Report to LMSC EC on IEEE 802.11 TGai dominance allegation May 2011 doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0051r2 November 2016 Report to LMSC EC on IEEE 802.11 TGai dominance allegation Date: 2016-11-06 Authors: Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation
November 2016 Purpose This submission is a report out from the 802.11 WG chair on the outcome of the 802.11 task group ai (TGai) dominance allegation investigation Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation
November 2016 History An allegation of dominance in 802.11 TGai was received in June 2016 https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/16/11-16-0799-00-0000-dominance-allegation-in-tgai.doc The allegation was investigated using a process described to the EC and discussed in the July 2016 opening EC plenary. James Gilb kindly offered to be the EC observer/participant. He attended all interviews and co-authored the report. The report was delivered to 802.11 in Sept 2016 https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/16/11-16-1187-01-0000-investigation-of-dominance-allegation-in-tgai.doc Errors were thus discovered, and an updated report prepared for the Nov 2016 session https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/16/11-16-1187-02-0000-investigation-of-dominance-allegation-in-tgai.doc Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation
Findings (from 11-16/1187r2) November 2016 The outcome of the DILS topic is that this feature remained in the draft standard, but as an optional feature. Under alternative voting regimes, the DILS feature would have been removed. If there was evidence of coercion, the outcome of motion 302 would have been a clear demonstration of dominant behaviour. The outcome of the State Machine topic is that state 5 was removed. The alleged dominant behaviour might have delayed its removal. AES-SIV remains as the only authenticated-encryption scheme in the draft standard. Any alleged dominant behaviour had no effect on this outcome. Questionable behaviour was displayed by Huawei affiliates in the Geneva meeting (July 2013). This did not repeat. There was no evidence of coercion There was evidence that individuals were voting when they were not sufficiently expert so to do Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation