doc.: IEEE /0085r2 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 1 VHT SG January 2008 Report Date: Authors:

doc.: IEEE /0085r2 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 2 Patent Policy Following 5 slides

doc.: IEEE /0085r2 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 3 Highlights of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards –Participants have a duty to tell the IEEE if they know (based on personal awareness) of potentially Essential Patent Claims they or their employer own –Participants are encouraged to tell the IEEE if they know of potentially Essential Patent Claims owned by others This encouragement is particularly strong as the third party may not be a participant in the standards process –Working Group required to request assurance –Early assurance is encouraged –Terms of assurance shall be either: Reasonable and nondiscriminatory, with or without monetary compensation; or, A statement of non-assertion of patent rights –Assurances Shall be provided on the IEEE-SA Standards Board approved LOA form May optionally include not-to-exceed rates, terms, and conditions Shall not be circumvented through sale or transfer of patents Shall be brought to the attention of any future assignees or transferees Shall apply to Affiliates unless explicitly excluded Are irrevocable once submitted and accepted Shall be supplemented if Submitter becomes aware of other potential Essential Patent Claims –A “Blanket Letter of Assurance” may be provided at the option of the patent holder –A patent holder has no duty to perform a patent search –Full policy available at 1

doc.: IEEE /0085r2 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide Policy IEEE standards may be drafted in terms that include the use of Essential Patent Claims. If the IEEE receives notice that a [Proposed] IEEE Standard may require the use of a potential Essential Patent Claim, the IEEE shall request licensing assurance, on the IEEE Standards Board approved Letter of Assurance form, from the patent holder or patent applicant. The IEEE shall request this assurance without coercion. The Submitter of the Letter of Assurance may, after Reasonable and Good Faith Inquiry, indicate it is not aware of any Patent Claims that the Submitter may own, control, or have the ability to license that might be or become Essential Patent Claims. If the patent holder or patent applicant provides an assurance, it should do so as soon as reasonably feasible in the standards development process. This assurance shall be provided prior to the Standards Board’s approval of the standard. This assurance shall be provided prior to a reaffirmation if the IEEE receives notice of a potential Essential Patent Claim after the standard’s approval or a prior reaffirmation. An asserted potential Essential Patent Claim for which an assurance cannot be obtained (e.g., a Letter of Assurance is not provided or the Letter of Assurance indicates that assurance is not being provided) shall be referred to the Patent Committee. A Letter of Assurance shall be either: a) A general disclaimer to the effect that the Submitter without conditions will not enforce any present or future Essential Patent Claims against any person or entity making, using, selling, offering to sell, importing, distributing, or implementing a compliant implementation of the standard; or b) A statement that a license for a compliant implementation of the standard will be made available to an unrestricted number of applicants on a worldwide basis without compensation or under reasonable rates, with reasonable terms and conditions that are demonstrably free of any unfair discrimination. At its sole option, the Submitter may provide with its assurance any of the following: (i) a not-to-exceed license fee or rate commitment, (ii) a sample license agreement, or (iii) one or more material licensing terms. IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards 2

doc.: IEEE /0085r2 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 5 Copies of an Accepted LOA may be provided to the working group, but shall not be discussed, at any standards working group meeting. The Submitter and all Affiliates (other than those Affiliates excluded in a Letter of Assurance) shall not assign or otherwise transfer any rights in any Essential Patent Claims that are the subject of such Letter of Assurance that they hold, control, or have the ability to license with the intent of circumventing or negating any of the representations and commitments made in such Letter of Assurance. The Submitter of a Letter of Assurance shall agree (a) to provide notice of a Letter of Assurance either through a Statement of Encumbrance or by binding any assignee or transferee to the terms of such Letter of Assurance; and (b) to require its assignee or transferee to (i) agree to similarly provide such notice and (ii) to bind its assignees or transferees to agree to provide such notice as described in (a) and (b). This assurance shall apply to the Submitter and its Affiliates except those Affiliates the Submitter specifically excludes on the relevant Letter of Assurance. If, after providing a Letter of Assurance to the IEEE, the Submitter becomes aware of additional Patent Claim(s) not already covered by an existing Letter of Assurance that are owned, controlled, or licensable by the Submitter that may be or become Essential Patent Claim(s) for the same IEEE Standard but are not the subject of an existing Letter of Assurance, then such Submitter shall submit a Letter of Assurance stating its position regarding enforcement or licensing of such Patent Claims. For the purposes of this commitment, the Submitter is deemed to be aware if any of the following individuals who are from, employed by, or otherwise represent the Submitter have personal knowledge of additional potential Essential Patent Claims, owned or controlled by the Submitter, related to a [Proposed] IEEE Standard and not already the subject of a previously submitted Letter of Assurance: (a) past or present participants in the development of the [Proposed] IEEE Standard, or (b) the individual executing the previously submitted Letter of Assurance. IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards 3

doc.: IEEE /0085r2 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 6 The assurance is irrevocable once submitted and accepted and shall apply, at a minimum, from the date of the standard's approval to the date of the standard's withdrawal. The IEEE is not responsible for identifying Essential Patent Claims for which a license may be required, for conducting inquiries into the legal validity or scope of those Patent Claims, or for determining whether any licensing terms or conditions are reasonable or non-discriminatory. Nothing in this policy shall be interpreted as giving rise to a duty to conduct a patent search. No license is implied by the submission of a Letter of Assurance. In order for IEEE’s patent policy to function efficiently, individuals participating in the standards development process: (a) shall inform the IEEE (or cause the IEEE to be informed) of the holder of any potential Essential Patent Claims of which they are personally aware and that are not already the subject of an existing Letter of Assurance, owned or controlled by the participant or the entity the participant is from, employed by, or otherwise represents; and (b) should inform the IEEE (or cause the IEEE to be informed) of any other holders of such potential Essential Patent Claims that are not already the subject of an existing Letter of Assurance. IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards 4

doc.: IEEE /0085r2 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 7 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 fixing product prices, allocation of customers, or dividing 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 If you have questions, contact the IEEE-SA Standards Board Patent Committee Administrator at or visit 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. This slide set is available at 5

doc.: IEEE /0085r2 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 8 Further Information IEEE Code of Ethics – IEEE-SA Affiliation FAQ – IEEE-SA Antitrust & Competition Policy – IEEE-SA LETTER OF ASSURANCE (LOA) FORM – IEEE-SA STANDARDS BOARD PATENT COMMITTEE (PATCOM) INFORMATION – IEEE-SA PATENT FAQ – IEEE 802 LAN / MAN STANDARDS COMMITTEE (LMSC) POLICIES & PROCEDURES – IEEE WLANS WORKING GROUP POLICIES & PROCEDURES –

doc.: IEEE /0085r2 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 9 Essential Patents Are there any patent claim(s)/patent application claim(s) and/or the holder of patent claim(s)/patent application claim(s) that the participant believes may be essential for the use of this standard?

doc.: IEEE /0085r2 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 10 Agenda Monday January 14, 10:30 – 12:30 –Patent policy, etc. –Set agenda –Review from November –Discussion of timeline –Call for submissions –Presentations –PAR & 5C’s Tuesday January 15 th, 16:00 – 18:00 –Reaffirm agenda –Presentations –PAR & 5C’s Thursday January 17 th, 10:30 – 12:30 –Reaffirm agenda –Presentations –PAR & 5C’s –9:30am Review time line Goals for March Set up conference calls

doc.: IEEE /0085r2 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 11 Review from November Presentations –Wi-Fi Alliance (WFA) VHT Study Group Usage Models, 11-07/2792, presented by Rolf De Vegt –60 GHz related Per-User Data Rate, Band and Bandwidth Options for VHT, 11-07/2605, presented by Jason Trachewsky 60 GHz vs. 5 GHz Propagation Discussion, 11-07/2793, presented by Vinko Erceg What Is Happening In 60 GHz, 11-07/2790, presented by Sheung Li Multi-band Modulation, Coding, and Medium Access Control, 11-07/2780, presented by Robert Daniels –Efficiency of VoIP on n, 11-07/2704, presented by Darwin Engwer –How should we manage the process for the proposed VHT activity?, 11-07/2863, presented by Andrew Myles –Performance Comparison of Dynamic OFDM with n, 11-07/2860, presented by James Gross –VHT Possibilities, 11-07/2886, presented by Darwin Engwer –VHT in Below 6 GHz Frequency Bands, 11-07/2861, presented by Vinko Erceg Goals for January –WFA update on use cases –Start work on PAR & 5 C’s Decisions about operating band Decisions about # of PAR’s Discussion on process/ selection procedure Darwin’s PAR submission range Feasibility Amendment vs. new standard –IMT-Advanced update

doc.: IEEE /0085r2 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 12 Time Line May 2007 (Interim) –Initial meeting July 2007 (Plenary) –Presentations –WG approval of SG extension to Nov Sept 2007 (Interim) –Presentations Nov 2007 (Plenary) –Presentations –SG motion for extension to March Jan 2008 (Interim) –Presentations –Initial version of PAR & 5 C’s Mar 2008 (Plenary) –Presentations –Work on PAR & 5 C’s –SG/WG/EC motion for extension to July Create presentation for EC May 2008 (Interim) –final version of PAR & 5 C’s –WG approval July 2008 (Plenary) –EC approval on July 18 –VHT TG unofficially begins Aug 2008 –NesCom submission by Aug 8 Sept 2008 (Interim) –NesCom meeting on Sept 17 –VHT meets as ad hoc? Nov 2008 (Plenary) –Task Group officially starts

