage models, what will be cost of addressing all of them –Joe Levy: regarding aggregated phrase, are all the stations connected to AP or are there other stations not going through AP? Marc: aggregate will include downlink, uplink and other stations –Padam Kafle: question regarding throughput number Marc: number is the minimum that the maximum throughput can be –Bill McFarland: what would you consider the aggregate throughput of 11n AP with 11n STAs at 600Mbps PHY rate Marc: that would mandate that all clients have 4 antennas Bill: UDP would be 440Mbps, TCP would be 350Mbps; need an aggregated throughput under cost or complexity constraint –Prabohd V.: aggregated throughput is for AP, what is VHT requirement for client? –Adrian Stephens: we’re forced to introduce aggregate because of multiple simultaneous streams and may have devices that are below 11n capability. Needs to also be a point-to-point requirement

doc.: IEEE /0321r3 Submission March 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide continued Strawpoll 2: –What should be the target MAC SAP aggregated BSS throughput: 1.500Mbps: Mbps: 3 3.1Gbps: 45

doc.: IEEE /0321r3 Submission March 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide continued Comments regarding strawpoll 3 –John Dorsey: tighten strawpoll to should we exclude 2.4GHz at all Strawpoll 3: –Should we provision in the PAR scope 2.4GHz operation for channelization smaller that 40MHz? Yes: 0 No: 47 Abstain: 19

doc.: IEEE /0321r3 Submission March 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 30 Agenda for Wednesday March 19 Reaffirm agenda Presentations – vht-wlan-overlay-with-60ghz-channels.ppt, John Barr, 15min 60GHz PAR’s & 5C’s – 1:15 9:30am –Rationale for SG extension for EC –Motion for extension –Review time line –Goals for March –Conference calls Time remaining, vht-potential-benefits-of-dual- radio-vht-systems.ppt

doc.: IEEE /0321r3 Submission March 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 31 Minutes for Wednesday March –Peter Ecclesine: In y, the explicitly excluded part of like frequency hopping, suggest the same in VHT –Adrian Stephens: The difference between scopes of VHT and 15.3c is range, does committing to 15.3c PHY more limited VHT range? VHT may want to push PHY design for range more than 15.3c did. –Vinko Erceg: clarify compatible, same PHY or allow modification? John: 15.3c is good starting point –Eldad: 15.3c has 3 PHYs modes and no approved draft, how does VHT coordinate? John: single carrier is mandatory; draft will be going to letter ballot soon; set up liason –Adrian: does 15.3c support carrier sense? What kind of changes to dot11 MAC will be required to support a dot15 PHY that may not support carrier sense? –Jim: Would it be reasonable to wait until PHY is defined in c before mandating use of their PHY

doc.: IEEE /0321r3 Submission March 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide r1, r0 Scope & purpose questions –Andrew: scope focuses on 1Gbps, but also that it is LAN. 60GHz does not necessary go through walls, so its not necessarily LAN range. Redefining LAN? Gal: beamforming extends range, extend range by reducing rate, down scale to 11n; 15.3c can do 1.5Gbps w/ BPSK versus 11n of 600MHz w/ 64QAM which requires 40dB SNR –Andrew: mentioned compatibility with , but we can throw away much of the baggage. Gal: important to maintain same network management, security, and user experience as –Steve Shellhammer: elaborate on channels compatible with 15.3c Gal: group needs to decide on interoperability; VHT needs to have same channels as 15.3c –Eldad: what does “dedicated VHT channels which are compatible” mean Gal: intention is to have interoperable mode –Bob Wong: does interoperability mean the MACs of VHT and 15.3c have to work together? –Adrian: degree of compatibility is critical discussion Gal: VHT should reuse PHY technology from 15.3c –Peter Ecclesine: spent 2 years in a working on compatible system with ETSI –John Barr: Did not mean to imply that there would not be ACKs on the 60GHz channel –Thomas (Microsoft): had issues with trying to merge and Hiperlan 2

doc.: IEEE /0321r3 Submission March 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide r1, r0 5 criteria –Jim Petronovich: remove word pricing, change to cost or implementation complexity –Rolf de Vegt: 6.3c: change from new standard to amendment Gal: needs to be a throughput amendment to n Eldad: how would we show distinct identity from c with new standard? –Darwin Engwer: do not agree with new standard means new market Gal: VHT needs to be higher throughput that works seamlessly network –Steve Shellhammer: if wants a new standard within , EC won’t necessarily block that –Adrian Stephens: new standard can use normative references to other standards

doc.: IEEE /0321r3 Submission March 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 34 Minutes continued SG Extension –Steve Shellhammer: should mention at EC that SG objective is to complete by July 2008 –Steve Shellhammer: PAR needs to be on the EC server 30 days in advance –Joe Levy: format change to emphasize progress –No objection to Rationale r1, presented by Harkirat Singh –Darwin Engwer: should we be paying attention to putting the products from the two VHT PARs back together? Harkirat: two VHT TGs will need to work together –Bob Wong: regarding slide 5, neighbors may be different at 5GHz and 60GHz, but still may be good to tie together

doc.: IEEE /0321r3 Submission March 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 35 Rationale for SG extension for EC VHT SG is making good progress towards completion of the two PARs and 5C’s, an additional extension is necessary for completion –First extension was given in November –In January there were five submissions VHT usage models by WFA Mobile cooperation and IMT-Advanced aligned scope for < 6 GHz Concept of 60 GHz PAR Coexistence Two strawpolls setting the direction of the study group: –Should the study group develop two PAR &5C’s one for <6GHz band and one for 57-62GHz band? Y/N/A: 29/4/19 –Should the study group specify limited usage models in a <6 GHz PAR and a 60 GHz PAR? Y/N/A: 39/1/19 –VHT held two conferences in January and February with presentations on a proposal for a <6 GHz PAR and 5C’s and 60 GHz PAR and 5C’s –Progress in March Final report on VHT usage models from WFA with prioritization Discussion on <6 GHz PAR & 5C’s Discussion on 60 GHz PAR & 5C’s Continued strong interest in the study group demonstrated by over 100 participants

doc.: IEEE /0321r3 Submission March 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 36 Move to request the IEEE Working Group to extend the VHT Study Group. Moved: Marc de Courville Second:Joe Levy Result: Y: 109; N: 0; Abs: 2 Motion

doc.: IEEE /0321r3 Submission March 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 37 Goals for May Presentations related to “call for submissions” –Should be prepared for presentation in the first VHT time slot Complete work on PAR & 5 C’s and submit motion to WG

doc.: IEEE /0321r3 Submission March 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 38 Conference call times Continue conference call times: –Weekly on Thursday’s, 11:00 Eastern Time –one hour Topics: –Continue progress on PAR’s & 5C’s development