doc.: IEEE /0146r0 Submission January 2010 Matthew Gast, Trapeze NetworksSlide 1 Regulatory Class Issue from LB160 Date: Authors:

doc.: IEEE /0146r0 Submission January 2010 Matthew Gast, Trapeze NetworksSlide 2 Abstract This presentation summarizes the regulatory class issue submitted in LB 160 as CID 2113.

doc.: IEEE /0146r0 Submission January 2010 Matthew Gast, Trapeze NetworksSlide 3 Text of LB 160 (TGmb D2.0), CID 2113 Regulatory class definition and use in IEEE is limited to not cover all countries where IEEE can be used due to Annex J only defining regulatory classes for US, EU, and JP. This comment relates to CID 781 in LB 147 (802.11s/D3.0) that was rejected with the claim that it would be out of scope for TGs to resolve and TGmb was suggested as the place for resolving the issue. While I may not fully agree with the part of making P802.11s work in all countries being out of scope for TGs, I do agree that this is a more generic issue and review in TGmb would be useful. […] This issue applies to many uses of Regulatory Class field in the mb/D2.0 and new amendments and protocols used on top of IEEE , too. Since IEEE Std is claimed to be an international standard, it should really not define mechanisms that are limited to certain group of countries and make parts of the functionality unusable in other countries.

doc.: IEEE /0146r0 Submission January 2010 Matthew Gast, Trapeze NetworksSlide 4 Original Comment from LB 147 (802.11s-D3.0) “Mesh Channel Switch Announcement element includes a New Regulatory Class field that is set to the number of the regulatory class as defined in Annex J. However, Annex J defines regulatory class values from separate space for each country (or block of countries) and does not include definitions for most of the countries (most when measured in number, population, or area). How would a mesh channel switch work, e.g., in China, Australia or anywhere in South America or Africa?”

doc.: IEEE /0146r0 Submission January 2010 Matthew Gast, Trapeze NetworksSlide 5 TGmb Discussion Recap Rough consensus from TGmb discussion is that decoupling regulations from normative standard is potentially valuable Options identified –Do nothing. It is possible for vendors to build products for any regulatory domain they wish –Add new regulatory classes to Annexes I & J during revision process to describe behavior in additional regulatory domains as they are identified –Revise the standard more frequently so changing regulations can be captured –Treat regulations similar the ANA database so that regulatory information can be updated without doing a full revision of the entire standard –Provide an interface to do OTA updates of regulatory information. An example of this would be an XML description of regulatory behavior that could be downloaded from the network using a protocol such as u’s Generic Advertisement Service (GAS)