doc.: IEEE /0085r2 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 13 Call for Submissions Information on following subjects will assist us in creating a PAR and 5 Criteria: –Market needs, applications, usage scenarios –Technology & feasibility MAC efficiency evaluation and enhancements, including evaluation of 11n MAC with higher PHY rates PHY enhancements to 11n new MAC & PHY technology –Requirements metrics (i.e. throughput, network capacity, spectral efficiency, range) coexistence / interoperability –Spectrum availability & regulatory options relationship with IMT-Advanced

doc.: IEEE /0085r2 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 14 Submissions Update of WFA presentation on use cases, 20 min – liaison-from-wi-fi-alliance-to regarding-wfa-vht-study-group-consolidation-of-usage-models.ppt Brian Hart, 30 min – vht-legacy-coexistence-a-better-way.ppt Marc De Courville, 20 min – vht-mobile-cooperation.ppt IMT-Advanced (maybe) Peter E. (Tues), 10 min

doc.: IEEE /0085r2 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 15 Presentations for Monday January 14 Update of WFA presentation on use cases, 20 min – liaison-from-wi-fi-alliance-to regarding-wfa-vht-study-group-consolidation-of-usage-models.ppt Brian Hart, 30 min – vht-legacy-coexistence-a-better-way.ppt Marc De Courville, 20 min – vht-mobile-cooperation.ppt

doc.: IEEE /0085r2 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 16 Minutes for Monday January 14 07/2988 –John Barr What was meant by usage model 1a, use case 3? –Rolf: Need to fix grammar –Matt & George: what’s the 150Mbps standard? Rolf: Lightly compressed HD John Barr: taking a HDMI output, lightly compressing prior to going over the air –Michael Lipshitz: 10-6 PER will give an error every 10 secs –John Barr: regarding usage model 4b (bridging) is typically deployed with other technology like Rolf: is frequency used for bridging –John Barr: in usage model 6, question the coupling data rate and delay Rolf: will take this up in WFA –Mathilde: Will MAC developments be allowed Eldad: Yes if the SG crafts the Scope to allow MAC enhancements in the TG –Bruce: Prioritized list will help focus work (# of end uses of usage model, timeline required by usage model) Are the highlighted models the highest priority? –Rolf: no, just example –Darwin: large number of usage models, IEEE can map solutions to usage models

doc.: IEEE /0085r2 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 17 Minutes for Monday January 14, continued 08/0081 –George: advocating fragmentation with complete preamble for each fragment, or going towards H-ARQ? Marc: aggregation scheme of frames –Padam: more information on cooperative cluster Marc: in broadcast, same content shared between terminals –Rolf: practical use case mentioned was broadcast, any other Marc: web browsing, with different content, terminals help each other out –Bruce: splitting projects between IMT-Advanced type usages and wireless HD usages

doc.: IEEE /0085r2 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 18 Minutes for Monday January 14, continued 07/3001 –Marc: what is the recommendation to VHT? Brian: if someone else is transmitting, you shouldn’t be transmitting over it. Coexistence at 5 GHz should be a requirement –Allert: supports CCA, some questions regarding sims Include filtering? –Yes Average length? –31 tap, 80 MHz wide At the TX and RX –Filter at RX, IFFT at TX Need to reconsider the CCA requirements, since current is written based on preamble detect –Darwin: its really mid-frame, rather than –Eldad: would you like to see coex in scope? Yes if there was a list of requirements in

doc.: IEEE /0085r2 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 19 Minutes for Monday January 14, continued Straw poll –Yes: 39; No: 0; Abs: 7

doc.: IEEE /0085r2 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 20 Agenda for Tuesday January 15 Reaffirm agenda Presentations –Gal, vht-vht-par-direction.ppt –Marc, vht-imtadv-scope-proposal.ppt Development of PAR & 5C’s

doc.: IEEE /0085r2 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 21 Presentations for Tuesday January 15 Gal, vht-vht-par-direction.ppt Marc, vht-imtadv-scope-proposal.ppt

doc.: IEEE /0085r2 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 22 Minutes for Tuesday January –Marc – goal seems to be cable replacement, how is it differentiated from 15.3c 11abg is also cable replacement, 15.3c is PAN, this will be LAN standard –Peter – what is anticipated range at 60 GHz? The range will be shorter, but we can enable better range with beamforming and rate downscaling –Darwin – VHT in 2.4/5/60 or product with 2.4/5 11n with 60 GHz VHT VHT part is 60 GHz –Doug – rate shifting? Product supports 3 bands, the product can rate shift between 60 GHz higher rates and over to 2.4/5 for lower rates –Peter – do you need different antennas for 2.4/5 & 60? Yes –Marc – 60 GHz won’t improve user experience over the whole BSS –Eldad – slide 10 would be a purpose/par? Metric is PHY rate? Coexistence w/ 60 GHz –Rolf – suggestions for rest of the usage models? Distinct identity? Good chance all WFA usage models would be covered with 60 GHz

doc.: IEEE /0085r2 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 23 08/0121 Marc G. – what would be the maximum individual link throughput? How many devices in a BSS? Distinct identity from 16m? –4-6 devices transmitting simultaneously –Divided IMT-Advanced between mobility for 16m and nomadic for 11vht Amer – presentation leaves out 60GHz because of 15.3c, we should not do that –Split PARs between IMT-Advanced and 60 GHz Marc G. – splitting pars makes sense in light of diverging platforms Rolf – how would you envision implementing hooks for interworking? Eldad – do you want to address all usages within one TG again like 11n? Michael – target dates? –2012

doc.: IEEE /0085r2 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 24 PAR discussion questions Usage model –Should the study group develop a PAR & 5C’s that is not usage model specific? –Should the study group develop multiple PAR & 5C’s targeting specific usage models, e.g. handheld/cellular verses wireless HD video distribution? Operating band –Should the study group develop a PAR & 5C’s that is not band specific? –Should the study group develop a PAR & 5C’s specifically targeting <6GHz band? –Should the study group develop a PAR & 5C’s specifically targeting GHz band? Should PAR & 5C’s be split based on both usage and operating band?

doc.: IEEE /0085r2 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 25 Operating band straw polls 1) Should the study group develop a PAR & 5C’s that is not band specific? –Y: 4 –N: 49 –Abs: 2 2) Should the study group develop a PAR & 5C’s specifically targeting <6GHz band? –Y:29 –N:9 –Abs:13 3) Should the study group develop a PAR & 5C’s specifically targeting GHz band? –Y:21 –N:4 –Abs: 30 4) Should the study group develop two PAR &5C’s one for <6GHz band and one for 57-62GHz band –Y: 29 –N: 4 –Abs: 19

doc.: IEEE /0085r2 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 26 More straw polls on operating band 5) Should the study group develop one PAR & 5C’s for both bands (<6GHz & 57-62GHz)? –Y: 4 –N: 31 –Abs: 16 6) Should we develop common MAC enhancement for both bands? –Y: 12 –N: 20 –Abs: 20 7) for <6GHz –Amendment: 27 –New standard: 9 8) for 57-62GHz –Amendment: 11 –New standard: 29

doc.: IEEE /0085r2 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 27 Agenda for Thursday January 17 Reaffirm agenda PAR & 5C’s discussion –Continue discussion based on usage model questions –Timeline for TG 12:00pm –Review time line –Goals for March –Set up conference calls

doc.: IEEE /0085r2 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 28 Minutes for Thursday January 17 1) Should the study group develop PARs that are not usage model specific? –Yes: 0 –No: 38 –Abs: 22 2) Should the study group develop multiple PARs targeting specific usage models? –Yes: 10 –No: 26 –Abs: 22

doc.: IEEE /0085r2 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 29 Minutes for Thursday January 17 continued 3) Should the study group specify limited usage models in a <6 GHz PAR and a 60 GHz PAR? –Yes: 39 –No: 1 –Abs: 19 John Barr: should we specify a PAR that allows the combination of existing radios and applications specific to higher performance radios? –E.g., upper MAC & management, c lower MAC, c PHY

doc.: IEEE /0085r2 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 30 Example PAR Scope TGn –The scope of this project is to define an amendment that shall define standardized modifications to both the physical layers (PHY) and the Medium Access Control Layer (MAC) so that modes of operation can be enabled that are capable of much higher throughputs, with a maximum throughput of at least 100Mbps, as measured at the MAC data service access point (SAP). 07/574r1 –This scope of this project is to define the specifications for physical layers (PHY) and the Medium Access Control (MAC) layer that delivers throughputs greater than or equal to 1 Gbps, as measured at the MAC service access point (SAP), under normal operating conditions, with a typical range no less than 100 meters.

doc.: IEEE /0085r2 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 31 Example PAR Purpose TGn –The purpose of the project is to improve the wireless local area network (LAN) user experience by providing significantly higher throughput for current applications and to enable new applications and market segments. 07/574r1 –The purpose of the project is to create a substantially better wireless local area network (LAN) user experience by providing significantly higher throughput for current applications and to enable new applications and market segments.

doc.: IEEE /0085r2 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 32 Goals for March Presentations related to “call for submissions” –WFA update on use cases –Analytical framework (Darwin) Continue work on: –PAR & 5 C for <6GHz band –PAR & 5 C for 60 GHz band Rationale for extension

doc.: IEEE /0085r2 Submission January 2008 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 33 Conference call times Possible date/time: –Weekly beginning Thursday, January 24, 11:00 Eastern Time –one hour Topics: –PAR & 5C’s development –Analytical framework (Darwin)