IEEE MEDIA INDEPENDENT HANDOVER DCN: xx Title: Liaison Report – Work Related to Date Submitted: December 18, 2007 Presented at IEEE session 18 in London, U.K. Authors or Source(s): David Hunter Abstract: is one of the technologies that MIH is required to support.

IEEE presentation release statements This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE Working Group. It is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein. The contributor grants a free, irrevocable license to the IEEE to incorporate material contained in this contribution, and any modifications thereof, in the creation of an IEEE Standards publication; to copyright in the IEEE’s name any IEEE Standards publication even though it may include portions of this contribution; and at the IEEE’s sole discretion to permit others to reproduce in whole or in part the resulting IEEE Standards publication. The contributor also acknowledges and accepts that this contribution may be made public by IEEE The contributor is familiar with IEEE patent policy, as outlined in Section 6.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual and in Understanding Patent Issues During IEEE Standards Development Section 6.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manualhttp://standards.ieee.org/guides/opman/sect6.html#6.3

Liaison Report IEEE work most related to David Hunter Panasonic

k – Radio Resource Measurement Measurements provided for runtime adjustment of radios Available to internal STA components, higher layers, and external devices m – Maintenance (compilation of all approved amendments) Work is now complete: will become IEEE Std in March 2007 New mb work will start in March r – Fast BSS Transition Between BSSes within the same ESS Relies on k (especially neighbor reports) u – Interworking with External Networks MAC changes to accommodate, among others, Relies on k and r; has scope agreement with v Joint meeting with this week; more in March v – Wireless Network Management Management protocol additions AP-AP negotiations; load balancing; additional access controls Relies on k w – Protecting Management Frames Security for management frames, including broadcast frames Relies on k, r and perhaps u Groups Related to (the usual suspects)

Work Group Ballots Three letter ballots (TGp, TGs, TGy) TGp:67% approval (after 1 vote invalidated) TGs:48% approval (after 6 votes invalidated) TGy:75.7% approval (after 2 votes invalidated) First lesson: each ballot had invalid votes Most because of lack of comments with a “No” vote But one was a set of comments, but no vote Note: an invalid vote does NOT help you maintain your voting status Second lesson: what 75% really is For a period, TGy had 74.9% approval Chair’s initial interpretation of that as 75% was challenged Chair checked with IEEE representatives But received two different interpretations So decided to rule that “75%” means % or better, period Lesson not yet learned: Could have 4 letter ballots issued from this session

s Ballot Overview Issued its Letter Ballot 1 in November 48% approval Received 5681 comments New record for ratio of comments per active participant TGn had 12,000 comments, but over 5 times as many active contributors Biggest bulk of comments are on frame formats Either: logic is well agreed Or: commenters haven’t evaluated the protocol that thoroughly yet Or: current draft is incomplete on its messaging

u Highlights (fortunately, many of you now know 11u better than I do) November: issued Draft D0.02 for Internal Review Received 275 internal comments u-internal-comment-review-summary.xls In November members were invited to participate Any comments from members who are not already u members? Currently doing comment resolution Many, many comments on filling in known blank spots in current draft Since current draft is incomplete Lined up some volunteers for these areas; still looking for more Ad-hoc meeting February 19-23, 2007 One day meeting with in that timeframe? Volunteers for new text aiming at presenting at ad-hoc meeting Goal is to have that generally agreed on before March Plenary Sent liaison letter to u – meetings cover this reply now: Liaison-Response-to from

r This Session Re-circulation ballot Issued re-circulation ballot in September (Draft 3.0) Another re-circulation ballot in November (Draft 4.0) Finished almost all comments this week But decided not to issue re-circulation ballot this week Will be doing final comment resolution in February ad-hoc Drafts Draft 4.1 came out last night Current comment responses are in r-d4-comments.xls Re-circulation ballot (from March session) will be on Draft 5.0

r This Session, 2 Controversy #1 Ruling by the TGr chair In November a motion to make a group of changes related to key distribution was first defeated, then successful. For the ruling controversy, compare and , then see documents: – r-response-to-ieee appeal-december-5 th doc – r-chair-ruling doc If the appeal wins, then there will be major changes in the draft –And there will not be a recirculation ballot after this week Controversy #2 Technical issue behind controversy #1 About the distribution of keys from R0 Key Holder to R1 Key Holder In September a “pull” model of distribution was inserted by bare 75% vote In November replaced the “pull” model by a “push” model, by another bare 75% vote –Significant portions of Draft 3 reverted to Draft 2.2; created draft 3.1 Clearest technical summary of November arguments: – r-pmk-r1-key-distribution-security-analysis.ppt – r-key-distribution-push-capability.doc

r This Session, 3 Controversy #3 Architecture of non-AP STA Does it need to have the same logical blocks as the AP? Some argue that symmetry between AP and non-AP required for security. Still an issue today Must solve this issue to go to letter ballot May or may not be solved this afternoon Today the pure documentation issue was split off: Document differences between external security interfaces of AP and non-AP STA This issue is being resolved this afternoon

r Timeline PAR was approved over 2 years ago Another Ad-Hoc Comment Resolution Meeting Scheduled February 21-23, 2007 in Santa Clara, California Circulations Possible to go to Sponsor Ballot after July, 2007 Plenary Limitations IETF support : Key Management 11r is putting very specific requirements on key management Goal is still to have a new RFC issued within a year Dependency on , which will become full Std in March, k dependencies If k doesn’t finish first, arrangement is to copy the portions of k that r needs Key point: r sponsor ballot still before sponsor ballot But the race is getting even closer