Project: IEEE 802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [WG-TG3 Closing Report March03] Date Submitted: [14March03] Source: [John Barr] Company [Motorola] Address [1303 E. Golf Road, Schuamburg, IL 60196] Voice:[+1 847 576-8706], FAX: [+1 847 576-6758], E-Mail:[John.Barr@Motorola.com] Re: [02424r0P802-15_TG3-November02-Meeting-Objective-and-Agenda.xls] Abstract: [TG3 Chair Report to 802.15 WG] Purpose: [TG3 chair report to WG to update them on work completed at DFW.] Notice: This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE 802.15. 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 802.15. March 2003 doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/078r1 March 2003 Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola John Barr, Motorola

IEEE 802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks March 2003 doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/078r1 March 2003 802.15 IEEE 802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks TG3 Closing Report March 2003, DFW Texas Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola John Barr, Motorola

Agenda Goals of March Meeting Sponsor Ballot Status doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/078r1 March 2003 Agenda Goals of March Meeting Sponsor Ballot Status Motion to add 802.15.3 to REVCOM agenda Motion to empower BRC Goals for May Meeting Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola John Barr, Motorola

March 2003 Goals for March Conference call status, including approval of any ad hoc business. Sponsor ballot comment resolution. Update draft as required. Approve sponsor ballot recirculation. Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola

March 2003 SB1 Comment Status Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola

SB2 Comment Status March 2003 doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/078r1 March 2003 Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola John Barr, Motorola

March 2003 Motion to the TG3 Move to empower the 802.15.3 SBRC to update D16 to D17 and release for sponsor ballot recirculation under LMSC Procedure 10. Mover: Al Heberling Second: Jim Allen For – 5 Against – 0 Abstain – 0 Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola

March 2003 Motion to the WG Move to empower the 802.15.3 SBRC to update D16 to D17 and release for sponsor ballot recirculation under LMSC Procedure 10. (TG 5/0/0) Mover: John Barr Second: Jim Allen For – Against – Abstain – Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola

Conditional Approval Support March 2003 Conditional Approval Support D16 Recirculation Ballot Closed – 8March2003 (15-day) 74 Approve/2 Disapprove/6 Abstain (97%) Disapprove Comments (package) Confirmation Schedule Pre-D17 on 24March2003 Inform IEEE-SA of ballot in two weeks SBRC comments on 31March2003 D17 Released for SB on 5April2003 Copy to IEEE-SA and REVCOM D17 SB Starts on 7April2003(15-day) D17 SB Closes on 22April2003 SBRC Meeting in Chicago on 24April2003 Submit to REVCOM for 5May2003 Meeting Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola

802.15.3 SB No Vote Resolution D15 Remaining Disapprove Votes: March 2003 802.15.3 SB No Vote Resolution D15 Remaining Disapprove Votes: Rajugopal Gubbi – 5 Comments (1 Rebuttal) Rene Struik – 3 Comments (No Rebuttal) All disapprove comments were provided to the sponsor ballot pool along with D16. No additional NO votes were received supporting these comments. D16 had 97% approval. D16 Remaining Disapprove Votes: Rene Struik – 2 Comments (03/174r2) Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola

March 2003 CID 153 Rebuttal Rajugopal Gubbi submitted the following comment during the 802.15.3/D15 sponsor ballot:   CID 153: Clause: 00 Subclause: 00 Page: 00 Line: 00 Comment Type: TR COMMENT START: Summarise all PHY timing parameters in one table in 11.2.7 ref: CID 69 - LB22 A summary all PHY dependent parameters (aCCADetectTime,aPHYSIFS-Time etc.) in a table with actual values at one place instead of spreading them all around the PHY clause is very desirable from implementors'view. An example would be Table-64 for MAC parameters. Although Table-120 provides a list of just the IFS parameters in a table, even there the for actual values the readers have to scrouge through the individual subclauses, which can easily be avoided. COMMENT END: SUGGESTED REMEDY: Make the change as requested. SUGGESTED REMEDY END: RESPONSE: ACCEPT IN PRINCIPLE. Make a table of all of the pZZZYyy parameters and their values, this will follow the format of table 65 in clause 8. RESPONSE END: Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola

Rajugopal Gubbi’s Email Response (18Feb2003): March 2003 Rajugopal Gubbi’s Email Response (18Feb2003): TR-153 - Why is this ACCEPT in PRINCIPAL? Why not simplify the process by saying ACCEPT? If there is any deviation to listing parameters in one, single comprehensive table, the resolution will be unacceptable to me. 802.15.3 Technical Editor’s Reply (19Feb2003): In the suggested resolution, you did not exactly specify what was to be done, so it was an accept in principle. To do an Accept, we need exact text or changes to be made. I put the following parameters in one table: pPHYMIFSTime, pPHYSIFSTime, pCCADetectTime, pPHYChannelSwitchTime with the associated timing information. It makes it more difficult to read the PHY clause in the draft to have them in a single table rather than the location where the measurement is defined, but it wasn't a big deal to move them either. In any event, the comment is really editorial, we have not changed any of the technical requirements in the standard, just the location of the information. All of the timing information is defined in exactly the same way as it was before. Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola

D16 added Table 80: PHY layer timing parameters. March 2003 D16 added Table 80: PHY layer timing parameters. 802.15.3 Chair’s Request to D16 sponsor ballot negative voters (8March2003): Please submit a recirculation ballot with your vote on D16. This will help us get a clean record for all of the previous NO voters. Rajugopal Gubbi’s Response (9March2003): Please refer to the following section of the SB announcement. "NOTE: You must respond to a Recirculation Ballot if you wish to change your initial vote. If you do not respond to a Recirculation Ballot, your last vote will be carried forward." Hence what you are asking is completely unnecessary, since the NO votes will be carried through. 802.13.3 Chair’s Request for Reconsideration (12March2003): Please review D16 and your comments one more time and let me know whether the new draft satisfies any of your outstanding unsatisfied comment resolutions from the first sponsor ballot. End of Resolution Record for CID 153. Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola

CID 167,168 Rebuttal (1) March 2003 Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola Clause: 00 Subclause: 00 Page: 00 Line: 00 Comment Type: TR COMMENT START: The 802.15.3 Chair directed the removal of all public-key key establishment mechanisms from the D15 Draft (see 03/054r1). It is however not clear at all on which rationale this decision was made. In fact, one can easily provide technical arguments that the decision lacks any justification and is not based on sound professional or engineering arguments The 802.15.3 standard without proper entity authentication and key establishment mechanisms is a standard that cannot be implemented by industry, since it is incomplete. Moreover, no concrete suggestions are done how to provide adequate specifications for this functionality. Without this, this standard cannot be implemented by industry and will not be used or used with considerable delay. Last, but not least, the decision on what is supposed to be inside scope and what isn’t seems to be based on arbitrary arguments. For a detailed rationale considering this comment, see the document I will post during the March 2003 Dallas meeting and the presentation I intend to give there. COMMENT END: SUGGESTED REMEDY: Revert the decision to drastically modify the security properties of the standard. Re-incorporate all authentication and key establishment-related security mechanisms that were removed from the draft in the transition process from Draft D15 towards Draft D16. Re-consider all sponsor ballot comments related to Draft D15. SUGGESTED REMEDY END: RESPONSE: REJECT. The PAR of 802.15.3 limits the scope of our standard. There are many issues of an implementation that are outside of the scope of a MAC and PHY. For example, service discovery, network address resolution, routing and bridging are all outside of the scope of a MAC/PHY standard. The committee has used the experience with the public-key cryptography suites to ensure that the 802.15.3 MAC supports the use of these higher layer protocols to perform entity authentication and key establishment. There are higher layer protocols, e.g. 802.1x, that allow MAC/PHY standards to implement entity authentication and key establishment. The 802 leadership and the 802.15 working group chair both indicated that the inclusion of these security suites was outside of the scope of a MAC/PHY standard. RESPONSE END: Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola

CID 167,168 Rebuttal (2) March 2003 CID 168: Clause: 00 Subclause: 00 Page: 00 Line: 00 Comment Type: TR   COMMENT START: The 802.15.3 Chair directed the removal of all public-key key establishment mechanisms from the D15 Draft (see 03/054r1). It is however not clear at all on which rationale this decision was made. In fact, one could address Paul Nikolich’s comments (as worded in 03/54r1) by implementing just 1 public-key security suite (this removing choice). This would allow a standard that is functional and complete and was also the initial intention before politics entered the 802.15.3 stage. COMMENT END: SUGGESTED REMEDY: Revert the decision to drastically modify the security properties of the standard. Re-incorporate 1 authentication and key establishment-related security mechanisms, viz. the ECMQV security suite that was removed from the draft in the transition process from Draft D15 towards Draft D16. Re-consider all sponsor ballot comments related to Draft D15. SUGGESTED REMEDY END: RESPONSE: REJECT. The SBRC voted 11 to 1 to remove the public-key cryptography suites, per the recommendation from the 802 SEC chair and the 802.15 working group chair. The SBRC agreed that the inclusion of these suites could be seen as being outside of the scope of the PAR which limits the standard to the MAC and PHY only. The decsion to remove the security suites was affirmed by the working group in the closing plenary of the Ft. Lauderdale meeting as well. The issue of the inclusion of the public-key cryptography suites was not that there were more than one option, but rather that the authentication process took place in layers above the MAC and PHY. Removing all but one public-key suite would not resolve the issue of the public-key security suites being out of scope of the 802.15.3 PAR. RESPONSE END: Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola

March 2003 CID 167,168 Rebuttal (3) Rene Struik presented document 03/174r0 “Rationale for Security in 802.15.3” during a joint session of TG3 and TG3a during the DFW IEEE 802 Plenary, March 2003. In a later session of TG3, slides 9 and 10 of the presentation were offered as justification for not accepting the resolution of the SBRC. Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola

Security Changes to 802.15.3 Specification (1) March 2003 CID 167-168 Rebuttal from 03/174r2 Security Changes to 802.15.3 Specification (1) Impact of Security Changes Draft D15  D16 NO mechanism left for device authentication in 802.15.3 specification REMAINS: mechanism for key updates and secure data transport Inconsistent: key transport left in, key agreement left out (conceptually the same) Consequences: IEEE 802.15.3(a) WPANs: no secure piconet access mechanism specified (since 802.15.3 MAC re-used for 802.15.3a) Lack of interoperability between devices Uncertainty about secure operation of networks Severe impact on: - time-to-market (someone else has to define authentication now) - market size (no interoperability, so no ‘network effects’) - industry acceptance In short: Change sacrifices secure piconet operation (what is rationale?) Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola

Security Changes to 802.15.3 Specification (2) CID 167-168 Rebuttal from 03/174r2 March 2003 Security Changes to 802.15.3 Specification (2) Rationale Security Changes Draft D15  D16 (according to 03/054r1) ‘Paul Nikolich felt authentication to be out of scope’ Comments: Opinion expressed as 802 member, not as Chair IEEE 802 Interpretation problems by 802.15.3 Chair (Opinion vs. interpretation hereof): - ‘security suites out of scope’  authentication for higher layers - ‘to be discussed at March Plenary’  premature removal authentication (put process in place to solve issue) - options: remains within WG, LinkSec, or 802.1  1 option: removal Opinion inconsistent with practices elsewhere in IEEE 802 standards (see Annex A) Improper use of Sponsor Ballot comments (CID #19): - (speculation) Comment based on ‘yet another break of NTRUEncrypt’ Insufficient discussion about alternative means for solving authentication problem: - 802.1x mechanism: in ‘adhoc’ network to be integrated with each device!! - LinkSec ECSG will solve this: just formed, composed of people alien to WPAN requirements, no desire to solve WPAN problems (mainly Ethernet) {Agenda Monday (03/062r4): ‘Security Study Group Position’ – where is it?’} - Industry consortium will solve this: timeline?? Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola

March 2003 CID 167,168 Rebuttal (4) TG3 did not conclude that the SBRC findings were incorrect as a result of the presentation. These comments will be carried forward with the D17 sponsor ballot recirculation.   End of Resolution Record for CID 167 & 168. Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola

Motion to the Task Group March 2003 Motion to the Task Group Move to seek approval of the WG to place IEEE 802.15.3 D17 on the May REVCOM agenda subject to successful completion of recirculation ballot following LMSC Procedure 10. Mover: Jim Allen Second: Al Heberling For – 5 Against – 0 Abstain – 0 Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola

Motion to the Working Group March 2003 Motion to the Working Group Move to place IEEE 802.15.3 D17 on the May REVCOM agenda subject to successful completion of recirculation ballot following LMSC Procedure 10. TG3 Approval: 5/0/0 Mover: Jim Allen Second: John Barr For – Against – Abstain – Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola

March 2003 Goals for May Conference call status, including approval of any ad hoc business. Review and address any REVCOM issues. Editing recommendations for IEEE-SA . Prepare for final approval Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola

SBRC Ad Hoc Meeting April 24, 2003 – Schaumburg, IL Hosted by Motorola March 2003 SBRC Ad Hoc Meeting April 24, 2003 – Schaumburg, IL Hosted by Motorola Noon to 5PM Address D17 Sponsor Ballot Comments Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola

Publicity Committee Input March 2003 Publicity Committee Input IEEE 802.15.3 sponsor ballot has >97% approval. Task group has reviewed all of the technical comments and is preparing an updated draft (D17) for recirculation in April. IEEE-SA will have pre-standard copies of IEEE 802.15.3 available for distribution in April. IEEE 802.15.3 draft standard is expected to be submitted for final approval following successful recirculation in May. Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola

March 2003 802.15.3 Application Space Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola

March 2003 Ultra Wide Bench (UWB) Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola