doc.: IEEE /1273r1 Submission September 2011 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 1 JTC1 Ad Hoc September 2011 agenda 16 Sept 2011 Authors:

doc.: IEEE /1273r1 Submission September 2011 This presentation will be used to run the JTC1 Ad Hoc meetings in Okinawa in Sept 2011 This presentation contains a proposed running order for the IEEE JTC1 Ad Hoc committee meeting in Sept 2011, 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 Bruce Kramer will Chair the JTC1 Ad Hoc this week in the absence of the regular Chair, Andrew Myles Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 2

doc.: IEEE /1273r1 Submission September 2011 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

doc.: IEEE /1273r1 Submission September 2011 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 — –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 slideset.ppt

doc.: IEEE /1273r1 Submission September 2011 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 5 A call for potentially essential patents is not required in the JTC1 Ad Hoc 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

doc.: IEEE /1273r1 Submission September 2011 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 6 The JTC1 Ad Hoc 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.

doc.: IEEE /1273r1 Submission September 2011 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 7 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 –

doc.: IEEE /1273r1 Submission September 2011 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 8 The JTC1 Ad Hoc 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.

doc.: IEEE /1273r1 Submission September 2011 The JTC1 Ad Hoc only has one slot at the Okinawa meeting Tuesday PM1 Call to Order Select recording secretary <- important! Approve agenda –Details on next page Conduct meeting according to agenda –Several Action items requiring attention –No specific motions planned Adjourn Andrew Myles, Cisco

doc.: IEEE /1273r1 Submission September 2011 The JTC1 Ad Hoc has a detailed list of agenda items to be considered Welcome to guests Approve agenda Approve minutes from July in San Francisco Review extended goals Review status of WAPI in SC6 (802.11i replacement) Review status of 802.1X/AE and security replacements Review status of N-UHT (802.11ac replacement) Review plan for 8802 standards Consider other matters Consider any motions –None prepared Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 10

doc.: IEEE /1273r1 Submission September 2011 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 11 The JTC1 Ad Hoc will consider approving its agenda Motion to approve agenda The JTC1 Ad Hoc approves the agenda for its meeting in Okinawa in Sept 2011, as documented on pages 9-11 of Moved: Seconded Result

doc.: IEEE /1273r1 Submission September 2011 The JTC1 Ad Hoc will consider approval of previous minutes Motion to approve minutes The JTC1 Ad Hoc approves the minutes for its meeting in San Francisco in July 2011, as documented in Moved: Seconded Result Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 12

doc.: IEEE /1273r1 Submission September 2011 The IEEE 802 JTC1 ad hoc committee would like to welcome a special guest Bruce Kraemer ( Chair) has invited the Chair of ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 to participate this week as part of an ongoing process to improve the relationship between SC6 and WG The IEEE 802 JTC1 ad hoc committee welcomes Dae Young (DY) Kim DY was also the stand-in convenor of WG1 in San Diego, although he has now found a replacement for this difficult task –Mr Seung Ok Lim Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 13

doc.: IEEE /1273r1 Submission September 2011 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 14 The JTC1 Ad Hoc 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 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

doc.: IEEE /1273r1 Submission September 2011 ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 met in San Diego in June 2011 and will meet in Guangzhou, China in Feb 2012 SC6 has a F2F meeting every 9 months or so The last meeting was held on June 2011 in San Diego –All WGs met in San Diego — WG1: Physical and data link layers — WG7: Network and transport layers (also known as Future Network) — WG8: Directory — WG9: ASN.1 and registration The next meeting is in Guangzhou, China in February 2012 –Now confirmed for week of 20 Feb 2012, which is the same week as the Wi-Fi Alliance meeting in Vienna –Only two WGs are planning to meet — WG1: Physical and data link layers — WG7: Network and transport layers –The IEEE 802 will need to send a delegation again! — Please start planning to attend! Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 15

doc.: IEEE /1273r1 Submission September 2011 The WG has liaised various Sponsor Ballot drafts to ISO/IEC JTC1/SC s D11.0 was not liaised to SC6 because draft finished SB process mb D9.0 was not liaised The WG has told SC6 it will liaise ac as soon as it passes a LB Bruce Kramer will send various douments after Okinawa Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 16 Task Group After SD After Hawaii After Dallas After LA After Sing. After Palm Sp After SanFran After Okinawa July 10Sept 10Nov 10Jan 11Mar 11May 11July 11Sept 11 TGae D5.0 TGaa D6.0 TGac TGmb--D6.0-D8.0--D10.0 TGs--D8.0-D10.0-Ratified- TGuD11.0-D13.0--Ratified-- TGvD13.0D Ratified-- TGzD12.0D Ratified--

doc.: IEEE /1273r1 Submission September 2011 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 17 It was recognised by the ad hoc in September 2009 that WAPI is of vital interest to the JTC1 Ad Hoc It was agreed by the JTC1 ad hoc in Hawaii in Sept 09 that WAPI remains an important and constant issue for consideration This is the case for a variety of reasons, possibly including: –WAPI appears to duplicate functionality of i –The promoters of WAPI continue to assert that i is insecure –It is unclear how or whether i and WAPI can coexist –The issues related to WAPI are similar to those for the proposed 802.1X/AE and security replacements –…

doc.: IEEE /1273r1 Submission September 2011 The formal WAPI NP proposal process started in October 2009 … N14123 Text for NP ballot … for use with ISO/IEC N14228 Summary of Voting on 6N14123, …for use with ISO/IEC N14436 Disposition of Comments on the ISO/IEC NP Oct-09 1-Feb-10 6-Oct-10 N14435 ISO/IEC WD Alternative security mechanism for use with ISO/IEC Oct-10 IEEE 802 submitted comments (N14142) Renumbered draft responding to UK NB comment Multiple NBs submitted comments 10 of 18 NB’s voted “yes” (10 required) & 5 NB’s stated they would participate (5 required) Invited NBs to submit comments on proposed disposition (closing Jan 11) IEEE 802 comments ignored in proposed disposition 

doc.: IEEE /1273r1 Submission September 2011 … and the WAPI NP approval process was still continuing in Sept 2011 N14620 Disposition of Comments on 1st WD Mar-11 IEEE 802 submitted comments on proposed disposition (N14551) USNB submitted comments on proposed disposition (N14549) Inappropriately changed title so document is no longer a disposition of NP ballot comments Dismisses all substantive USNB comments on basis the process is beyond the NP stage Responds to most comments with assertions & false statements rather than reasoned arguments Dismisses all (but one) substantive IEEE 802 comments on basis the process is beyond the NP stage     N14770 Revised disposition of Comments on 1st WD Jun-11 US NB asserts NP process incomplete & summarizing situation (N14742, N14743) IEEE 802 submits document asserting security of i (N14778)

doc.: IEEE /1273r1 Submission September 2011 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 20 SC6 decided in June 2011 that the WAPI project was still at NP stage; and not WD stage Most discussion at the SC6 meeting in San Diego related to WAPI was focused on process –Was the WAPI project at New Project or Working Draft stage? –US NB asserted that the WAPI project was still at NP stage because the comments on the ballot had not been resolved and approved by SC6 –China/Swiss NB asserted the WAPI project was at WD stage because the ballot passed and that SC6 had sent a working draft out for comment in Sept 10 It was ultimately determined the WAPI project is at NP stage –Based on ruling by SC6 Chair that was confirmed by JTC1 Secretariat China NB indicated at the time that they would be appealing –There has been no appeal so far –The China NB have been participating in the comment resolution process since the San Diego meeting, although under informal protest

doc.: IEEE /1273r1 Submission September 2011 The WAPI NP comments must be resolved to progress the project to WD stage The ruling that WAPI is at NP stage means that the comments made during the NP ballot process (back in Jan 2010!) must be resolved and agreed by SC6 before the WAPI project formally progresses There have been a series of teleconferences starting on 10 August that have attempted to resolve the comments It appears the earliest the comments can approved by SC6 is at their F2F meeting in February 2012 In the meantime, it is likely the China NB and other interested NBs will continue to develop the WAPI Working Draft –Although no evidence of that so far Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 21

doc.: IEEE /1273r1 Submission September 2011 The ISO Project portal lists an incorrect stage for the WAPI project It was noted during debate that the official ISO database has the WAPI project marked as WD stage –Document title: Information technology -Telecommunications and information exchange between systems - Local and metropolitan area networks - Specific requirements- Part XX: Alternative security mechanism for use with ISO/IEC –Registration date of project: 6 Oct 2010 –Current stage of project: (Preparatory – Complet. of main action) –Date of current stage: 5 Jan 2011 –Limit date for next stage: 6 Apr 2012 The SC6 Chair stated that this entry in the ISO database is incorrect and he did not know how it happened; the project should be at NP stage At this time, the error has not been corrected, and it is unclear whether it will be corrected by the ISO Directorate Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 22

doc.: IEEE /1273r1 Submission September 2011 The timeframes relevant to the WAPI project are still unclear The SC6 Chair also noted that the WAPI project is at risk of being cancelled because it is supposed to meet certain deadlines It is not clear what those deadlines are from a reading of the JTC1 Directives, particularly given the disagreement about the current stage The ISO project portal currently lists a “Limit date for next stage” as 6 April 2012 –At the time of SC6 meeting it was listed as 6 Oct 2011; it is unclear why it subsequently changed It is not definitively known how this date was determined –It is 18 months after the “registration date” for the project, which happened to align with the date of the first proposed comment resolution (N14436) –This gives 6 months to develop a Working Draft (in NP stage) –... and an additional 12 months to develop a Committee Draft (in WD stage) Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 23

doc.: IEEE /1273r1 Submission September 2011 The IEEE 802 delegation’s goal in the CRM is to get claims of “loop holes” repudiated & removed The WAPI NP ballot form asserts that i contains security loopholes –It is a well known fact that current WLAN international standards contains serious security loopholes which need to be dealt with by enhanced security mechanisms Various documents from the China NB and the Swiss NB indicate these loopholes include WPA2 functionality –Although lately they have been backtracking, which raises a more fundamental question of why we need WAPI if WPA2 does not represent a loophole It is the goal of the IEEE 802 delegation to have these claims repudiated in the DoC (Disposition of Comments) and removed from the resulting revised NP ballot form Note: it appears the US NB has additional goals related to other aspects of the WAPI NP ballot –Related to the accuracy & completeness of regulatory & demand justifications Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 24

doc.: IEEE /1273r1 Submission September 2011 There have been attempts to make progress on WAPI NP at a series of CRM teleconferences In San Diego, the US NB proposed that progress could be made on resolving the WAPI NP comments by teleconference SC6 subsequently agreed to hold a weekly comment resolution meetings (CRMs) using Webex starting on 10 August (at 6pm PT on 9 August) –Yes: US, UK, Japan –No: Switzerland, China –Abstain: others The CRMs were actually held less frequently –Convenor: Mr Seung Ok Lim (Korea) – also new WG1 Chair –10 Aug, 31 Aug, 15 Sept held so far, 21 Nov scheduled (probably last!) –US, UK, Switzerland, China, Korea and IEEE 802 have been represented After the first two teleconference made little progress, it was decided to use as well –Hundreds of s resulted Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 25

doc.: IEEE /1273r1 Submission September 2011 The Chair would like to thanks various individuals for representing IEEE 802 at the CRMs Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 26 Bruce Kraemer Dan Harkins Dorothy Stanley Jodi Haaz Brian Weis 10 August Bruce Kraemer Dan Harkins Dorothy Stanley Jodi Haaz Brian Weis 31 August Bruce Kraemer Dan Harkins Dorothy Stanley Jodi Haaz 15 September

doc.: IEEE /1273r1 Submission September 2011 The first CRM made little progress except to agree to a second CRM There was very little progress at the first CRM –See N14896 WAPI PE presented proposed DoC –See N14770 –It included claims that WPA2 is insecure US NB provided a position statement –See N14880 –The lack of evidence supporting the WAPI NP means a new Purpose & Justification clause is required No agreement was reached... except to have a second CRM Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 27

doc.: IEEE /1273r1 Submission September 2011 The second CRM made some progress with the technical issues becoming clearer but not agreed The second CRM only made some progress –See N14927 Dan Harkins (see ) explained how either: –both WAPI and RSN provide “mutual authentication”; OR –Neither WAPI nor RSN provide “mutual authentication”. This was a very revealing technical presentation for a number of NBs –China NB stated it was “out of scope” and too technical The US NB proposed explicit comment resolutions and a revised NP ballot form –See N14915, N14916 –There was some discussion about actual demand for WAPI today but no agreed conclusion Ultimately the CRM decided to have a 3 rd CRM and to start using between CRMs Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 28

doc.: IEEE /1273r1 Submission September 2011 The third CRM consisted mainly of position statements and no agreements China made a statement –Continues to assert “11i loophole is factually existing” US NB made a statement –Wants to move WAPI to WD stage with an appropriate compromise DoC IEEE 802 made a statement –Bruce Kraemer explained IEEE 802 goals –Dan Harkins explained how WAPI is really just a duplication of a subset of RSN functionality (see ) Switzerland made a statement –Mostly aligned with China NB; he is a consultant to IWNCOMM UK made a statement –Supports the US NB proposed comment resolution or cancellation Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 29

doc.: IEEE /1273r1 Submission September 2011 There will be one final CRM on 21 November... The CRM convenor stated that there will only be one more CRM –It will be held on 21 November – discussion is encouraged in the meantime The various parties are far apart... –Latest s are not very encouraging –China NB & Swiss NB technical experts do not seem to understand the implementation of functional entities defined by i –Swiss NB rep is continuing to asserting that all of i is insecure because it includes WEP and TKIP –US NB, UK NB and IEEE 802 reps appear to be aligned –SC6 Chair has stated, “Unless the allegations around 'serious security loopholes' in the NP are deleted and the NP form is revised, it's chair's position not to accept the DoC” Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 30

doc.: IEEE /1273r1 Submission September SC6 may be left with three options in Feb 2012 if consensus cannot be achieved on WAPI DoC... unless there is a breakthrough it is likely the issue will be decided at the F2F meeting in February 2012 with uncertain results Without consensus, are three main choices: –The US NB DoC proposal is accepted — WAPI will go ahead with all false claims about repudiated –The Chinese/Swiss/PE DoC proposal is accepted — WAPI will go ahead with all false claims about on the record –No DoC proposal is accepted — The WAPI project will be cancelled It is not clear which option will be accepted –The first and third are probably acceptable to IEEE WG Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 31

doc.: IEEE /1273r1 Submission September 2011 Additional Dialog Not all material is documented as an SC6 contribution. There is a daily dialog among SC6 participants on associated matters and an ongoing need to respond. Discussion: Balance of receiving and responding to questions without broadcasting or publishing each . Example: What has IEEE done to warn users about risks of using WEP and TKIP? deprecates WEP · n deprecates the use of TKIP for 11n mode · r provides fast transitions using WPA2 – WAPI can’t do this · w provides security for management frames using WPA2 – WAPI can’t do this, which means WAPI can’t really use many k and v features either s provides a new cryptographic key exchange based on a zero knowledge proof that allows for a STA and AP (as well as STAs in an IBSS or mesh STAs in a new "mesh BSS") to perform mutual authentication with a simple password. This key exchange can use elliptic curve cryptography as well as traditional finite field cryptography. The name of the protocol is "Simultaneous Authentication of Equals" (SAE). SAE addresses the well-publicized dictionary attacks that have been launched on the RSN's PSK. It is resistant to passive, active and dictionary attack and allows for devices to establish strong cryptographic keying material for CCMP using a low entropy shared key. Recently I mentioned that WAPI's PSK mode is THREE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE WORSE than RSNs. And now 11s has closed that avenue of attack in RSN but with WAPI it is still there. Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 32

doc.: IEEE /1273r1 Submission September 2011 IEEE 802 members are encouraged to get involved in their SC6 NBs IEEE 802 members are important stakeholders in the WLAN industry around the world You are encouraged to participate in the NB activities in whatever country your employer operates and ensure your view is reflected in the NB position Usually NB positions are set by a “mirror committee” of some sort –In the US there is a Project 5 TAG that covers the MAC/PHY activities of JTC1/SC6/WG1 –In the UK there is also a mirror committee – at least one IEEE member participates –Is anyone eligible to join the Swiss NB mirror committee to ensure they have an accurate understanding of the situation? –Does anyone plan to join any of the NB mirror committees mentioned on the next page? Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 33

doc.: IEEE /1273r1 Submission September 2011 IEEE 802 members are eligible to participate in the activities of many SC6 NBs SC6 P-Members Korea - KATS Spain – AENOR France – AFNOR USA – ANSI UK – BSI Germany – DIN Greece – ELOT Russia - GOST R Luxemburg – ILNAS Tunisia – INNORPI Japan - JISC Kazakhstan – KAZMEMST Kenya – KEBS Belgium - NBN Netherlands – NEN China – SAC Canada – SCC Finland – SFS Switzerland – SNV Czech Republic - UNMZ Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 34 Bold = it is known that voting members come from these countries

doc.: IEEE /1273r1 Submission September 2011 There has been no progress on other security related proposals in SC6 China NB are apparently planning to propose two other security related proposals to SC6 –An 802.1X/AE replacement –An security replacement Both these proposals are based on TePA, the three part authentication protocol underlying WAPI There has been no known progress on these proposals It is expected they will be raised again at the next SC6 meeting in February 2012 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 35

doc.: IEEE /1273r1 Submission September 2011 N-UHT was a “hot topic” at the SC6 meeting in San Diego Rolf DeVegt presented a discussion of ac and N-UHT at the SC6 meeting in San Diego –N IEEE ’s perspectives on document 6N14746 The China NB responded with a presentation at the end of the last day –The presentation did not get an official document number, and the version sent to the IEEE 802 delegation was modified from that presented –The Nufront rep wrote in an accompanying note — I think both MSR and 11 are good at data access applications, but only optimized for different scenarios. So, we are also open to discuss and communicate. Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 36

doc.: IEEE /1273r1 Submission September 2011 N-UHT could be linked to the opening up of 5GHz spectrum in China Most of the 5GHz band in China is not currently open for WLAN However, recently there has been an effort within China led by Chinese SPs and supported by MIIT State Radio Regulatory Commission (SRRC) to open up 5GHz This effort had been going very well, until recently when it was asserted that the band may be opened up for N-UHT only The recently published 12 th Five Year Plan for Wireless Radio Development provides support for an N-UHT only approach –The plan calls for China to make strategic use of its wireless spectrum resources to support broadband, cloud computing, and IoT development –It also calls for allocation of spectrum to indigenous Chinese technologies, and that it increase the amount of domestic IP in wireless radio equipment used in China Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 37

doc.: IEEE /1273r1 Submission September 2011 The standardisation status of UHT & N-UHT within China is becoming clearer... unfortunately! A meeting of CCSA before the SC6 meeting in San Diego considered the standardisation of N-UHT in China, and a vote indicated little support –Nufront voted yes; a number of Chinese companies abstained; a number of Chinese and non Chinese companies voted no The Nufront rep informed the SC6 meeting in San Diego that N-UHT would use an “alternate” process within CCSA –UHT (an 11n extension) also used this “alternate” process –It appears “alternate” means a group of specially selected “experts” It now appears CCSA has approved both UHT & N-UHT and forwarded them to MIIT for final ratification –CCSA ran a final 15 day comment period on N-UHT a few weeks ago –Then passed UHT and N-UHT to MIIT for final ratification –Final ratification could occur by end of Sept Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 38

doc.: IEEE /1273r1 Submission September 2011 It is not clear what will happen next... but everyone needs to get involved! There is much speculation on what is going to happen next –Will N-UHT will be made mandatory in China? –Will 5GHz be opened to UHT/N-UHT only in China? –Will N-UHT be sent to SC6 as a NP proposal? There is some evidence for a number of poor scenarios –A common justifying statement from Chinese regulators is that n/ac are not international standards, hinting that issue could used to mandate N-UHT This is primarily not a technical issue and so it is hard for the IEEE 802 to get involved –However, IEEE 802 could review the spec – does anyone have a translation? A number of industry and trade organisations are following this issue in China, US and Europe –Please encourage your employer to get involved, particularly using people with standards policy and trade expertise Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 39

doc.: IEEE /1273r1 Submission September 2011 Approval of 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 is not “International” –This 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 (who is a consultant to IWNCOMM) recently agreed that is “international” in practice One way of solving this issue is to submit IEEE to ISO/IEC as soon as possible –Currently is scheduled for ratification in Mar 2012 –Can we make it earlier so that it can be submitted to ISO/IEC under the PSDO before the next SC6 meeting in February 2012? — Potentially, this could be used as evidence that WAPI is no longer needed Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 40

doc.: IEEE /1273r1 Submission September 2011 The SC6 meeting in San Diego discussed a proposal from UK NB to withdraw the ISO/IEC 8802 series At the SC6 meeting in San Diego the UK NB made a proposal to withdraw a number of standards including the 8802 series –8802-2:2001 (based on IEEE ) –8802-3:2000 (based on IEEE ) –8802-5:1998 (based on IEEE ) – :2005 (based on IEEE g-2003, h-2004, i-2004) The proposal was based on the observation that the ISO versions of these standards are either obsolete or significantly out of date –This is less true for the series The proposal also noted that IEEE WG has explicitly requested that :2000 be withdrawn After some discussion, it was agree to postpone any decisions on this proposal until Feb 2012 to give IEEE 802 an opportunity to consider associated issues Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 41

doc.: IEEE /1273r1 Submission September 2011 The proposals to withdraw the ISO/IEC 8802 series raised a variety of general issues for the IEEE Issues include (with conclusions from SFO in red): Is it important for an IEEE 802 standards to be recognized as “international” and thus protected by international trade treaties? Yes –Does the WTO consider an IEEE 802 standard to be international? Don’t know –Do all countries recognize the an IEEE 802 standard as international? No Is there any additional value in submitting IEEE 802 standards to ISO/IEC JTC1 for ratification? Yes, universal international recognition –What is the value to IEEE 802 and ISO/IEC JTC1 NBs? Better relationship –Do we expect any technical value? Limited, based on history, but some possible –Are the answers different for each 802 WG? Probably not How should IEEE 802 submit standards for ratification? –Using the PSDO? Yes, because it is an agreed method between IEEE & ISO –Using the traditional fast track method? No, don’t want comments at that point … Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 42

doc.: IEEE /1273r1 Submission September 2011 The proposals to withdraw the ISO/IEC 8802 series raises a variety of specific questions for the IEEE Specific questions include (with conclusions from SFO in red): Should the IEEE WG execute its plan to send to ISO/IEC JTC1 for ratification? Yes Should the IEEE WG send to ISO/IEC JTC1 in the meantime to bring the ISO/IEC series “up to date”? No, because the approval process would overlap with approval process Should the IEEE and WGs send their latest standards to ISO/IEC JTC1? Yes, to ensure universal international recognition Should the other IEEE 802 WG’s consider sending standards to ISO/IEC? Maybe, depending on particular circumstances –Note: is working with ITU-T instead Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 43

doc.: IEEE /1273r1 Submission September 2011 The Chair of the IEEE International ad hoc provided a “discussion starter” in San Francisco Phil Wennblom (Intel) is the Chair of the IEEE International ad hoc This committee has been considering similar issues Phil provided a presentation that: –Described the importance of international standards –Provided an overview of the PSDO –Summarized the IEEE experience with the PSDO Afterwards the IEEE 802 JTC1 ad hoc has a discussion with participation by representatives from: – WG –802.1 WG –802.3 WG – WG Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 44

doc.: IEEE /1273r1 Submission September 2011 The discussion in San Francisco decided to send 802 standards to ISO/IEC under certain conditions Summary from San Francisco 802 plenary meeting There was consensus that it was important for 802 standards to have “International” status There was an understanding that 802 standards are not considered to be “International” by many countries On that basis, 802 WGs should probably consider on what basis and under what conditions they might send 802 standards to ISO/IEC for “registration” reps expressed concern about method 1 & 3 in the PSDO agreement; they would like ISO/IEC to agree to not modify the 802 standards except through 802 processes... Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 45

doc.: IEEE /1273r1 Submission September 2011 Summary of Key Action items? Continue dialog regarding WAPI and i Prepare for November CRM call Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 46

doc.: IEEE /1273r1 Submission September 2011 Guangzhou Meeting - Feb 20, Preparations Expected topics Preparations Submissions/responses Attendees Continuity in calls Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 47

doc.: IEEE /1273r1 Submission September 2011 Are there any other matters? Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 48

doc.: IEEE /1273r1 Submission September 2011 Are there any motions? Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 49

doc.: IEEE /1273r1 Submission September 2011 The IEEE 802 JTC ad hoc will adjourn of the week Motion: The IEEE 802 JTC1 ad hoc, having completed its business in Okinawa in September 2011, adjourns Moved: Seconded: Result Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 50