1. Background Information on Amendment and Standard
April 2007
doc.: IEEE /0570r0
May 2008
Background Information on Amendment and Standard
Date:
Authors:
Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation
Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

2. Overview Historical background on EC decisions
April 2007
doc.: IEEE /0570r0
May 2008
Overview
Historical background on EC decisions
Re-use of technology from existing standard in a new standard
Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation
Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

3. Historical background on EC decisions
April 2007
doc.: IEEE /0570r0
May 2008
Historical background on EC decisions
Historically a WG was tied to one MAC
if WG came up with a new MAC it would become a new WG
e.g. 100 Mbps Ethernet vs. Demand Priority.  Demand Priority became
However, there are counter examples
has multiple standards with different MACs
In 802.3ah, the passive optical network portion of Ethernet in first mile has a TDMA protocol and nothing to do with CSMA.  It barely has any coupling to Ethernet.
Presenting to EC
For either amendment or new standard, need to show in PAR technical coupling to as rationale for new TG to remain in WG
with amendment, highly unlikely to go against WG
with new standard, need to address technical coupling
Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation
Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

4. Re-use of Technology from Existing Standard in a New Standard
April 2007
doc.: IEEE /0570r0
May 2008
Re-use of Technology from Existing Standard in a New Standard
There has been several mentions of the necessity of maintaining backwards compatibility or interoperability of 60GHz to baseline
vht-modified-60ghz-par.ppt
vht-proposal-for-60ghz-vht-par.doc
vht-wlan-overlay-with-60ghz-channels.ppt
There has also been mention of utilizing the c PHY
LOA
LOAs of a standard do not carry forward to a new standard
if new VHT 60 GHz standard re-uses portions of the baseline that were associated with existing LOAs, new LOAs would be required from those old LOA holders for the new standard
If VHT 60 GHz standard or amendment re-uses c, new LOAs would be required from those c LOA holders for
Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation
Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

5. Quote from PatCom FAQ Regarding LOA
April 2007
doc.: IEEE /0570r0
May 2008
Quote from PatCom FAQ Regarding LOA
12. How should Working Groups handle existing Letters of Assurance provided to IEEE when developing an amendment, corrigendum, edition, or revision of the particular standard referenced in the Letter of Assurance? An Accepted Letter of Assurance referencing an existing standard, amendment, corrigendum, edition, or revision will remain in force for the application of the Essential Patent Claim(s) to the technology specified in another amendment, corrigendum, edition, or revision of the same IEEE Standard but only if (a) the application of the technology required by the amendment, corrigendum, edition, or revision of the same IEEE Standard has not changed from its previous usage and (b) the same Essential Patent Claims covered by the prior Accepted Letter of Assurance remain Essential Patent Claims in the same IEEE Standard or revision thereof. The Working Group Chair shall initiate a request for a new Letter of Assurance from a known Submitter when re-using portions of or technologies specified in an existing [Proposed] IEEE Standard, amendment, corrigendum, edition, or revision referenced in an Accepted Letter of Assurance in a different [Proposed] IEEE Standard.
Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation
Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation