1. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 1 IEEE 802 JTC1 Standing Committee November 2012 agenda 13 November 2012 Authors: NameCompanyPhoneemail Andrew MylesCisco +61 2 84461010 +61 418 656587 amyles@cisco.com

2. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 This presentation will be used to run the IEEE 802 JTC1 SC meetings in San Antonio in Nov 2012 This presentation contains a proposed running order for the IEEE 802 JTC1 Standing Committee meeting in Nov 2012, 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, CiscoSlide 2

3. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 3 Participants have a duty to inform in relation to patents All participants in this meeting have certain obligations under the IEEE- SA Patent Policy (IEEE-SA SB Bylaws subclause 6.2). Participants: –“Shall inform the IEEE (or cause the IEEE to be informed)” of the identity of each “holder of any potential Essential Patent Claims of which they are personally aware” if the claims are owned or controlled by the participant or the entity the participant is from, employed by, or otherwise represents — “Personal awareness” means that the participant “is personally aware that the holder may have a potential Essential Patent Claim,” even if the participant is not personally aware of the specific patents or patent claims –“Should inform the IEEE (or cause the IEEE to be informed)” of the identity of “any other holders of such potential Essential Patent Claims” (that is, third parties that are not affiliated with the participant, with the participant’s employer, or with anyone else that the participant is from or otherwise represents) –The above does not apply if the patent claim is already the subject of an Accepted Letter of Assurance that applies to the proposed standard(s) under consideration by this group Early identification of holders of potential Essential Patent Claims is strongly encouraged; there is no duty to perform a patent search

4. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 4 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 — http://standards.ieee.org/guides/bylaws/sect6-7.html#6 –IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual — http://standards.ieee.org/guides/opman/sect6.html#6.3 Material about the patent policy is available at –http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-material.htmlhttp://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-material.html If you have questions, contact the IEEE-SA Standards Board Patent Committee Administrator at patcom@ieee.org or visit http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/index.html http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/index.html This slide set is available at http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat- slideset.ppt

5. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 5 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

6. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 6 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 5.3.10 and “Promoting Competition and Innovation: What You Need to Know about the IEEE Standards Association's Antitrust and Competition Policy” for more details.

7. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 7 Links are available to a variety of other useful resources Link to IEEE Disclosure of Affiliation –http://standards.ieee.org/faqs/affiliationFAQ.htmlhttp://standards.ieee.org/faqs/affiliationFAQ.html Links to IEEE Antitrust Guidelines –http://standards.ieee.org/resources/antitrust-guidelines.pdfhttp://standards.ieee.org/resources/antitrust-guidelines.pdf Link to IEEE Code of Ethics –http://www.ieee.org/web/membership/ethics/code_ethics.htmlhttp://www.ieee.org/web/membership/ethics/code_ethics.html Link to IEEE Patent Policy –http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.ppthttp://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.ppt

8. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 8 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.

9. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 Call to Order Select recording secretary <- important! Approve agenda Details on next page Conduct meeting according to agenda Recess Call to Order Select recording secretary <- important! Conduct meeting according to agenda Recess The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC has three slots at the San Antonio plenary meeting Andrew Myles, Cisco Call to Order Select recording secretary <- important! Conduct meeting according to agenda Adjourn Tuesday 13 Nov, PM1 Wednesday 14 Nov, PM1 Thursday 15 Nov, PM1

10. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC has a detailed list of agenda items to be considered In no particular order: Approve minutes –Plenary meeting in July 2012 in San Diego Review extended goals –From IEEE 802 ExCom in Nov 2010 Review IEEE 802.11 WG liaisons to SC6 –Review latest liaisons of Sponsor Ballot drafts –Review status of JTC1 ballot on IEEE 802.11-2012 Review results of SC6 meeting in September in Austria –Status of “agreement” between SC6 and IEEE 802 –Status of WAPI, EUHT, TLSec, TEPA-AC, TAAA, TISec, … Discus next steps after SC6 meeting in September in Austria Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 10

11. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 11 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 San Antonio in Nov 2012, as documented on pages 9-11 of Moved: Seconded Result

12. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 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 Atlanta in July 2012, as documented in 11-12-130311-12-1303 Moved: Seconded: Result: Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 12

13. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 13 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 802 LMSC holds the liaison to SC6, not 802.11 WG Participates in dialog with IEEE staff and 802 ExCom on issues concerning IEEE ’s relationship with ISO/IEC Organises IEEE 802 members to contribute to liaisons and other documents relevant to the ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 members Extensions The extensions to our goals came out of the 802 ExCom ad hoc held in November 2010 on the Friday evening

14. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 The IEEE 802.11 WG has liaised various Sponsor Ballot drafts to ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 Normally the 802.11 WG liaises Sponsor Ballot documents. However, the WG told SC6 it would liaise 802.11ac as soon as it passed a LB; we did! 802.11ac D4.0 needs to liaised soon Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 14 Task Group After San Fran After Okinawa After Atlanta After Jack. After Hawaii After Atlanta After San Diego After Palm Sp July 11Sept 11Nov 11Jan 12Mar 12May 12July 12Sept 12 TGae-D5.0D7.0-Ratified--- TGaa-D6.0D7.0-Ratified--- TGac---D2.0-D3.0-- TGad---D5.0D6.0/D7.0D8.0D9.0- TGmb-D10.0D12.0-Ratified--- TGsRatified-------

15. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 Publication of IEEE 802.11-2012 is important so we can submit it to ISO/IEC for “International” ratification One of the issue that comes up continuously is claims that IEEE 802.11 is not “International” –This has been repeated continuously by various Chinese stakeholders, particularly in relation to the amendments that have not been sent to ISO/IEC –Interestingly, the Swiss NB rep recently agreed that IEEE 802.11 is “international” in practice One way of resolving this issue is to submit IEEE 802.11-2012 to ISO/IEC JTC1 for FDIS ballot under the PSDO agreement as ISO/IEC 8802-11 This was done earlier this year after SC6 invited IEEE 802 to submit IEEE 802.11-2012, thus bypassing the 60 day pre-ballot in the PSDO –In the future it will not be possible to bypass the pre-ballot in SC6 –The FDIS ballot is undertaken in JTC1 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 15

16. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 JTC1 ratified IEEE 802.11-2012 in October 2012 with only one negative vote The FDIS ballot on IEEE 802.11-2012 passed –P members: 15 in favour out of 16 (94%) – requirement of >= 66.6% –P & O Members: 1 negative out of 20 (5%) - requirement of <= 25% The only NB voting no was China, with comments that asserted –802.11 is “Devoid of real mutual authentication” –“WEP mechanism downgrades the security levels, and results in not resolving security problems …” –“The protocols are not intact” — Seems to claim that the 4 way hand shake will fail –IEEE 802.11-2012 does not refer to latest version of 802.1X — And 802.1X material referenced is not in referenced version –“There are numerous editorial and grammatical errors …” — Amusingly the first example cited is incorrect It is not known when the publication processes will be completed Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 16

17. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 It is proposed that the comments on IEEE 802.11-2012 be forwarded to TGmc for processing Comments in an FDIS are not resolved in ISO/IEC but are normally handled in the maintenance process Given that IEEE 802.11 WG is responsible for the maintenance process for ISO/IEC 8802-11 it is proposed that the comments be passed to TGmc for processing –Further explanation of the responsibility will come latee It is also proposed that this plan be included in a liasion statement to SC6 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 17

18. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 SC6 held a plenary meeting in Graz, Austria in Sept (same week at IEEE 802.11 WG meeting) SC6 delegates from NBs of –Austria –China –Germany –Japan –Hong Kong China (Correspondent) –Korea –Netherlands –Spain –Switzerland –UK –USA — Andrew Myles (HoD) Delegates from Liaison Organizations –JTC1/SC21 –JTC1/SC25 –ECMA –IEEE 802 — Bruce Kraemer (HoD) — Dan Harkins –IEEE — Jodi Haasz Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 18

19. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 SC6 held a plenary meeting in Graz, Austria in Sept (same week at IEEE 802.11 WG meeting) In SC6/WG1 the attendance count on day 1 was: –China 14 ← largest group –IEEE 3 –Korea 8 –HK 1 –Germany 1 –Japan 1 –Netherlands 2 –Switzerland 1 –US 1 –UK 1 –Austria 1 A large number of NBs continued their tradition of not attending –Belgium –Canada –Czech Republic –Finland –Greece –Kazakhstan –Kenya –Luxembourg –Russian Federation –Tunisia Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 19

20. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 SC6/WG1 had a varied agenda in Graz in Sept 12 1. Welcome 2. Roll Call of Delegates 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Meeting Report on the SC6/WG1 Guangzhou Meeting 5. SC6 WG1 Active Work Items –5.1 Acoustic Local Area Network –5.2 Wireless Power Transfer PLC Standards –5.3 Study Group Report on PLC Harmonization –5.4 Ubiquitous Green Community Control Network Protocol –5.5 NFC 5.6 IEEE 802 Liaison –5.6.1 Liaison Statement –5.6.2 IEEE Agreement 5.7 Liaison report from Ecma 5.8 Revision 5.9 Others –5.9.1 TePA-AC –5.9.2 TLSec –5.9.3 LRWN –5.9.4 WLAN –5.9.6 Procedures 6. Development, Review, & Approval of Draft WG1 Resolutions Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 20

21. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 In Feb 12, SC6 approved a table with proposed dispositions for various ISO/IEC 8802 standards In June 2011, the UK NB made a proposal to “clean up” various IEEE 802 related documented in ISOIEC In Feb 2012, the IEEE 802 delegation presented a liaison that was in response to a UK NB proposal for the disposition of various ISO/IEC 8802 standards –See N15106 It was ultimately agreed that the table of proposed dispositions proposed by IEEE 802 in the liaison should be accepted –Resolution 6.1.7: Noting the liaison response from IEEE 802 in 6N15106, SC6 instructs its Secretariat to revise the SC 6 Program of Work based on the table below Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 21

22. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 In Feb 12, SC6 approved a table with proposed dispositions for various ISO/IEC 8802 standards Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 22 ProjectNumberYearNameRecommendation 05.01.008802-12011SPECIFIC LANS OverviewRetain. IEEE 802 will provide text for a replacement when the current 802 O&A revision project is complete 05.01.018802-1-SPECIFIC LANS Cooperative agreement with IEEE 802 Cancel project. Delete the draft. 05.02.008802-21998SPECIFIC LANS Logical Link Control 90.93 Retain in stabilized state 05.03.008802-32000SPECIFIC LANS CSMA/CD Edn. 6 Retain. Will be superseded as soon the next revision of IEEE 802.3 is ratified by ISO/IEC. 05.05.008802-51998SPECIFIC LANS Token Ring. Edn.3 Retain in stabilized state 05.11.008802-112005LANS. Wireless MAC/PHY specifications Edn. 2 Retain. Will be superseded as soon the next revision of IEEE 802.11 is ratified by ISO/IEC 05.21.0111802-12005LAN GUIDELINES LLC Addresses Retain. IEEE 802 will provide a replacement at a future date 05.22.0111802-22005LAN GUIDELINES Standard group MAC addresses Retain. IEEE 802 will provide a replacement at a future date 05.25.0011802-51997Media Access Control (MAC) Bridging of Ethernet v2.0 in Local Area Network Retain in stabilized state. 05.31.0015802-11995COMMON LANS MAC serviceRetain. IEEE 802 will provide a replacement based upon 802.1AC at a future date 05.33.0015802-31998COMMON LANS MAC bridgesRetain. IEEE 802 will provide a replacement at a future date based upon either 802.1D-2005 or 802.1Q-2011

23. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 The proposal that only IEEE 802 “maintain, alter & extend” 8802 standards was controversial in Feb 12 The IEEE 802 liaison also indicated that IEEE 802 would be willing to submit standards (particularly 802.1 and 802.3) to ISO/IEC under certain conditions –“…it is essential that ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 agrees that the responsibility to maintain, alter or extend the functionality of IEEE 802 standards ratified by ISO/IEC remains solely with IEEE 802” This condition was particularly controversial among most NBs The main issue of contention appeared to revolve around the definition of “extend” Many NBs were concerned it was a restriction on SC6’s ability to do their normal work Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 23

24. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 In Feb 12, SC6 ultimately decided on a process to help resolve issues related to the IEEE 802 proposal SC6 Resolution 6.1.4 (Liaison to IEEE 802) in Feb 2012 SC 6 instructs its Secretariat to forward the following liaison statement to IEEE 802: –“SC6 appreciates and acknowledges IEEE 802’s proposal (6N15106) for an agreement. –SC 6 will forward an initial list of related questions from its NBs and LO to IEEE 802 by 2012-03-09 –SC 6 requests a response and a draft MoU from IEEE 802 by 2012-05-01. A second list of questions will be provided to IEEE 802 by 2012-07-01 –SC 6 requests a response and updated MoU from IEEE 802 by 2012-08-01.” Approved unanimously Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 24

25. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 The IEEE 802’s goal was an agreement that allows 802.1 & 802.3 to be submitted to JTC1 under the PSDO IEEE 802 would like to have the possibility to submit its standards to JTC1 under the PSDO for ratification The potential benefits include: –Universal recognition of “international” status –Review by a ISO/IEC JTC1 NBs The risks are that IEEE 802 standards will be modified by SC6 without the permission or cooperation of IEEE 802 –No one wants “another WAPI” –Of course this could always happen, even without an agreement IEEE 802.11 WG previously decided to move ahead under the PSDO without any further agreement The IEEE 802.1 WG and IEEE 802.3 WG wanted an agreement of some sort to mitigate the perceived risks Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 25

26. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 SC6 & IEEE 802 have been working through the process to define an agreement between them Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 26 SC6 defines process to define agreement Chinese & Swiss provide questions IEEE 802 responds Chinese & Swiss provide comments IEEE 802 responds Feb 12 Mar 12 May 12 Jun 12 July 12 ISO CS provided input Aug 12 US NB proposes compromise Sept 12 SC6 agree on resolution Sept 12

27. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 The IEEE 802 proposed a final version of the agreement after the 802 plenary meeting in July 12 Proposed Agreement between IEEE 802 and SC6 Best practice indicates a single SDO should have responsibility for developing or maintaining a standard, albeit in cooperation with all relevant stakeholders IEEE 802 will have sole responsibility for maintaining, altering and extending all ISO/IEC 8802 standards adopted from IEEE 802 standards An extension is defined as functionality that makes use of internal interfaces in an ISO/IEC 8802 standard (and the corresponding IEEE 802 standard); internal interfaces are designed solely for the use of IEEE 802 participants members developing IEEE 802 standards within the context of approved IEEE 802 projects SC6 may request clarification from IEEE 802 as to whether a particular interface in an ISO/IEC 8802 standard (and the corresponding IEEE 802 standard) is an internal interface SC6 may request that IEEE 802 define develop new external interfaces in an ISO/IEC 8802 standard (,and the corresponding IEEE 802 standard), required to enable SC6 to define additional functionality beyond the ISO/IEC 8802 standard IEEE 802 will continue to consult with SC6 during the IEEE 802 standards development process to ensure the development of standards that reflect the needs of a broad range of stakeholders. Andrew Myles, Cisco27

28. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 The ISO/IEC CS representative ruled in Aug 12 that SC6 could not enter into an “agreement” with IEEE 802 Henry Cuschieri (ISO CS) sent a letter to the Chair of SC6 after having his attention brought to the IEEE 802 proposed agreement He ruled that: –… this type of agreement would need to be formally approved through ISO CS, and as necessary ISO Council and TMB, and the IEC would need to agree that it should apply to SC 6 He also expressed a concern that the proposed agreement was: –… inconsistent with the rights of any member to propose appropriately justified work within the scope of a committee Later discussions with Henry suggested that he may have misunderstood elements of the proposal because it is not IEEE 802’s to stop such work The bottom line is that any “agreement” between SC6 and IEEE 802 is infeasible … Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 28

29. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 The US NB proposed a compromise solution that based on the existing PSDO agreement Observation 1 Clause A1.2.1 of the PSD states, “The intention is …to maintain, to the greatest extent possible, one common ISO/IEEE Standard on a given subject” Conclusion 1 Revisions of ISO/IEC 8802 standards should not be developed independently in parallel by IEEE 802 and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 29

30. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 The US NB proposed a compromise solution that based on the existing PSDO agreement Observation 2 Clause A1.2.1 of the PSDO allows “the relevant ISO Committee” (SC6 in this case) to decide “not to participate in the revision process” Conclusion 2 SC6 is empowered under the PSDO to decide not to participate in the revision process for ISO/IEC 8802 standards Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 30

31. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 The US NB proposed a compromise solution that based on the existing PSDO agreement Observation 3 Clause A1.2.1 of the PSDO states, “ISO shall ensure that the ISO/IEEE Standard is not revised until IEEE has completed its revision” Conclusion 3 SC6 should not start any revision process of ISO/IEC 8802 standards that are subject to maintenance and development by IEEE 802 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 31

32. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 The US NB proposed a compromise solution that based on the existing PSDO agreement Observation 4 IEEE 802 has a continuous, and very effective, process of maintenance and development of its active IEEE 802 standards projects Conclusion 4 IEEE 802 should have primary responsibility for revisions Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 32

33. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 The US NB proposed a compromise solution that based on the existing PSDO agreement Observation 5 SC NBs always have the right to propose appropriately justified work within the scope of a committee SC NBs should not be restricted from proposing work that competes with IEEE 802 standards, but should also not threaten their integrity Conclusion 5 A proposal by SC6 NB is not justified if it revises an ISO/IEC 8802 standard that is being revised by IEEE 802 In the context of this agreement, a revision is any activity that changes or extends the functionality of an ISO/IEC 8802 standard by means other than the use of interfaces in the standard that were defined to allow such changes or extensions by parties other than IEEE 802 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 33 Controversial

34. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 The US NB proposal led to a possible resolution for discussion … Possible motion, with wording subject to discussion: As empowered by clause A1.2.1 of the PSDO agreement between ISO and IEEE, SC6 agrees that it will not participate in the revision of any ISO/IEC 8802 standard while IEEE 802 has an ongoing maintenance or amendment process for the IEEE 802 equivalent of the standard In context of this motion, a revision activity is any activity that changes or extends the functionality of an ISO/IEC 8802 standard by means other than by the use of interfaces in the standard that were defined to allow such changes or extensions Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 34

35. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 … but it was not acceptable for various reasons The proposal was not acceptable because For Chinese & Swiss NBs the 2 nd paragraph was seen as a threat to WAPI style proposals The Swiss NB wanted independent motions for 802.11, 802.1 and 802.3 For other NBs, there was concern the second paragraph might stop SC6 from doing competitive work, which derived from confusion about its meaning There was also a concern that the delegation of authority had no defined end point Most NBs wanted the delegation of authority to IEEE 802 explicitly to exclude “systematic review, stabilization and withdrawal” processes Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 35

36. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 The US NB then proposed (N15448) a new resolution that solved most of the issues discussed The goals of the modified proposal were to –Define separate explicit motions for 802.11, 802.1 and 802.3 –Avoid any suggestion that SC6 NBs could not propose competitive projects –Define an end point for the delegation of authority from SC6 to IEEE 802 WGs as being while revisions, amendments and corrigenda are being developed –Ensure the delegation of authority did not include “systematic review, stabilization and withdrawal“ Subsequent discussion modified the proposal further to: –Make it clear that the word “revision” in the proposal used the ISO definition — We will discuss this definition in more detail later –Add that the delegation of authority was conditional that SC6 and its NBs having access to a mechanism that allows them to contribute to the revision process in the relevant IEEE 802 WG Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 36

37. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 The 802.11 resolution ended up being very simple 802.11 resolution (Res 6.1.9)… As empowered by clause A1.2.1 of the PSDO agreement between ISO and IEEE, SC6 decides to allocate responsibility for the revision process of the ISO/IEC 8802-11 standard to the IEEE 802.11 WG while the IEEE 802.11 WG has an ongoing revision process for the IEEE 802.11 standard. A condition of this motion is that SC6 and its NBs have access to an established mechanism to contribute to the revision process in the IEEE 802.11 WG … unanimously approved, except China China stated they needed to see rationale, details of mechanism and more time to obtain instructions Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 37

38. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 The 802.1 resolution was similar to the 802.11 resolution 802.1 resolution (Res 6.1.10) … As empowered by clause A1.2.1 of the PSDO agreement between ISO and IEEE, SC 6 decides to allocate responsibility for the revision process of any ISO/IEC 8802-1 standard to the IEEE 802.1 WG while the IEEE 802.1 WG has an ongoing revision process for the IEEE 802.1 standard. A condition of this resolution is that SC 6 and its NBs have access to an established mechanism to contribute to the revision process in the IEEE 802.1 WG. … unanimously approved, except China China stated they needed to see rationale, details of mechanism and more time to obtain instructions They also stated that it was odd to pass such a motion before ISO/IEC 8802-1 exists Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 38

39. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 The 802.3 resolution was similar to the 802.11 resolution 802.3 resolution (Res 6.1.11) was … As empowered by clause A1.2.1 of the PSDO agreement between ISO and IEEE, SC 6 decides to allocate responsibility for the revision process of any ISO/IEC 8802-3 standard to the IEEE 802.3 WG while the IEEE 802.3 WG has an ongoing revision process for the IEEE 802.3 standard. A condition of this resolution is that SC 6 and its NBs have access to an established mechanism to contribute to the revision process in the IEEE 802.3 WG. …unanimously approved, except China China stated they needed to see rationale, details of mechanism and more time to obtain instructions They also stated that it was odd to pass such a motion before ISO/IEC 8802-1 exists Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 39

40. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 SC6 also passed a resolution inviting IEEE 802 to exchange information with SC6 Cooperation resolution (Res 6.1.12) was … SC 6 invites the IEEE 802 WG’s to exchange information about new work items that are within the scope of SC 6 and the respective IEEE 802 WG for information and potential coordination …unanimously approved by all NBs Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 40

41. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 The definition of “revision” has proved problematic During discussions it was agreed to use the ISO definition of “revision” Subsequently, it turned out that there were multiple ISO definitions in a variety of documents Unfortunately, the definition is a key driver of the semantics of the resolutions However, behind the scenes discussion has led to the following interpretation of the 802.11 resolution –The resolution applies to revisions, amendments and corrigenda of ISO/IEC 8802-11. –The resolution does not apply to systematic review, stabilization and withdrawal of ISO/IEC 8802-11. –The resolution does not apply to any standards other than ISO/IEC 8802-11. –SC6 retains full rights to propose any new work. Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 41

42. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 The resolution provides a lower risk path for “international standardisation” of 802 standards IEEE 802.1/3/11 WGs have an opportunity to submit their standards to JTC1 under the PSDO for “international” standardisation The WGs will have sole responsibility for the revision of those standards, while a revision process of any sort is underway in the WGs –This is effectively continuously until the WGs hibernate given that IEEE 802 WGs typically undertake continuous amendment and revision of standards The WGs may benefit from input from SC6 NBs during the revision process Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 42

43. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 The IEEE 802 WGs only need to provide SC6 NBs an opportunity to contribute for the resolution to stand The US NB proposal in Graz was: –IEEE 802 should send documents to SC6 for comment, including — Motion to start a SG — PAR documents when approved by WG — PAR documents when approved by 802 EC — Approved requirements documents — Draft standards at Letter Ballot and Sponsor Ballot stage The discussion was that the IEEE 802 WGs would accept any comments from SC6 NBs –It was recognised that the comments may come in too late for normal processing … –… but they would be considered in good faith at the time if possible or later if necessary Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 43

44. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 The IEEE 802 WGs only need to provide SC6 NBs an opportunity to contribute for the resolution to stand IEEE 802 proposal in Graz 802.11 will continue to provide drafts for comment prior to publication. –Posted on ISO website maintained by 802.11 802.11 will continue to provide “pipeline” status information on all amendment/revision/maintenance activities. In meeting report. 802.11 Could provide SC6 with notification of proposed new work items (Study Groups, Project Authorization Requests in IEEE, PAR approvals) before formal approval of the project by the IEEE Standards Board. (Posted on ISO website maintained by 802.11) Additionally 802 Could provide similar “pipeline” status information on amendment/revision/maintenance activities. 802 Could provide SC6 with notification of proposed new work items (Study Groups, Project Authorization Requests in IEEE) Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 44

45. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 It is not certain that the resolution would avoid a WAPI like situation in the future WAPI is always raised as an example of how things can go wrong The question is what does this resolution do to protect against future WAPI-like situations? US NB asserted in Graz that the resolution means the IEEE 802.11 WG and not SC6 would consider a WAPI-like proposal because: –WAPI is effectively an amendment to 802.11 –WAPI would “fork” the 8802-11 standard contrary to the PSDO Other NBs agreed with this position, at least in private The Swiss and Chinese NBs disagreed with this perspective during the meeting The bottom line is that the resolution does not guarantee another WAPI- like situation will not occur in the future … but it certainly helps! The resolution definitely does not stop any competitive proposals! Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 45

46. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 The SC will discuss the possible impact of the SC6 resolution Questions for discussion Are IEEE 802 willing to submit 802.1 & 802.3 to JTC1 under the PSDO on the basis of this resolution? Are there any objections (philosophical & practical) in sending the requested material to SC6? Is the risk of “another WAPI” reduced by this resolution? Might the risk of “another WAPI” be increased if we do not collaborate with SC6 in this way? –eg one could modify 802.1 by creating a standard that normatively referenced most of 802.1 but changed a small feature –By having an ongoing relationship we at least might have a say … Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 46

47. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 The SC will discuss the possible next steps Questions for discussion Should IEEE 802 document a process for collaboration? –Criteria: lowest amount of work? –Can we just send SC6 an existing report on a regular basis + all balloted drafts Should IEEE 802 express an intent to submit 802.1 and 802.3? –When would we do so? Should IEEE 802 send a package to SC6 with the latest versions of 802.1 and 802.3 in the meantime? Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 47

48. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 TePA-AC, the 802.1X replacement, is now a Chinese National Standard In previous SC6 meetings the China NB have proposed a protocol called TePA-AC, which is roughly an 802.1X replacement At the SC6 meeting in February 2012, an IWNCOMM representative presented TePA-AC again, emphasising its use of TePA, and concluding –“Network access control is widely used in many network environments. –TePA-AC in N14399 is different from IEEE 802.1x.” IWNCOMM claimed that TePA-AC covered a different application space from 802.1X The discussion concluded with the China NB informing SC6 that further standardisation work on TePA-AC would continue in BWIPS –BWIPS is the organisation under CESI that standardised WAPI –TEPA-AC is a Chinese National standard as GB / T 28455-2012 as of 1 Oct 12; the “T” means it is recommended, ie not mandatoryGB / T 28455-2012 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 48

49. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 There is no further standardisation news related to TLSec, the proposed 802.1AE replacement In previous SC6 meetings the China NB have proposed a protocol called TLSec, which is roughly an 802.1AE replacement At the SC6 meeting in February 2012, an IWNCOMM representative presented TLSEc again, emphasising its use of TePA, and concluding –“It is necessary to do more research on LAN layer 2 security. –TLSec in N14402 is different from IEEE 802.1AE” IWNCOMM asserted that China Telecom were supporting this work The discussion concluded with the China NB informing SC6 that further standardisation work on TLSec would continue in BWIPS –BWIPS is the organisation under CESI that standardised WAPI –There is no evidence that it has been standardised yet Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 49

50. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 There is no further standardisation news related to TAAA, the proposed LRWN security replacement In previous SC6 meetings the China NB have proposed a protocol called TAAA, which is roughly WAPI for Long Range Wireless Networks At the SC6 meeting in February 2012, an IWNCOMM representative presented TAAA again, emphasising its use of TePA, and concluding –“TAAA applies to various LRWN. –The details of the solution may be discussed further.” It appears from the subsequent discussion that a LRWN could include both LTE & 802.16 There is no evidence of any standardisation work in China on TAAA It is also not clear why a LRWN needs its own special security mechanism and why it doesn’t just have the same requirements as any other wireless network Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 50

51. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 In Graz the presentations from China NB on TLSec, TEPA-AC and TAAA continued In Graz the China NB presented again on each of their proposals, responding to previous comments by IEEE 802 –See N15364 for TEPA-AC –See N15365 for TLSec –See N15366 for TAAA After each presentation questions were asked but no consensus reached The China NB were not proposing any actions The Chinese NB were encouraged by various people to provide an overview at the IEEE 802.1 meeting in Vancouver in Jan 13 –So far they have not confirmed attendance despite a reminder after Graz Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 51

52. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 The IEEE 802 delegation commented on each of the TLSec, TEPA-AC and TAAA presentations Dan Harkins led the questioning from the IEEE 802 delegation He also gave a presentation explaining the 802.1 approach –See N15421 The China NB subsequently gave a presentation that attempted to rebut the points in N15421 but placing big red crosses though many slides –It appears the actual presentation was never made available Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 52

53. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 There was discussion in WG1 and WG7 in relation to TISec (a IPSec replacement) The China NB are also proposing TISec as a TEPA based replacement of IPSec –See N15369 It appears that TISec is also on the Standards Track in China –See attached The presentation was briefly discussed in WG1 but was primarily promoted in WG7, which is the group defining a new Internet  The IEEE 802 delegation’s primary observation was that TISec appears to directly copy ESP from RFC 4303, with some minor modifications Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 53

54. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 The next steps for TLSec, TEPA-AC and TAAA are still unclear … as they are for IEEE 802 The facts are: –The China NB are still promoting TLSec, TEPA-AC and TAAA –At least one of these protocols has been standardised in China Options for next steps for China NB include: –No action –No action, after change of gov’t in China –Action, after change of gov’t in China –Action, after they become Chinese National Standards –Action, if the SC6 Chair is replaced –Change of tactics, to what? How much effort should IEEE 802 put into making sure these standards are not promoted based on incorrect assertions? –Is there still the threat of another WAPI? Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 54

55. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 The China NB presented a WLAN optimisation proposal but there are no obvious next steps The China NB presented “WLAN Network Optimization Technology Requirements” –See N15367 It seems to be some centralised control system for WLANs that optimises the network parameters based on packet traces, etc The presentation and questioning went relatively poorly for the presenter No obvious next steps Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 55

56. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 56 The “WAPI story” has been going on for a very, very, very long time... and was thought to be over... Brief summary of highlights/lowlights 2003: WAPI mandated for use in China, implemented by named firms 2004: Mandate withdrawn after China agrees to standardise WAPI first 2005: WAPI submitted to ISO/IEC fast track ballot in parallel to IEEE submitting 802.11i, after much controversy and appeals 2006: WAPI fails ISO/IEC fast track ballot and 802.11i passes, amid much controversy and appeals 2009: WAPI mandated in handsets and for SPs in China 2009: WAPI submitted to ISO/IEC as NP 2010: WAPI NP ballot passes but comments not resolved Nov 2011: China NB announced that they had withdrawn the WAPI NP Feb 2012: SC6 formally cancelled the WAPI NP

57. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012... but there was some sort of protest from the China NB relating to the WAPI NP process The China NB stated they withdrew the project because: –The project has “experienced and still been suffering many unreasonable obstacles” –It is likely the project will not complete within required time limits because of an “unfair and unjustified environment,” It is believed that the China SC6 Mirror Committee has protested to ISO/IEC about: –Various aspects the WAPI NP process –Alleged bias of the SC6 Chair The details of any protest from the China SC6 Mirror Committee or any response from ISO/IEC are unavailable –It was hoped that details would become available at the last SC6 meeting... –... but there was no discussion related to WAPI at the SC6 meeting except in passing Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 57

58. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 Any un-cancelling of the WAPI NP may require ballots of SC6 NBs, JTC1 NBs & comment resolution The China NB suggested at the time of cancellation they may resubmit WAPI “when a more favorable standardization environment is available” The ISO/IEC Directives are not very 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 ISO/IEC Directives (plus JTC1 supplement) suggest if there was a proposal to re-establish WAPI then: –It would have be sent to a new letter ballot of SC6 NBs –Assuming the ballot passed, any resulting negative comments would have to be resolved and balloted by the JTC1 NBs However, it is possible that ISO/IEC CS may decree another process … Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 58

59. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 It is unclear what is next for WAPI, from either a regulatory or standards perspective Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 59 RegulationsStandards WAPI is still required by Type Approval regulations in handsets in China –These regulations are not available in written form, although their existence was disclosed by China in WTO discussions WAPI is still also informally required by SPs in China It is hoped any requirement for WAPI in devices will be repealed soon given that WAPI will not become an ISO/IEC standard WAPI is a Chinese National Standard There are no known plans to standardise WAPI internationally It has been speculated that China may resubmit WAPI if the current SC6 Chair is not reappointed by JTC1 in Nov 12 Please provide the SC any updates to this regulatory and standards situation

60. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 The recent standardisation UHT or EUHT in China exacerbated fears about these standards … Nufront and the China NB had previously proposed standardisation of UHT (11n extension) & EHUT (11ac replacement) by SC6 –EUHT is also known as N-UHT The IEEE 802 delegation expressed concern about various aspects of this proposal at the San Diego SC6 meeting in June 2011 It was also feared that type approval regulations will be used to mandate UHT/EUHT, similar to those used for WAPI It was expected that the issue would be raised again at the China meeting of SC6 in February 2012 … but it was not Since the SC6 meeting in Feb 12, MIIT has announced that UHT and EUHT have been approved as voluntary Chinese National Standardsapproved –This occurred after a somewhat unusual process in CCSA that effectively ignored the concerns of many Chinese and non-Chinese companies –The actual text appears to be unavailable as of July 2012, even in hard copy Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 60

61. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 … but fears about UHT & EUHT decreasing as 5GHz is opened up in China & there was no mention at SC6 UHT/EUHT were not mentioned at the SC6 meeting in September 2012, although two Nufront representatives were in attendance –Bruce Kraemer may report on his ongoing conctact with Nufront It was previously feared there was a connection between EUHT and the slowness opening up 5GHz in China … but that fear was mitigated after MIIT recently accelerated the process to open up the band Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 61

62. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 ISO and IEEE are renegotiating the PSDO, and are after comments The ISO and IEEE are renegotiating the PSDO IEEE 802 may want to provide comments to IEEE staff Does this group have any comments? –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 –Revisons 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 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 62

63. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 IEEE 802 JTC1 SC will consider any motions The motions will be constructed during the week They are likely to include motions to approve –…. Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 63

64. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 Are there any other matters for consideration by IEEE 802 JTC1 SC? Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 64

65. doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r0 Submission Nov 2012 The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC will adjourn for the week Motion: The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC, having completed its business in San Diego in July 2012, adjourns Moved: Seconded: Result: unanimous Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 65