doc.: Submission, Slide 1 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [SG LLC Report for Nov 2015 Session] Date Submitted: [12 Nov 2015] Source: [Patrick Kinney] Company [Kinney Consulting LLC] Address [Chicago area, IL, USA] Voice:[ ], Re: [SG LLC Report for Nov 2015 Session] Abstract:[Report for the Nov Session] Purpose:[] Notice:This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE P It is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein. Release:The contributor acknowledges and accepts that this contribution becomes the property of IEEE and may be made publicly available by P

doc.: Submission Administrative Items Required notices –IEEE Code of Ethics –IEEE Standards Association (IEEE-SA) Affiliation FAQ –Antitrust and Competition Policy –IEEE-SA Patent Committee FAQ & Patent slides –Letter of Assurance Form Chair and Secretary request –Chair is Pat Kinney (Kinney Consulting) Rich Kennedy, MediaTek November 2015 Slide 2

doc.: Submission November 2015 Rich Kennedy, MediaTek Other Guidelines for IEEE WG 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. Slide 3

doc.: Submission, Slide 4 SG LLC Meeting Goals  Tuesday, 10 Nov, PM2  Opening report ( )  LLC proposal presentation ( )  Report of announcement at IETF94 ( )  Discussion on topics for tonight’s joint meeting with  Ethertype, bridging 64-bit to 64-bit, etc  Wednesday 11 Nov, AM1:  First cut at PAR ( ) and CSD ( )  Thursday 12 Nov, PM1  Second cut at PAR ( ) and CSD ( )  Agenda approval ( )  Minutes from Bangkok approval ( )

doc.: Submission, Slide 5 Discussion of Topics at 802.1/ Joint Meeting Tuesday 10 Nov, PM3: Discussion on Joint issues 1.Consolidated LLC for 15.4 (45 min) – Kinney 2.RAC decision, use Ethertype or clone new type assignment for (45 min) – Kinney 3.Update on L2R (<10 min) - Powell d, the 100g data center project (plus the 15.3 revision and conversion to 48 bit to be 802 compatible) (<10 min) – Kürner 5.DetNet (10 Min) –Kinney 6.Adjourn

doc.: Submission, Slide 6 RAC decision, use Ethertype or clone new type assignment for A real EtherType, i.e. a 2 octet type field that can and/or will show up on other networks where the EtherType is already in use (e.g , ) as a payload that is identified by EtherType. This would certainly be the case if the payload of 15.4 were organized in a manner that was similar to where the physical transport information is separated from the data payload by a field which is used to hand off the data to the correct protocol processor. -OR- 2. A registry for a type field that will be used in that will not show up as an "802" type field (see above) when the 15.4 data payload is truly local or when it shows up (perhaps via a router or some other higher layer relay) buried down in an IP packet that the destination knows how to unravel. In case 1, we will give you an EtherType (as long as you designate a field, preferably immediately after the type field for sub-typing) For more information and a good example of sub-typing see IEEE O&A clause Figure 12. In case 2, although it would be possible for you to share use with the EtherType registry, we probably don't want to do that. In order to preserve the EtherType registry space, we would probably want to create another (new) registry for your value.