IEEE 802 JTC1 Standing Committee November 2013 agenda

IEEE 802 JTC1 Standing Committee November 2013 agenda
July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 IEEE 802 JTC1 Standing Committee November 2013 agenda 12 Nov 2013 Authors: Name Company Phone Andrew Myles Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 This presentation will be used to run the IEEE 802 JTC1 SC meetings in Nanjing in Sept 2013 This presentation contains a proposed running order for the IEEE 802 JTC1 Standing Committee meeting in Sept 2013, 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 sub-clause 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 IEEE 802 JTC1 SC 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 IEEE 802 JTC1 SC 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 IEEE 802 JTC1 SC 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 IEEE 802 JTC1 SC has three slots at the Dallas plenary meeting
July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC has three slots at the Dallas plenary meeting Tuesday 12 Nov, PM1 Wednesday 13 Nov, PM1 Thursday 14 Nov, PM1 Call to Order Select recording secretary <- important! Approve agenda 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

July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC has a detailed list of agenda items to be considered In no particular order: Approve minutes From interim meeting in September 2013 in Nanjing Review extended goals From IEEE 802 ExCom in Nov 2010 Review status Review liaisons of drafts to SC6 Review notifications of projects to SC6 Review status of FDIS ballots Review comments and next steps on FDIS ballots 802.1X 802.1AE Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC has a detailed list of agenda items to be considered In no particular order: Review status of security proposals in SC6 Review meetings between IEEE 802 and Swiss NB TEPA-AC, TLSec, TAAA, WAPI, TISec Review status of other proposals in SC6 UHT/EUHT, WLAN Cloud, Optimization technology in WLAN Plan for SC6 meeting in February 2014 Review agenda Plan IEEE 802 contributions Ask for delegation volunteers & mmpower HoD Discuss role of SC6 Discuss criteria for PSDO submissions Consider any motions Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC will consider approving its agenda
July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC will consider approving its agenda Motion to approve agenda The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC approves the agenda for its meeting in Dallas in November 2013, as documented on pages of <this slide deck> Moved: Seconded: Result: Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC will consider approval of previous minutes
July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC will consider approval of previous minutes Motion to approve minutes The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC approves the minutes for its meeting in Nanjing in Sept 2013, as documented in r10 Moved: Seconded: Result: Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC 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 IEEE 802 LMSC holds the liaison to SC6, not the IEEE 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 IEEE 802 ExCom ad hoc held in November 2010 on the Friday evening Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

In recent times, IEEE 802 has liaised a variety of drafts to SC6
IEEE 802 has agreed to liaise drafts to SC6 when they are in Sponsor Ballot (and sometimes earlier) The benefit to IEEE 802 is that it might cause SC6 members to participate in or contribute to IEEE 802 activities Since the July plenary in Geneva the IEEE 802 has liaised the following drafts to SC6: WG 22 Aug 2013: ac D6.0 22 Aug 2013: af D5.0 802.1 WG 9 Aug 2013: 802.1Xbx D1.0 Andrew Myles, Cisco

In recent times, IEEE 802 has notified SC6 of various new projects
IEEE 802 has agreed to notify SC6 when IEEE 802 starts new projects The benefit to IEEE 802 is that it might cause SC6 members to participate in or contribute to IEEE 802 activities Since the July plenary in Geneva the IEEE 802 has notified SC6 of the approval of the following SGs In 6N15723 IEEE 802.3, "Power over Data Lines" SG IEEE , “Spectrum Resources Usage in WPANs” SG IEEE , “Beam Switchable Wireless Point-to-Point 40/100Gbps links (GbW)” SG Andrew Myles, Cisco

IEEE 802 has submitted ten standards for ratification under the PSDO – with 2 new approvals
IEEE 802 standard 60 day pre-balllot 5 month FDIS ballot 802.11 Passed in 2012 802.1X Passed in 2013 Passed 21 Oct 2013 802.1AE 802.1AB Passed in May 2013 Closes 18 Dec 2013 802.1AR 802.1AS 802.11aa Passed in Feb 2013 Closes 28 Jan 2014 802.11ad 802.11ae 802.3 Closes 16 Feb 2014 Andrew Myles, Cisco

IEEE 802.11-2012 has been ratified as ISO/IEC 8802-11:2012
60 day pre-ballot: passed in 2012 All comments have been submitted to TGmc for processing Additional comments from Swiss NB in N15623 (a response to the IEEE 802/SC6 collaboration procedure) have also been referred to TGmc The China NB stated in N15591 that they will continue disapproving ISO/IEC until their comments are resolved It is appears this statement has little real effect It does not affect any ISO/IEC processes China is probably required under WTO rules to respect ISO/IEC :2012 as an international standard The reality is that ISO/IEC :2012 is being widely used in China today, including i based security FDIS ballot: passed in 2012 Andrew Myles, Cisco

FDIS on 802.1X closes in October 2013
60 day pre-ballot: passed in 2013 Submission in N15515 Pre-ballot voting results in N15555 Comments from China NB replied to by IEEE 802 in N15607 The China NB stated in Korea that they will reply in detail to the IEEE WG response at a later time FDIS voting results in N15771 Passed 16/1/12 (China negative) Comments from China and Switzerland FDIS ballot: passed 21 October 2013 Andrew Myles, Cisco

FDIS on 802.1AE closes in October 2013
60 day pre-ballot: passed in 2013 Submission in N15516 Pre-ballot voting results voting results in N15556 Comments from China NB replied to by IEEE 802 in N15608 The China NB stated in Korea that they will reply in detail to the IEEE WG response at a later time FDIS voting results in N15770 Passed 16/1/13 (China negative) Comments from China and Switzerland FDIS ballot: passed 21 October 2013 Andrew Myles, Cisco

FDIS on 802.1AB closes in Dec 2013 60 day pre-ballot: passed in Feb 2013 Submission in N15588 Voting results in N15626 Comments from China replied to in N15659 FDIS ballot: closes 18 December 2013 Andrew Myles, Cisco

FDIS on 802.1AR closes in Dec 2013 60 day pre-ballot: passed in May 2013 Submission in N15589 Voting results in N15627 Comments from China replied to in N15659 FDIS ballot: closes 18 December 2013 Andrew Myles, Cisco

FDIS on 802.1AS closes in Dec 2013 60 day pre-ballot: passed in May 2013 Submission in N15590 Voting results in N15628 Comments from China replied to in N15659 FDIS ballot: closes 18 December 2013 Andrew Myles, Cisco

FDIS on ae closes in Jan 2014 60 day pre-ballot: passed in Feb 2013 Submission in N15552 Voting results in N15599 Comments from China replied to by IEEE 802 in N15647 The China NB comments are based on their disapproval of IEEE IEEE 802 referred China NB to disposition of comments on IEEE Comments from Japan in N15664 These comments expressed a concern about having too many amendments outstanding Japan NB has informally accepted idea that IEEE 802 should be responsible for all maintenance processes FDIS ballot: closes 28 Jan 2014 Andrew Myles, Cisco

FDIS on ad closes in Jan 2014 60 day pre-ballot: passed in Feb 2013 Submission in N15553 Voting results in N15601 Comments from China replied to by IEEE 802 in N15647 The China NB comments are based on their disapproval of IEEE IEEE 802 referred China NB to disposition of comments on IEEE Comments from Japan in N15664 These comments expressed a concern about having too many amendments outstanding Japan NB has informally accepted idea that IEEE 802 should be responsible for all maintenance processes FDIS ballot: closes 28 Jan 2014 Andrew Myles, Cisco

FDIS on aa closes in Jan 2014 60 day pre-ballot: passed in Feb 2013 Submission in N15554 Voting results in N15602 Comments from China replied to by IEEE 802 in N15647 The China NB comments are based on their disapproval of IEEE IEEE 802 referred China NB to disposition of comments on IEEE Comments from Japan in N15664 These comments expressed a concern about having too many amendments outstanding Japan NB has informally accepted idea that IEEE 802 should be responsible for all maintenance processes FDIS ballot: closes 28 Jan 2014 Andrew Myles, Cisco

802.3-2012 passed the pre-ballot, and is awaiting the start to FDIS ballot
60 day pre-ballot: passed in May 2013 Submission in N15595 Voting results in N15632 Comments from China were responded to by the Maintenance TF in Geneva – see N15724 FDIS ballot: closes 16 Feb 2014 Andrew Myles, Cisco

The SC will review the comments on 802.1X during the FDIS
There were comments from two NBs 4 from China NB 16 from Switzerland NB The comments can be summarised as follows: China Have technical and procedural concerns Will not recognise result Notes normative references to non standards Switzerland Wants us to follow processes in N15606 Does not like wording of definitions Wants authentication to be specified Wants security goals articulated Wants security between AS and Authenticator specified Wants analyse of EAP methods, and only secure methods allowed Andrew Myles, Cisco

China comment 1 on 802.1X China 1 comment on 802.1X:
Since the procedural and technical concerns China NB proposed in 6N15555 still haven’t reasonably disposed in this FDIS text, and referencing issues mentioned below exist in this text, so China NB has to vote against on this FDIS ballot. If these issues could not be disposed reasonably and this proposal passes the FDIS ballot, it is regretful for China to be obliged to lose the responsibility and obligation of complying with and adopting the standard. Furthermore, China NB wishes to state for the record Andrew Myles, Cisco

China comment 1 on 802.1X (continued)
Proposed IEEE response: IEEE thanks the China NB for its carefully considered comments on the 802.1X FDIS ballot We note that the IEEE 802 responded in N15607 to the comments by the China in N The referencing issues referred to by the China NB in this comment will be addressed in responses specific to each issue using the process defined by N China NB representatives are invited to participate in the comment resolution process. The IEEE 802 is unable to respond to the China NB comment that they are “obliged to lose the responsibility and obligation of complying with and adopting the standard” because the IEEE 802 is not party to any treaty or other obligations of China. Andrew Myles, Cisco

China comment 2 on 802.1X China comment 2 on 802.1X
The referenced RFC 2863 is Draft Standard that still requires additional or more widespread field experience described in RFC 2026. China proposed change 2 on 802.1X Delete the referenced RFC and related technology from the document. Proposed IEEE 802.response <refer to WG for processing> Andrew Myles, Cisco

RFC 2869, 3394, 3410, 3579, 3580 and 4017 are Informational RFC that is defined as a non-standard-track document in RFC 2026. China proposed change 3 on 802.1X Delete the referenced RFC and related technology from the document. Proposed IEEE 802.response <refer to WG for processing > Andrew Myles, Cisco

RFC 4346, 4675, 5216 and 5247 are Proposed Standards which are treated as immature specifications by implementers required in RFC 2026. China proposed change 4 on 802.1X Delete the referenced RFC and related technology from the document. Proposed IEEE 802.response <refer to WG for processing> Andrew Myles, Cisco

Switzerland comment 1 on 802.1X
We welcome and approve the submission of this outstanding global standard to ISO/IEC because we take the view that global standards should be International Standards, i.e. standards approved by ISO, IEC and ITU, respectively. IS approval expresses the international consensus on the value of the standard. While the FDIS fast-track procedure invoked by the PSDO does not foresee a resolution of comments before publication of the IS, the maintenance process of ISO/IEC-approved standards must enable ISO NBs and IEC NCs to make contributions which are duly considered by the maintenance body. Andrew Myles, Cisco

Switzerland comment 1 on 802.1X (continued)
In Graz Resolution , ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 has allocated responsibility for the revision process of the ISO/IEC standards to the IEEE WG under the condition that SC 6 and its NBs have access to an established mechanism to contribute to the revision process in the IEEE WG. In 6N15606 the IEEE 802 JTC1 Standing Committee has replied by a proposal for SC6 contributions to IEEE 802.1, and revision processes, encouraging Sc6 NBs to comments on 802 drafts and standards before or after an IEEE ballot closes. As our comments are submitted after closure of the IEEE ballot, we kindly ask the IEEE WG to process them, according to 6N15606, as soon as possible, either during comment resolution on any subsequent draft of during normal maintenance if balloting on the standard has completed.. Andrew Myles, Cisco

