doc.: IEEE /1052r1 Submission Sept 2013 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 1 IEEE 802 JTC1 Standing Committee September 2013 agenda 17 Sept 2013 Authors: NameCompanyPhone Andrew MylesCisco

doc.: IEEE /1052r1 Submission Sept 2013 This presentation will be used to run the IEEE 802 JTC1 SC meetings in Nanjing in Sept 2013 This presentation contains a proposed running order for the IEEE 802 JTC1 Standing Committee meeting in Sept 2013, 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 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 2

doc.: IEEE /1052r1 Submission Sept 2013 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 sub-clause 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 /1052r1 Submission Sept 2013 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 /1052r1 Submission Sept 2013 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 5 A call for potentially essential patents is not required in the IEEE 802 JTC1 SC 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 /1052r1 Submission Sept 2013 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 6 The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC 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 /1052r1 Submission Sept 2013 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 /1052r1 Submission Sept 2013 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 8 The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC 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 /1052r1 Submission Sept 2013 Call to Order Select recording secretary <- important! Approve agenda Conduct meeting according to agenda Recess Call to Order Select recording secretary <- important! UHT discussion with Nufront rep - Liu Shenfa Adjourn The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC has two slots at the Nanjing interim meeting Andrew Myles, Cisco None Tuesday 17 Sept, PM1 Wednesday 18 Sept, AM1 Thursday 19 Sept, PM1

doc.: IEEE /1052r1 Submission Sept 2013 The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC has a detailed list of agenda items to be considered In no particular order: Approve minutes –From plenary meeting in July 2013 in Geneva Review extended goals –From IEEE 802 ExCom in Nov 2010 Review status –Review liaisons of drafts to SC6 –Review notifications of projects to SC6 –Review status of FDIS ballots Review status of security proposals in SC6 –TEPA-AC, TLSec, TAAA, WAPI, TISec –Review meeting between IEEE 802 and Swiss NB Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 10

doc.: IEEE /1052r1 Submission Sept 2013 The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC has a detailed list of agenda items to be considered In no particular order: Discuss possible WAPI future progress Review status of other proposals in SC6 –UHT/EUHT, WLAN Cloud, Optimization technology in WLAN Discuss role of SC6 Discuss criteria for PSDO submissions Review SC6 Chairs statement about repeated discussions of NPs Note HK NB status Consider other topics Consider any motions Consider activity in November –What do we want to put on the agenda for February SC6 meeting Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 11

doc.: IEEE /1052r1 Submission Sept 2013 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 12 The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC will consider approving its agenda Motion to approve agenda The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC approves the agenda for its meeting in Nanjing in September 2013, as documented on pages of Moved: Seconded: Result:

doc.: IEEE /1052r1 Submission Sept 2013 The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC will consider approval of previous minutes Motion to approve minutes The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC approves the minutes for its meeting in Geneva in July 2013, as documented in r r1 Moved: Seconded: Result: Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 13

doc.: IEEE /1052r1 Submission Sept 2013 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 14 The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC 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 IEEE 802 LMSC holds the liaison to SC6, not the IEEE 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 IEEE 802 ExCom ad hoc held in November 2010 on the Friday evening

doc.: IEEE /1052r1 Submission Sept 2013 In recent times, IEEE 802 has liaised a variety of drafts to SC6 IEEE 802 has agreed to liaise drafts to SC6 when they are in Sponsor Ballot (and sometimes earlier) The benefit to IEEE 802 is that it might cause SC6 members to participate in or contribute to IEEE 802 activities Since the July plenary in Geneva the IEEE 802 has liaised the following drafts to SC6: – WG — 22 Aug 2013: ac D6.0 — 22 Aug 2013: af D5.0 –802.1 WG — 9 Aug 2013: 802.1Xbx D1.0 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 15

doc.: IEEE /1052r1 Submission Sept 2013 In recent times, IEEE 802 has notified SC6 of various new projects IEEE 802 has agreed to notify SC6 when IEEE 802 starts new projects The benefit to IEEE 802 is that it might cause SC6 members to participate in or contribute to IEEE 802 activities Since the July plenary in Geneva the IEEE 802 has notified SC6 of the approval of the following SGs –In 6N15723 — IEEE 802.3, "Power over Data Lines" SG — IEEE , “Spectrum Resources Usage in WPANs” SG — IEEE , “Beam Switchable Wireless Point-to-Point 40/100Gbps links (GbW)” SG Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 16

doc.: IEEE /1052r1 Submission Sept 2013 IEEE 802 has submitted ten standards for ratification under the PSDO IEEE 802 standard 60 day pre-balllot 5 month FDIS ballot Passed in XPassed in 2013Closes 16 Oct AEPassed in 2013Closes 16 Oct ABPassed in May 2013Closes 18 Dec ARPassed in May 2013Closes 18 Dec ASPassed in May 2013Closes 18 Dec aaPassed in Feb 2013Closes 28 Jan adPassed in Feb 2013Closes 28 Jan aePassed in Feb 2013Closes 28 Jan Passed in 2013Not started Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 17

doc.: IEEE /1052r1 Submission Sept 2013 IEEE has been ratified as ISO/IEC :2012 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide day pre-ballot: passed in 2012 All comments have been submitted to TGmc for processing Additional comments from Swiss NB in N15623 (a response to the IEEE 802/SC6 collaboration procedure) have also been referred to TGmc The China NB stated in N15591 that they will continue disapproving ISO/IEC until their comments are resolved –It is appears this statement has little real effect — It does not affect any ISO/IEC processes — China is probably required under WTO rules to respect ISO/IEC :2012 as an international standard — The reality is that ISO/IEC :2012 is being widely used in China today, including i based security FDIS ballot: passed in 2012

doc.: IEEE /1052r1 Submission Sept 2013 FDIS on 802.1X closes in October 2013 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide day pre-ballot: passed in 2013 Submission in N15515 Voting results in N15555 –Comments from China NB replied to by IEEE 802 in N15607 –The China NB stated in Korea that they will reply in detail to the IEEE WG response at a later time FDIS ballot: closes 16 October 2013

doc.: IEEE /1052r1 Submission Sept 2013 FDIS on 802.1AE closes in October 2013 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide day pre-ballot: passed in 2013 Submission in N15516 Voting results in N15556 –Comments from China NB replied to by IEEE 802 in N15608 –The China NB stated in Korea that they will reply in detail to the IEEE WG response at a later time FDIS ballot: closes 16 October 2013

doc.: IEEE /1052r1 Submission Sept 2013 FDIS on 802.1AB closes in Dec 2013 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide day pre-ballot: passed in Feb 2013 Submission in N15588 Voting results in N15626 –Comments from China replied to in N15659 FDIS ballot: closes 18 December 2013

doc.: IEEE /1052r1 Submission Sept 2013 FDIS on 802.1AR closes in Dec 2013 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide day pre-ballot: passed in May 2013 Submission in N15589 Voting results in N15627 –Comments from China replied to in N15659 FDIS ballot: closes 18 December 2013

doc.: IEEE /1052r1 Submission Sept 2013 FDIS on 802.1AS closes in Dec 2013 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide day pre-ballot: passed in May 2013 Submission in N15590 Voting results in N15628 –Comments from China replied to in N15659 FDIS ballot: closes 18 December 2013

doc.: IEEE /1052r1 Submission Sept 2013 FDIS on ae closes in Jan 2014 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide day pre-ballot: passed in Feb 2013 Submission in N15552 Voting results in N15599 –Comments from China replied to by IEEE 802 in N15647 — The China NB comments are based on their disapproval of IEEE — IEEE 802 referred China NB to disposition of comments on IEEE –Comments from Japan in N15664 — These comments expressed a concern about having too many amendments outstanding — Japan NB has informally accepted idea that IEEE 802 should be responsible for all maintenance processes FDIS ballot: closes 28 Jan 2014

doc.: IEEE /1052r1 Submission Sept 2013 FDIS on ad closes in Jan 2014 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide day pre-ballot: passed in Feb 2013 Submission in N15553 Voting results in N15601 –Comments from China replied to by IEEE 802 in N15647 — The China NB comments are based on their disapproval of IEEE — IEEE 802 referred China NB to disposition of comments on IEEE –Comments from Japan in N15664 — These comments expressed a concern about having too many amendments outstanding — Japan NB has informally accepted idea that IEEE 802 should be responsible for all maintenance processes FDIS ballot: closes 28 Jan 2014

doc.: IEEE /1052r1 Submission Sept 2013 FDIS on aa closes in Jan 2014 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide day pre-ballot: passed in Feb 2013 Submission in N15554 Voting results in N15602 –Comments from China replied to by IEEE 802 in N15647 — The China NB comments are based on their disapproval of IEEE — IEEE 802 referred China NB to disposition of comments on IEEE –Comments from Japan in N15664 — These comments expressed a concern about having too many amendments outstanding — Japan NB has informally accepted idea that IEEE 802 should be responsible for all maintenance processes FDIS ballot: closes 28 Jan 2014

doc.: IEEE /1052r1 Submission Sept passed the pre-ballot, and is awaiting the start to FDIS ballot Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide day pre-ballot: passed in May 2013 Submission in N15595 Voting results in N15632 –Comments from China were responded to by the Maintenance TF in Geneva – see N15724 FDIS ballot: waiting for start

doc.: IEEE /1052r1 Submission Sept 2013 A number of security proposals are being considered by SC6 ProposalEquivalentChinese standard? NP proposal in WG1? Implemented? TEPA-ACSubset of 802.1X Yes (can we get a translation?) Not yetNot known TLSecSubset of 802.1AE Not yet; BWIPS driving Not yetYes, in lab TAAA security No?Not yetYes, in lab WAPISubset of i based security YesYes, passed, but withdrawn Yes, required in handsets & SP APs but rarely used TISecSubset/copy of IPSec No?Not yet (in WG7) Not known Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 28

doc.: IEEE /1052r1 Submission Sept 2013 A meeting was set up between the IEEE 802.1/11 and Swiss NB security experts The Swiss NB has provided significant comment on various 802 standards over the last few years In particular the Swiss NB has had a strong interest in the TEPA based proposals in SC6 from the China NB This has led to significant and important discussions related to the “state of the art” in 802 security standards, but mostly limited to Hans-Rudolf Thomann Hans-Rudolf Thomann has suggested that we might be able to expand discussions with the Swiss NB to other individuals –Josef Schmid has been suggested as another Swiss security expert It was agreed in Geneva that a meeting should be set up between and security experts and the Swiss NB security experts –The first of a likely series of meetings took place on 27 August 2013 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 29

doc.: IEEE /1052r1 Submission Sept 2013 Dan Harkins will provide a summary of the meeting between IEEE 802 delegation & the Swiss NB reps Meeting participant were –IEEE 802 — Bruce Kraemer (Marvell), Karen Randall (Randall Consulting), Jodi Haasz (IEEE), Mick Seaman, Dan Harkins (Aruba Networks), Brian Weis (Cisco), Peter Yee (AKAYLA) –Swiss NB — Hans-Rudolf Thomann (Thomann Consulting), Josef Schmid (FITSU), Dan will provide a summary from Dan Harkins –Is presentation material available? –Are minutes available? The SC will discuss the meeting, outcomes and next steps Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 30

doc.: IEEE /1052r1 Submission Sept 2013 WAPI has not gone away; it may be re-proposed in SC6 despite uncertainty about the process WAPI was cancelled as an NP proposal in early 2012 There was been little discussion of WAPI in SC6 since that time but there is a possibility it might be re-proposed The process for re-proposing WAPI in SC6 is currently uncertain –There is a claim made at the Korea meeting in June 2013 that the WAPI NP could be un-cancelled by a simple vote of SC6 NBs … –… despite some ambiguity, a case could be made that un-cancelling the WAPI NP requires a new NP ballot Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 31

doc.: IEEE /1052r1 Submission Sept 2013 There is a claim that the WAPI NP could be un- cancelled by a simple vote of SC6 NBs At the SC6 meeting in Korea it was asserted that ISO staff have asserted the WAPI NP could be un-cancelled by a simple vote of SC6 NBs –Although it was also noted that the comments on the old NP form would still need to be resolved The US NB rep asserted that this was contrary to the JTC1 Directives and a new NP ballot would be required Regardless of the rules, it certainly would seem strange to not completely revise an NP form that was submitted in 2009 –Much of the material in the 2009 NP form is very out of date –It would be even more difficult to resolve comments on the 2009 NP form given the claims about WAPI in the market place have now been proved false by the passage of time –At least three of the five NBs that stated in 2009 they would provide experts never have done so Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 32

doc.: IEEE /1052r1 Submission Sept 2013 Despite some ambiguity, a case could be made that un-cancelling the WAPI NP requires a new NP ballot The China NB suggested at the time of cancellation they may resubmit WAPI “when a more favorable standardization environment is available” –This assertion was repeated at the SC6 meeting in Korea in June 2013 The JTC1 Directives are not particularly clear on the process for a project to be re-established once it has been cancelled The best hint comes from the latest NP Ballot form, which includes an option for: –“THIS PROPOSAL RELATES TO THE RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF A CANCELLED PROJECT AS AN ACTIVE PROJECT” This form and the latest JTC1 Directives suggest if there was a proposal to re-establish WAPI then: –It would have be sent to a new NP ballot of SC6 NBs –Assuming the ballot passed, any resulting negative comments would have to be resolved and balloted by the JTC1 NBs Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 33

doc.: IEEE /1052r1 Submission Sept 2013 WAPI has not gone away; it has ongoing support in China WAPI has been an ongoing failure in the marketplace –It does not exist outside China –In China it is widely implemented in mobile phones but rarely deployed Despite this failure WAPI continues to have support in China –It has been a China National standard since about 2003 –It is required to be implemented in mobile phones in China with Wi-Fi by an (unpublished) regulation –It is required to be implemented in APs used by SPs in China an (unpublished) regulation –It was supported by new government funding as recently as late 2012 –The WAPI Alliance is now leveraging the Snowden affair to promote mandatory use of WAPIpromote On the other hand, it appears the Chinese SPs are embracing HS2.0/Passpoint based on i/WPA2-Enterprise Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 34

doc.: IEEE /1052r1 Submission Sept 2013 WAPI will have ample government funding for the foreseeable future WAPI has had support from some parts of the Chinese Government for a long time It appears this support is continuing with the opening of a National Engineering Laboratory in Xi’an in late 2012 –See The focus of the lab (Google Translate) is to “fight for more international standards to adopt China's WAPI security technologies” The attendance at the opening of the lab indicated support for its work from: –“National Information Security Management research institutions” –“industry experts” –“China's electric power, petroleum, finance, transportation” industries Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 35

doc.: IEEE /1052r1 Submission Sept 2013 A number of other relevant proposals are being considered by SC6 ProposalEquivalentChinese standard? NP proposal in WG1? Implemented? UHT802.11n extensionYesNoNot known EUHT802.11ac competitor – really a LTE lite in unlicensed spectrum solution YesNoPrototype WLAN CloudNone obvious; functionality could be achieved in different ways with existing standards NoPWI proposalNot known Optimization technology in WLAN None obvious;NoPWI proposalNot known Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 36

doc.: IEEE /1052r1 Submission Sept 2013 There is no news on EUHT standardisation in ISO/IEC but some activity in IEEE WG There is no further news on standardisation of EUHT in ISO/IEC and it was not discussed at the SC6 meeting in Korea in June 2013 Nufront presented to the IEEE WG and conducted a Q&A in Hawaii in May 2013 –See 595r0 & 595r1 for presentation595r0595r1 –See 640r0 for Q&A minutes640r0 Nufront will present again to IEEE WG in relation to EUHT (on Wednesday AM1), and more explicitly coexistence with IEEE – EUHT Status Description1147 – EUHT Technology Document1148 – Interference and Co-existence Issues of EUHT network1149 – Process Recommendations on Coexistence Interference Analysis1150 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 37

doc.: IEEE /1052r1 Submission Sept 2013 SC6/WG7 decided to delay decisions on two PWI proposals related to WLAN SC6/WG7 discussed two proposals for PWIs related to WLAN –N15692: WLAN Cloud — Allows sharing of APs by SPs –N15691: Optimization technology in WLAN — Defines protocol for sending WLAN sniffing data to central database It appears the IEEE 802 delegation was not in attendance when the items were initially discussed However, later in the week the US NB rep successfully argued that PWIs should not be started in WG7 because the items maybe within the scope of WG1 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 38

doc.: IEEE /1052r1 Submission Sept 2013 SC6/WG7 decided to delay decisions on two PWI proposals related to WLAN It was decided that the items should be discussed in a joint meeting between WG1 and WG7 in Ottawa in February 2014 The approved SC6 resolution was –SC 6 instructs its Secretariat to circulate the documents below for study and comment prior to the interim WG 7 meeting in October –Due to the nature of the topic, the scope should be clarified between WG 1 and WG 7. –SC 6 Secretariat is instructed to arrange a joint session between WG 1 and WG 7 at the next SC 6 meeting in Canada to discuss these topics in more detail and particularly the question of scope. –SC 6 encourages China NB to submit additional documents regarding the details of the proposals and the scope. There was been no further news since the SC6 meeting in Korea Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 39

doc.: IEEE /1052r1 Submission Sept 2013 Is it appropriate for the IEEE 802 to participate in a discussion about the future role of SC6? SC6 participants have noted views privately about the role of SC6 A summary of a view from a number of participants is –Having an SC under JTC1 focusing on networking is more than justifiable –However, with IETF and IEEE 802 dominating in the networking field, there's little room for SC6 to make itself relevant –In addition, some NBs are misusing SC6 to bypass proper review processes by all stakeholders As a stakeholder in the networking industry, does IEEE 802 have a view on the role of SC6? –Maybe as an “upper house” that reviews standards for possible international standardisation but does not develop standards – this is sort of its role now …and is it appropriate to share any views with SC6? Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 40

doc.: IEEE /1052r1 Submission Sept 2013 IEEE 1888 was discussed in SC6/WG7 in Korea for possible submission to SC6 under the PSDO IEEE 1888 is a ratified standard for “UGCCNet: Ubiquitous Green Community Control Network Protocol)” An IEEE 1888 WG delegation proposed the submission of IEEE 1888 to SC6 under the PSDO agreement There was significant discussion in SC6/WG7 comparing IEEE 1888 to ISO/IEC x (DCM: Device Control and Management) It was agreed that there should be further discussions Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 41

doc.: IEEE /1052r1 Submission Sept 2013 The proposed submission of IEEE 1888 raises meta questions for IEEE-SA that were discussed in Geneva Meta questions Under what conditions should IEEE-SA WGs be allowed to make use of the PSDO? –Overuse risks diminishing the reputation of IEEE-SA –Particularly if the submitted standards are of insufficient quality to be “International standards” –But also because submission of many standards makes it easier to make the claim that IEEE is not an international SDO Should IEEE 802 request IEEE-SA to develop a set of criteria for IEEE standards before they are submitted to ISO/IEC –Is the standard appropriate as an ISO/IEC “international” standard? –It is in IEEE-SA’s interest to submit the standard to ISO.IEC under the PSDO? Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 42

doc.: IEEE /1052r1 Submission Sept 2013 The SC discussed in Geneva possible criteria for submission of IEEE standards under the PSDO Possible criteria for submission under PDSO Does it meet the needs of a significant or important set of stakeholders? –ie useful Does it meets the needs of stakeholders situated in multiple countries –ie international scope Is it known to be able achieve its goals in real implementations –Ie viable Has it undergone sufficient development and review by all stakeholders –ie maturity Is it likely be used –ie relevant Is its submission in the interest of IEEE-SA? Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 43

doc.: IEEE /1052r1 Submission Sept 2013 There were no conclusion to the discussion in Geneva about use of the PSDO Geneva discussion Reviewed IEEE 1888 situation Reviewed questions Questions/comments –If there are criteria for the use of the PSDO, who is the arbiter for submissions? –If any change is to be made, such a policy decision will be made by the IEEE Standards Board. –The concern is over sending “lesser” standards to JTC1/SC6 and exposing IEEE to accusations that might bleed over to IEEE 802 submissions. There was no conclusion to this discussion Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 44

doc.: IEEE /1052r1 Submission Sept 2013 It is proposed that further discussion about use of the PSDO be delayed until the November plenary We could/should delay further discussion –We have limited time in Nanjing –It is not clear we have many of the stakeholders in the room –It would be nice to have Standards Board reps involved –We do not yet have a formal proposal Is anyone proposing to make a proposal? What might a proposal look like? –Maybe a WG should be at least be required to document their reasons for using the PSDO, against a minimal set of criteria? –Enforcement/approval is an open question at this time Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 45

doc.: IEEE /1052r1 Submission Sept 2013 The SC6 Chairs statement about repeated discussions of NPs in SC6 has been minuted! SC6 has been discussing various possible NPs for periods up to years over many meetings –eg TePA based proposals This wastes everyone’s time, with endless discussion and no conclusions The SC6 Chair made a statement in Korea limiting discussion on topics in the future This statement will be included in the minutes –The SC6 Chair recommended that items of the same subject should not be discussed more than two times at SC6 meetings before an NP Proposal is submitted to SC6. –The SC 6 Chair strongly requested to the WG 1 Convenor to see to it that this practice be strictly exercised –The SC6 Chair also noted that contributions should not be in the form of stepping on standards of other SDOs. Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 46

doc.: IEEE /1052r1 Submission Sept 2013 Hong Kong NB cannot be a P-Member of SC6 One of the China NB reps has announced he is now a HK NB rep This led to a concern that HK NB may become a voting P-Member of SC6 Given the very small number of active SC6 P-member this could distort voting in SC6 After investigating the rule, it appears that HK NB can never become a P- Member, at least partially because HK is not a country Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 47

doc.: IEEE /1052r1 Submission Sept 2013 What do we want to put on the agenda for February SC6 meeting Overview of 802.1/3/11/15? Disposition matrix of old 802 documents Summary of liaisons/new projects Responses to any agenda items –We should ask fro draft agenda Security experts discussion Summary of comment responses –11mc,.1X/AE, … Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 48

doc.: IEEE /1052r1 Submission Sept 2013 The next SC6 meeting will be held in Canada in February 2014 Meeting ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 Host Standards Council of Canada Date Week of 17 February 2014 Location Offices of Ericsson in Ottawa Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 49

doc.: IEEE /1052r1 Submission Sept 2013 ISO and IEEE will renegotiate the PSDO, and requested comments in Nov 2012 – no update The ISO and IEEE will renegotiating the PSDO in 2014 IEEE 802 may want to provide comments to IEEE staff Does this group have any comments? From Nov 2012 –IEEE should ensure only groups with an established track record may propose use of PSDO; 802.1/3/11 would all qualify –The default state should be that all revisions are undertaken by the source IEEE group, but that group must provide a way for NB reps to participate and contribute –Revisions should be better defined to include any activity that ultimately leads to the next edition of a standard, including amendments and corrections –A revision should also include any work that relies on an IEEE standard ratified under the PSDO and yet adds to, changes or replaces its functions, particularly if it does so in a way that effectively generates independent and incompatible standards There has been no further news on this topic since Nov 2012 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 50

doc.: IEEE /1052r1 Submission Sept 2013 IEEE 802 JTC1 SC will consider any motions The motions will be constructed during the week Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 51

doc.: IEEE /1052r1 Submission Sept 2013 The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC will at the November 2013 plenary meeting The agenda for November will be constructed during the week Delegate list Empowering of HoD Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 52

doc.: IEEE /1052r1 Submission Sept 2013 Are there any other matters for consideration by IEEE 802 JTC1 SC? Matters will be added during the week Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 53

doc.: IEEE /1052r1 Submission Sept 2013 The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC will for the week Motion: The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC, having completed its business in Geneva in July 2013, adjourns Moved: Seconded: Result: Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 54