Proposed IEEE 802.response IEEE 802 thanks the Switzerland NB for it carefully considered comments on the 802.1X FDIS ballot, and assures the Switzerland NB that its comments will be processed in a timely manner by the IEEE WG using the mechanisms defined by N Swiss NB representatives are invited to participate in the comment resolution process. Andrew Myles, Cisco

In a conventional DIS or DIS fast-track ballot, the subsequent comments would be issued with a DISAPPROVE vote, which would be turned into APPROVAL if the comments were satisfactorily resolved The FDIS fast-track however postpones, by 2.7 of the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1, such resolution to the next review of the standard. Furthermore, affirmative votes to an FDIS cannot be made conditional on the resolution of any comments. However, as explained above, we wish ISO/IEC to endorse this standard and to subjugate it under its maintenance procedures as set forth in F.2.4 of the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1, and Sc6 Graz Resolution Therefore our vote is APPROVE, unconditionally. Our comments are submitted under the late option of 6N15606 to be processed by the IEEE WG as soon as possible, i.e. either during comment resolution on any subsequent draft or during normal maintenance. Proposed IEEE 802.response See response 1 Andrew Myles, Cisco

When ISO/IEC/IEEE X has been endorsed by ISO/IEC, then the ISO Directives, Part 2, “Rules for the structure and drafting of International Standards” as well as the JTC 1 Supplement and the relevant JTC 1 Standing Documents must be considered. It is desirable that the next revision of the specification be in line with the applicable requirements. This is a major aim of our comments. We will be pleased to find resolutions in fruitful collaboration with the IEEE WG. Proposed IEEE 802.response <refer to IEEE WG> Andrew Myles, Cisco

Re: clause 2 RFC 4017, 3580, 3579, 3410, 3394 and 2869 have only INFORMATIONAL status. According to RFC 2026 a specification of INFORMATIONAL status is a non-standard-track document which is (cit.) “”not subject to the rules of Internet standardization” and (cit.) “published for the general information of the Internet community and does not represent an Internet community consensus or recommendation. … Standards track specifications normally must not depend on other standards track specifications which are at a lower maturity level or on non standards track specifications other than referenced specifications from other standards bodies.” (citation end) Therefore these documents do not qualify for normative referencing. Andrew Myles, Cisco

Switzerland proposed change 4 on 802.1X Resolve the issue by any of the following: Placing the reference into the Informative References section. Referencing of published standards, preferably ISO/IEC standards, Incorporation of technical requirements into the standard text,. Proposed IEEE 802.response <refer to IEEE WG> Andrew Myles, Cisco

Re: clause 2 RFC 2863 has been published in the year 2000 but is still at DRAFT STANDARD status. According to RFC 6410 it will be re-classified as PROPOSED STANDARD in October Therefore (see CH 6) it does not necessarily qualify for normative referencing. Proposed IEEE 802.response <refer to IEEE WG> Andrew Myles, Cisco

Re: clause 2 RFC 4675, 5216 and 5247 have been published in the year 2006, 2006, 2008 and 2008, respectively, but are still at PROPOSED STANDARD status. According to of RFC 2026 (cit.) “a Proposed Standard specification is generally stable, has resolved known design choices, is believed to be well-understood, has received significant community review, and appears to enjoy enough community interest to be considered valuable. However, further experience might result in a change or even retraction of the specification before it advances. … Implementers should treat Proposed Standards as immature specifications.” (citation end). By 2.2 of RFC 6410 (cit.) “An Internet Standard is characterized by a high degree of technical maturity and by a generally held belief that the specified protocol or service provides significant benefit to the Internet community. Andrew Myles, Cisco

The IESG, in an IETF-wide Last Call of at least four weeks, confirms that a document advances from Proposed Standard to Internet Standard. The request for reclassification is sent to the IESG along with an explanation of how the criteria have been met. The criteria are: (1) There are at least two independent interoperating implementations with widespread deployment and successful operational experience. (2) There are no errata against the specification that would cause a new implementation to fail to interoperate with deployed ones. (3) There are no unused features in the specification that greatly increase implementation complexity. (4) If the technology required to implement the specification requires patented or otherwise controlled technology, then the set of implementations must demonstrate at least two independent, separate and successful uses of the licensing process.” (citation end) Andrew Myles, Cisco

Specifications will remain at PROPOSED STANDARD level if either no request to reclassify them as INTERNET STANDARD is sent to the IESG or they fail to meet one or more of these requirements. Specifications remaining at PROPOSED STANDARD level for more than four years are either not known to meet the criteria for the INTERNET STANDARD level or known to fail to meet some of them. According the Note in to RFC 2026 (cit.) “Standards track specifications normally must not depend on other standards track specifications which are at a lower maturity level or on non standards track specifications other than referenced specifications from other standards bodies.” (citation end). This principle also applies to ISO/IEC standards and should as well be respected by IEEE standards. Therefore the PROPOSED STANDARD level is not a sufficient qualification for normative referencing. Andrew Myles, Cisco

Switzerland proposed change 6 on 802.1X For each of these RFCs, chose one of the following alternative actions: Produce an RER according to JTC1 Standing Document N5, explaining whether or not the RFC has been formally evaluated against the criteria for the INTERNET STANDARD level, and if it has been evaluated, which criteria the RFC fails to meet, furthermore why it is needed as a normative reference in the IEEE 802.1X standard and how it is justified to allow a normative reference though IETF does not award it INTERNET STANDARD level. Reference published standards, preferably ISO/IEC standards, Incorporate technical requirements into the standard text, Place the reference into the Informative References section Proposed IEEE 802.response <refer to IEEE WG> Andrew Myles, Cisco

Re: clause 2 RFC 4346 has been obsoleted by RF 5246, which has been published in the year 2008 but is still at PROPOSED STANDARD status. Therefore it does not necessarily qualify for normative referencing Switzerland proposed change 7 on 802.1X Find a resolution for RFC 5246 as indicated in CH6. Proposed IEEE 802.response <refer to IEEE WG> Andrew Myles, Cisco

Re: clause 2 FIPS and NIST do not have ARO status. The related references do not meet the requirements of JTC1 Standing Document N5 Switzerland proposed change 8 on 802.1X Reference ISO/IEC standards where available (e.g. for the AES) or provide RERs as required. Proposed IEEE 802.response <refer to IEEE WG> Andrew Myles, Cisco

Re: clause 3 The definitions are unnumbered and the phrasing of most of them does not conform to the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2 Switzerland proposed change 9 on 802.1X Number all definitions. Discard articles (“a”, “the”) at the beginning of the definition. Avoid two or more sentences (such as in Authentication Server). Discard Notes. Proposed IEEE 802.response <refer to IEEE WG> Andrew Myles, Cisco

Re: clause 5.22, Table 5-1 This table fails to include the Authentication Server which, by clause 3, can be located in a component separate from the component hosting the Authenticator. See also CH 11. Switzerland proposed change 10 on 802.1X Include the Authentication Server into Table 5-1.. Proposed IEEE 802.response <refer to IEEE WG> Andrew Myles, Cisco

Re: clause 5 This clause specifies requirements and options for the Supplicant and the Authenticator, but none for the Authentication Server, neither explicitly nor through normative references. According to paragraph 3 of 1.3 (cit.) “this standard specifies the use of EAP … to support authentication using a centrally administered Authentication server …”. This wording sketches a configuration with a centralized Authentication Server component providing (by definition) authentication services to a multitude of Authenticator components. To be trusted for the provision of secure authentication services the Authentication Server itself must be secure. The security requirements however are not specified in this standard. See also CH 13 cc. Andrew Myles, Cisco

Switzerland proposed change 11 on 802.1X Specify requirements and options for the Authentication Server.. Proposed IEEE 802.response <refer to IEEE WG> Andrew Myles, Cisco

Re: clause 6.3.1 RFC 3748 is referenced here, but the reference is not listed in clause 2. However, RFC 3748 has been published in the year 2004 but is still at PROPOSED STANDARD status. Therefore it does not necessarily qualify for normative referencing Switzerland proposed change 12 on 802.1X See CH6.. Proposed IEEE 802.response <refer to IEEE WG> Andrew Myles, Cisco

Switzerland comment 13.1 on 802.1X
Re: clause 6.3.1 The text does not explicitly specify what security goals the authentication exchange claims to achieve. By the definition in clause 3 the Authentication Server performs authentication and access control of the Supplicant. By clause 8.11, EAP methods used by the PAE shall provide mutual authentication. By 5.6.b therefore the Authentication Server is authenticated to the Supplicant. The definition of the Authentication Server indicates the claim that the authentication exchange provides mutual authentication of Authenticator and Supplicant if the MKA option is used, nothing otherwise. However, this can only be guessed but is not explicitly specified. The normative references of this standard do not provide the necessary explicit statements. Any security standard must explicitly state the security goals claimed to be achieved, depending from the options chosen. Andrew Myles, Cisco

Switzerland comment 13.1 on 802.1X (continued)
Switzerland proposed change 13.1 on 802.1X State explicitly all security goals claimed to be achieved by the authentication exchange for each of the three roles and their pairwise relationships.. Proposed IEEE 802.response <refer to IEEE WG> Andrew Myles, Cisco

Switzerland comment 13.2 on 802.1X
Re: clause 6.3.1 Neither this standard nor its normative references specify normative requirements for the securing of the exchange between Authentication Server and Authenticator. Unless the exchange between Authentication Server and Authenticator is appropriately secured, the mutual authentication of Authentication Server and Supplicant is not transferred the Authenticator and not linked to the 4-way-handshake. The protocol thus fails to provide mutual authentication of Supplicant and Authenticator. See 6N15523 for an analysis. What security mechanisms are appropriate strongly depends on the configuration (centralized AS or collocated with the Authenticator) and the related security assumptions and requires further analysis. As according to 1.3 this standard targets a configuration with a centralized Authentication Server, it must include the security requirements for the centralized configuration.. Andrew Myles, Cisco

Switzerland comment 13.2 on 802.1X (continued)
While it is acceptable to exclude specific security mechanisms and protocols for the exchange between Authentication Server and Authenticator from this standard, the standard must include normative security requirements. Otherwise the standard is incomplete Switzerland proposed change 13.2 on 802.1X Specify the normative security requirements of the exchange between the Authentication Server and the Authenticator if they are not co-located.. Proposed IEEE 802.response <refer to IEEE WG> Andrew Myles, Cisco

Re: clause 8.11 This clause allows for a variety of EAP methods. Neither this standard nor its normative references specify the risks of the allowed EAP methods. 6N15523 and 6N15613 have pointed out attacks possible in case of the use of the strongest EAP methods (mutual authentication based on asymmetric cryptography). It may be the case that other authentication methods allowed by this clause have even more weaknesses. This standard must not allow EAP methods without stating the associated known risks. Andrew Myles, Cisco

Switzerland proposed change 14 on 802.1X Analyse all authentication methods allowed by 8.11 and either discard them from the standard or specify their risks Proposed IEEE 802.response <refer to IEEE WG> Andrew Myles, Cisco

Re: clause 8.11 Neither the specification nor its normative references provide a comprehensive list of the allowed authentication methods. Unless all allowed authentication methods are known and their security is well understood the security of this standard cannot be assessed. Should certain authentication methods fail to meet the security goals of this standard, then the standard would not meet its security goals. Switzerland proposed change 15 on 802.1X List all allowed authentication methods and exclude methods implied by 8.11 and its normative references if they are not sufficiently secure.. Proposed IEEE 802.response <refer to IEEE WG> Andrew Myles, Cisco

The SC will review the comments on 802.1AE during the FDIS
There were comments from two NBs 2 from China NB 12 from Switzerland NB The comments can be summarised as follows: China Have technical and procedural concerns Will not recognise result Notes normative references to non standards Switzerland Wants us to follow processes in N15606 Notes normative references to old standards Does not like wording of definitions Suggests a couple o technical clarifications Andrew Myles, Cisco

China comment 1 on 802.1AE China comment 1 on 802.1AE
Since the procedural and technical concerns China NB proposed in 6N15556 still haven’t reasonably disposed in this FDIS text, and referencing issues mentioned below exist in this text, so China NB has to vote against on this FDIS ballot. If these issues could not be disposed reasonably and this proposal passes the FDIS ballot, it is regretful for China to be obliged to lose the responsibility and obligation of complying with and adopting the standard. Furthermore, China NB wishes to state for the record. Andrew Myles, Cisco

China comment 1 on 802.1AE (continued)
Proposed IEEE 802 response IEEE thanks the China NB for its carefully considered comments on the 802.1X FDIS ballot We note that the IEEE 802 responded in N15608 to the comments by the China in N The referencing issues referred to by the China NB in this comment will be addressed in responses specific to each issue using the process defined by N China NB representatives are invited to participate in the comment resolution process. The IEEE 802 is unable to respond to the China NB comment that they are “obliged to lose the responsibility and obligation of complying with and adopting the standard” because the IEEE 802 is not party to any treaty or other obligations of China. Andrew Myles, Cisco

China comment 2 on 802.1AE China comment 2 on 802.1AE
The referenced RFC 2863 is Draft Standard that still requires additional or more widespread field experience described in RFC 2026. China proposed change 2 on 802.1AE Delete the referenced RFC and related technology from the document Proposed IEEE 802 response <refer to IEEE WG> Andrew Myles, Cisco

Switzerland comment 1 on 802.1AE
<Same as for 802.1X FDIS> Proposed IEEE 802 response Andrew Myles, Cisco

Clause 2 The reference to the publication by McGrew and Viega is not admitted by the ISO Directives Switzerland proposed change 4 on 802.1AE Reference ISO/IEC and specify the parameters in the standard text Proposed IEEE 802 response <refer to IEEE WG> Andrew Myles, Cisco

Clause 2 FIPS does not have ARO status. The reference to FIPS 197 does not meet the requirements of JTC1 Standing Document N5 Switzerland proposed change 5 on 802.1AE Reference ISO/IEC Proposed IEEE 802 response <refer to IEEE WG> Andrew Myles, Cisco

Clause 2 Old versions of IEEE Std D, 1Q, 1X, 1ad and 1AB are referenced Switzerland proposed change 6 on 802.1AE Reference the actual versions or use undated references. Proposed IEEE 802 response <refer to IEEE WG> Andrew Myles, Cisco

Clause 2 IEEE Std has been published as ISO/IEC/IEEE Switzerland proposed change 7 on 802.1AE Reference the actual versions or use undated references. Proposed IEEE 802 response <refer to IEEE WG> Andrew Myles, Cisco

IEEE Std i has been included in the 2012 edition of the standard, which is referenced by this standard. The reference to i is therefore not needed Switzerland proposed change 8 on 802.1AE Delete the reference. Proposed IEEE 802 response <refer to IEEE WG> Andrew Myles, Cisco

Clause 2 <Same as Switzerland comment 6 on 802.1X, complaining about referencing DRAFT STANDARDS but in relation to RFC 2863> Switzerland proposed change 9 on 802.1AE <Same as Switzerland comment 6 on 802.1X>. Proposed IEEE 802 response <refer to IEEE WG> Andrew Myles, Cisco

Clause 3 The phrasing of most definitions does not conform to the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2 Switzerland proposed change 10 on 802.1AE Discard articles (“a”, “the”) at the beginning of the definition. Avoid two or more sentences (such as in 3.13). Discard Notes. Proposed IEEE 802 response <refer to IEEE WG> Andrew Myles, Cisco

Clause 3.10 While MAC-SEC is not for use by ISO/IEC/IEEE , the text makes reference to IEEE STD in this definition as well as in several other places. Though there is nothing wrong with these references, they may be misunderstood to assume that MAC-SEC could be used in wireless networks Switzerland proposed change 11 on 802.1AE Add a clarifying footnote to each reference to Proposed IEEE 802 response <refer to IEEE WG> Andrew Myles, Cisco

Clause 6.9 MACsec does not support message sequence integrity and thus not provide full connection mode data integrity. More specifically, it does not protect against message removal Switzerland proposed change 12 on 802.1AE Append an exclusion after h). Proposed IEEE 802 response <refer to IEEE WG> Andrew Myles, Cisco

The SC will discuss on next steps for processing the FDIS comments on 802.1X & 802.1AE
It is suggested that the WG take responsibility for generating responses Who? <-this is important Possible actions this week Generate liaison to SC6 noting comments from China and Switzerland, thanking them and committing to process the comments according the agreed process Inform SC6 of a possible timetable for comment resolution Possible actions for later Process comments Liaise responses to SC6 Any objections? Andrew Myles, Cisco

A number of security proposals are being considered by SC6
Equivalent Chinese standard? NP proposal in WG1? Implemented? TEPA-AC Subset of X Yes (can we get a translation?) Not yet Not known TLSec Subset of 802.1AE Not yet; BWIPS driving Yes, in lab TAAA security No? WAPI Subset of i based security Yes Yes, passed, but withdrawn Yes, required in handsets & SP APs but rarely used TISec Subset/copy of IPSec Not yet (in WG7) Andrew Myles, Cisco

A meeting was set up between the IEEE 802
A meeting was set up between the IEEE 802.1/11 and Swiss NB security experts about TEPA The Swiss NB has provided significant comment on various 802 standards over the last few years In particular the Swiss NB has had a strong interest in the TEPA based proposals in SC6 from the China NB This has led to significant and important discussions related to the “state of the art” in 802 security standards, but mostly limited to Hans-Rudolf Thomann Hans-Rudolf Thomann has suggested that we might be able to expand discussions with the Swiss NB to other individuals Josef Schmid has been suggested as another Swiss security expert It was agreed in Geneva that a meeting should be set up between and security experts and the Swiss NB security experts The first of a likely series of meetings took place on 27 August 2013 Andrew Myles, Cisco

Dan Harkins provided a summary of the TEPA meeting between IEEE 802 & Swiss NB reps
Meeting participants were IEEE 802 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell), Karen Randall (Randall Consulting), Jodi Haasz (IEEE), Mick Seaman, Dan Harkins (Aruba Networks), Brian Weis (Cisco), Peter Yee (AKAYLA) Swiss NB Hans-Rudolf Thomann (Thomann Consulting), Josef Schmid (FITSU), Dan provided a meeting summary in Nanjing (from minutes) Dan Harkins' interpretation of that teleconference is that the Swiss NB has gone backwards in their understanding of what 802.1X entities and TePA entities do in order to perform authentication. Thomann has been concentrating on the number of entities involved instead of the functionality of those entities. Thomann says that he will put together a presentation of how he feels that TePA certificate processing is performed in order to help improve mutual understanding. Dan will produce a similar presentation around 802.1X. Andrew Myles, Cisco

Dan Harkins provided a summary of the TEPA meeting between IEEE 802 & Swiss NB reps
Dan provided a meeting summary in Nanjing (from minutes) (continued) Once these two stories are put straight, it should be possible to return to the Swiss presentation from the Seoul JTC1 meeting and clarify the points it attempted to make. Bruce Kraemer expressed concern that this dialog is dragging on and that we will end up going into the Ottawa meeting (February 2014) of the JTC1 SC6/WG1 with the same distance between the parties. Josef Schmid has indicated that the Swiss government has been following the progress of TePA in JTC1, although he has not been able to articulate the reason for the particular interest. Another discussion between the IEEE delegation and the Swiss NB representative would be highly useful before the Ottawa meeting The timing for this meeting will be dependent on when Thomann's and Harkins' documents are available. Andrew Myles, Cisco

There has been no further meeting between IEEE 802 and the Swiss NB about TEPA
It was intended that further meetings be held after Dan Harkins and Hans Rudolf Thoman completed their “homework” Dan: how certificates are used and validated in 802.1X/EAP-TLS Hans: how certificates are used and validated in TePA As far as we know, Hans has no completed his homework Dan may discuss his homework, which is complete or close to complete Note that there is no discussion of the TEPA proposals on the WG1 or WG7 agendas in February 2014 Should we continue these meetings? Are they worthwhile? Andrew Myles, Cisco

WAPI has not gone away; it may be re-proposed in SC6 despite uncertainty about the process
WAPI was cancelled as an NP proposal in early 2012 There was been little discussion of WAPI in SC6 since that time but there is a possibility it might be re-proposed The process for re-proposing WAPI in SC6 is currently uncertain There is a claim made at the Korea meeting in June 2013 that the WAPI NP could be un-cancelled by a simple vote of SC6 NBs … … despite some ambiguity, a case could be made that un-cancelling the WAPI NP requires a new NP ballot WAPI is not on the agenda for the SC6 meeting in February 2014 Andrew Myles, Cisco

There is a claim that the WAPI NP could be un-cancelled by a simple vote of SC6 NBs
At the SC6 meeting in Korea it was asserted that ISO staff have asserted the WAPI NP could be un-cancelled by a simple vote of SC6 NBs Although it was also noted that the comments on the old NP form would still need to be resolved The US NB rep asserted that this was contrary to the JTC1 Directives and a new NP ballot would be required Regardless of the rules, it certainly would seem strange to not completely revise an NP form that was submitted in 2009 Much of the material in the 2009 NP form is very out of date It would be even more difficult to resolve comments on the 2009 NP form given the claims about WAPI in the market place have now been proved false by the passage of time At least three of the five NBs that stated in 2009 they would provide experts never have done so Andrew Myles, Cisco

Despite some ambiguity, a case could be made that un-cancelling the WAPI NP requires a new NP ballot
The China NB suggested at the time of cancellation they may resubmit WAPI “when a more favorable standardization environment is available” This assertion was repeated at the SC6 meeting in Korea in June 2013 The JTC1 Directives are not particularly clear on the process for a project to be re-established once it has been cancelled The best hint comes from the latest NP Ballot form, which includes an option for: “THIS PROPOSAL RELATES TO THE RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF A CANCELLED PROJECT AS AN ACTIVE PROJECT” This form and the latest JTC1 Directives suggest if there was a proposal to re-establish WAPI then: It would have be sent to a new NP ballot of SC6 NBs Assuming the ballot passed, any resulting negative comments would have to be resolved and balloted by the JTC1 NBs Andrew Myles, Cisco

WAPI has not gone away; it has ongoing support in China
WAPI has been an ongoing failure in the marketplace It does not exist outside China In China it is widely implemented in mobile phones but rarely deployed Despite this failure WAPI continues to have support in China It has been a China National standard since about 2003 It is required to be implemented in mobile phones in China with Wi-Fi by an (unpublished) regulation It is required to be implemented in APs used by SPs in China an (unpublished) regulation It was supported by new government funding as recently as late 2012 The WAPI Alliance is now leveraging the Snowden affair to promote mandatory use of WAPI Andrew Myles, Cisco

WAPI has not gone away; but WPA2 is being embraced by Chinse SPs anyway 
It appears the Chinese SPs are embracing HS2.0/Passpoint based on i/WPA2-Enterprise Beijing China Mobile Andrew Myles, Cisco

WAPI will have ample government funding for the foreseeable future
WAPI has had support from some parts of the Chinese Government for a long time It appears this support is continuing with the opening of a National Engineering Laboratory in Xi’an in late 2012 See The focus of the lab (Google Translate) is to “fight for more international standards to adopt China's WAPI security technologies” The attendance at the opening of the lab indicated support for its work from: “National Information Security Management research institutions” “industry experts” “China's electric power, petroleum, finance, transportation” industries Andrew Myles, Cisco

The status of TISec is unknown in WG7, as are ISOC plans
ISOC (Sean Turner) sent a representative to the SC6 meeting in Korea in June 2013 He participated in discussions about TISec and observed other discussions in WG7 relating to their plan to redesign the Internet It is not yet known if ISOC will be sending a rep to the next meeting TISec is currently not on the WG7 agenda Andrew Myles, Cisco

A number of other relevant proposals are being considered by SC6
Equivalent Chinese standard? NP proposal in WG1? Implemented? UHT 802.11n extension Yes No Not known EUHT 802.11ac competitor – really a LTE lite in unlicensed spectrum solution Prototype WLAN Cloud None obvious; functionality could be achieved in different ways with existing standards PWI proposal Optimization technology in WLAN None obvious; Andrew Myles, Cisco

There is no news on EUHT standardisation in ISO/IEC but some activity in IEEE 802.11 WG
There is no further news on standardisation of EUHT in ISO/IEC: it was not discussed at the SC6 meeting in Korea in June 2013 It is not on the agenda for the next SC6 meeting in Feb 2014 Nufront presented to the IEEE WG and conducted a Q&A in Hawaii in May 2013 See 595r0 & 595r1 for presentation See 640r0 for Q&A minutes Nufront presented to IEEE WG and this SC in relation to EUHT, and more explicitly coexistence with IEEE EUHT Status Description EUHT Technology Document Interference and Co-existence Issues of EUHT network Process Recommendations on Coexistence Interference Analysis It is hoped that Nufront return (maybe in March 2014?) to participate in HEW Andrew Myles, Cisco

SC6/WG7 decided to delay decisions on two PWI proposals related to WLAN
SC6/WG7 discussed two proposals for PWIs related to WLAN N15692: WLAN Cloud Allows sharing of APs by SPs N15691: Optimization technology in WLAN Defines protocol for sending WLAN sniffing data to central database It appears the IEEE 802 delegation was not in attendance when the items were initially discussed However, later in the week the US NB rep successfully argued that PWIs should not be started in WG7 because the items maybe within the scope of WG1 Andrew Myles, Cisco

SC6/WG7 decided to delay decisions on two PWI proposals related to WLAN
It was decided that the items should be discussed in a joint meeting between WG1 and WG7 in Ottawa in February 2014 The approved SC6 resolution was SC 6 instructs its Secretariat to circulate the documents below for study and comment prior to the interim WG 7 meeting in October 2013. Due to the nature of the topic, the scope should be clarified between WG 1 and WG 7. SC 6 Secretariat is instructed to arrange a joint session between WG 1 and WG 7 at the next SC 6 meeting in Canada to discuss these topics in more detail and particularly the question of scope. SC 6 encourages China NB to submit additional documents regarding the details of the proposals and the scope. These items are on the SC6/WG7 agenda in February 2014 Andrew Myles, Cisco

Does IEEE 802 have a view on two PWI proposals related to WLAN
N15692: WLAN Cloud Allows sharing of APs by SPs Isn’t the same thing effectively achieved with HS2.0? What is the market need? Is there any harm in allowing a PWI? It might show there is no interest Should it be in WG1 or WG7? Do we care? N15691: Optimization technology in WLAN Defines protocol for sending WLAN sniffing data to central database Is a standard actually required for this? Is there an market need for interoperability? Andrew Myles, Cisco

The next SC6 meeting will be held in Canada in February 2014
ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 Host Standards Council of Canada Date Week of 17 February 2014 Location Offices of Ericsson in Ottawa Andrew Myles, Cisco

Agendas has been issued for WG1 and WG7 and are not exactly inspiring … yet!
WG1 agenda is very sparse with little of interest … yet Enough material for a few hours only IEEE 802 items are status only No WAPI, TEPA-AC, TLSec, TAAA, UHT, EUHT discussions WG7 agenda is very sparse with little of interest … yet Optimization technology in WLAN and WLAN cloud scope discussion IEEE 1888 discussion No TISec discussion The agenda could expand closer to the meeting Items must be available by <when?> Andrew Myles, Cisco

Technically, TEPA topics and WAPI cannot be discussed at the SC6 meeting in Canada
SC6 has been discussing various possible NPs for periods up to years over many meetings eg TePA based proposals and WAPI This wastes everyone’s time, with endless discussion and no conclusions The SC6 Chair made a statement in Korea limiting discussion on topics in the future; this statement will be included in the minutes The SC6 Chair recommended that items of the same subject should not be discussed more than two times at SC6 meetings before an NP Proposal is submitted to SC6. The SC 6 Chair strongly requested to the WG 1 Convenor to see to it that this practice be strictly exercised The SC6 Chair also noted that contributions should not be in the form of stepping on standards of other SDOs. –Technically TEPA topics and WAPI cannot be discussed! Andrew Myles, Cisco

What do we want to put on the agenda for February SC6 meeting?
Possibilities include: Overview of 802.1/3/11/15? Including summary of liaisons/new projects Disposition matrix of old 802 documents Responses to any agenda items None needed so far Security experts discussion Discuss again in January? Summary of comment responses FDIS responses on – are there any more FDIS responses on 802.1X/AE – discussed earlier Andrew Myles, Cisco

IEEE 802 needs to generate updated overviews of 802
IEEE 802 needs to generate updated overviews of /3/11 and maybe ? In Korea in June 2013 IEEE 802 gave status updates on 802 and 802.1/3/11 Note: the 802 document includes matrix of old 8802 documents We need to updates these documents for Canada? Dues by <when> Generated for or by WG Chairs: Tony Jefree, David Law, Bruce Kraemer Does want to provide an update? Ask Bob Hiele These documents will not be ready this week and will need to be approved by the HoD Andrew Myles, Cisco

There appears to be no change required to the disposition matrix of old 802 documents
Project Number Year Name Recommendation 8802-1 2011 SPECIFIC LANS Overview Retain. IEEE 802 will provide a replacement based upon the revision of 802 O&A (anticipated in 2014) - SPECIFIC LANS Cooperative agreement with IEEE 802 Cancel project. Delete the draft. 8802-2 1998 SPECIFIC LANS Logical Link Control 90.93 Retain in stabilized state 8802-3 2000 SPECIFIC LANS CSMA/CD Edn. 6 Retain. Will be superseded as soon the next revision of IEEE is ratified by ISO/IEC. The ballot process on in ISO/IEC JTC1 has started 8802-5 SPECIFIC LANS Token Ring. Edn.3 2005 LANS. Wireless MAC/PHY specifications Edn. 2 Withdraw. Has been superseded by ISO/IEC :2012 LAN GUIDELINES LLC Addresses Withdraw standard. This has been transferred to the IEEE Registration Authority. The registry will be referenced in the revision of LAN GUIDELINES Standard group MAC addresses 1997 Media Access Control (MAC) Bridging of Ethernet v2.0 in Local Area Network Retain in stabilized state. 1995 COMMON LANS MAC service Retain. IEEE 802 will provide a replacement based upon 802.1AC (anticipated in 2014) COMMON LANS MAC bridges Retain. IEEE 802 will provide a replacement based upon the revision of 802.1Q (anticipated in 2014) Andrew Myles, Cisco

Who is planning to attend the SC6 meeting in Canada in February 2014
IEEE 802 delegation will likely include Bruce Kramer (IEEE WG Chair & probably HoD) Jodi Haasz (IEEE staff) Others? It is believed others will be attending US NB (Andrew Myles), China NB, Swiss NB, Korea NB, Canada NB (host) It is believed others could be attending ISOC, UK NB Andrew Myles, Cisco

The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC will empower the IEEE 802 HoD to the SC6 meeting in February 14
Motion The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC recommends that Bruce Kraemer be appointed as HoD of the IEEE 802 delegation to the SC6 meeting in February 2014 and be authorised to: Appoint the IEEE 802 delegation Approve any necessary submissions Call any necessary preparation teleconferences Moved: Seconded: Result: Andrew Myles, Cisco

With this little on the agenda, are future F2F meetings justified?
Should IEEE 802 suggest that SC6 meetings be held less frequently? Andrew Myles, Cisco

Is it appropriate for the IEEE 802 to participate in a discussion about the future role of SC6?
SC6 participants have noted views privately about the role of SC6 A summary of a view from a number of participants is Having an SC under JTC1 focusing on networking is more than justifiable However, with IETF and IEEE 802 dominating in the networking field, there's little room for SC6 to make itself relevant In addition, some NBs are misusing SC6 to bypass proper review processes by all stakeholders As a stakeholder in the networking industry, does IEEE 802 have a view on the role of SC6? Maybe as an “upper house” that reviews standards for possible international standardisation but does not develop standards – this is sort of its role now …and is it appropriate to share any views with SC6? Andrew Myles, Cisco

IEEE 1888 will be discussed in SC6/WG7 in Canada for possible submission to SC6 under the PSDO
IEEE 1888 is a ratified standard for “UGCCNet: Ubiquitous Green Community Control Network Protocol)” An IEEE 1888 WG delegation proposed the submission of IEEE 1888 to SC6 under the PSDO agreement There was significant discussion in SC6/WG7 comparing IEEE 1888 to ISO/IEC x (DCM: Device Control and Management) It was agreed that there should be further discussions, and it is on the WG7 agenda in February 2014 Andrew Myles, Cisco

The proposed submission of IEEE 1888 raises meta questions for IEEE-SA that were discussed in Geneva
Under what conditions should IEEE-SA WGs be allowed to make use of the PSDO? Overuse risks diminishing the reputation of IEEE-SA Particularly if the submitted standards are of insufficient quality to be “International standards” But also because submission of many standards makes it easier to make the claim that IEEE is not an international SDO Should IEEE 802 request IEEE-SA to develop a set of criteria for IEEE standards before they are submitted to ISO/IEC Is the standard appropriate as an ISO/IEC “international” standard? It is in IEEE-SA’s interest to submit the standard to ISO.IEC under the PSDO? Andrew Myles, Cisco

The SC discussed in Geneva possible criteria for submission of IEEE standards under the PSDO
Possible criteria for submission under PDSO Does it meet the needs of a significant or important set of stakeholders? ie useful Does it meets the needs of stakeholders situated in multiple countries ie international scope Is it known to be able achieve its goals in real implementations Ie viable Has it undergone sufficient development and review by all stakeholders ie maturity Is it likely be used ie relevant Is its submission in the interest of IEEE-SA? Andrew Myles, Cisco

There were no conclusion to the discussion in Geneva about use of the PSDO
Geneva discussion Reviewed IEEE 1888 situation Reviewed questions Questions/comments If there are criteria for the use of the PSDO, who is the arbiter for submissions? If any change is to be made, such a policy decision will be made by the IEEE Standards Board. The concern is over sending “lesser” standards to JTC1/SC6 and exposing IEEE to accusations that might bleed over to IEEE 802 submissions. There was no conclusion to this discussion Andrew Myles, Cisco

The SC may have further discussion on the general topic of when should the PSDO be used
Is anyone proposing to make a proposal? What might a proposal look like? Maybe a WG should be at least be required to document their reasons for using the PSDO, against a minimal set of criteria? Enforcement/approval is an open question at this time Andrew Myles, Cisco

ISO and IEEE will renegotiate the PSDO, and requested comments in Nov 2012 – no update
The ISO and IEEE will renegotiating the PSDO in 2014 IEEE 802 may want to provide comments to IEEE staff Does this group have any comments? From Nov 2012 IEEE should ensure only groups with an established track record may propose use of PSDO; 802.1/3/11 would all qualify The default state should be that all revisions are undertaken by the source IEEE group, but that group must provide a way for NB reps to participate and contribute Revisions should be better defined to include any activity that ultimately leads to the next edition of a standard, including amendments and corrections A revision should also include any work that relies on an IEEE standard ratified under the PSDO and yet adds to, changes or replaces its functions, particularly if it does so in a way that effectively generates independent and incompatible standards There has been no further news on this topic since Nov 2012 Andrew Myles, Cisco

IEEE 802 JTC1 SC will consider any motions
The motions will be constructed during the week Andrew Myles, Cisco

The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC will <do what
The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC will <do what?> at the January 2014 interim meeting The agenda for January will be constructed during the week Andrew Myles, Cisco

Are there any other matters for consideration by IEEE 802 JTC1 SC?
July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 Are there any other matters for consideration by IEEE 802 JTC1 SC? Matters will be added during the week Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC will for the week
July 2010 doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC will for the week Motion: The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC, having completed its business in Dallas in November 2013, adjourns Moved: Seconded: Result: Andrew Myles, Cisco Andrew Myles, Cisco

IEEE 802 JTC1 Standing Committee November 2013 agenda

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "IEEE 802 JTC1 Standing Committee November 2013 agenda"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

IEEE 802 JTC1 Standing Committee November 2013 agenda

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "IEEE 802 JTC1 Standing Committee November 2013 agenda"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback