1. July 2010
doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0
Proposed liaison presentation to SC6 in relation to liaisons between IEEE WG and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC 9 May 2011
Authors:
Andrew Myles, Cisco

2. How can cooperation between 802
How can cooperation between WG & SC6 be improved based on the PSDO between IEEE & ISO?
PSDO provides basis for cooperation
WG & SC6 both support cooperation
How can cooperation be improved?
The PSDO agreement provides for cooperation between SC6 & the IEEE
The standard meets the standard of “global recognition and use”
The WG continues to support an ongoing relationship with SC6
The relationship between WG & SC6 has been supported in a variety of ways
How can the formal liaison process between the WG and SC6 be improved?
Do SC6 NBs want to continue receiving Sponsor Ballot drafts from WG?
Does SC6 believe it needs to ratify IEEE standards?

3. The PSDO agreement provides for cooperation between ISO/IEC & the IEEE
July 2010
doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0
The PSDO agreement provides for cooperation between ISO/IEC & the IEEE
The PSDO provides mechanisms for cooperation between ISO/IEC and IEEE in a variety of fields
PSDO is documented in SC6 document list as N (Feb 2008)
It explicitly notes cooperation with ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6
Note: a new version has just been signed - JTC1 N10589
The PSDO states the agreement is consistent with ISO Council policy
of inclusiveness and encourages cooperation between ISO and other standardizing bodies
where such cooperation would serve to ensure effective and efficient use of resources available for standardization activities
The PSDO also recognises the IEEE as an international SDO
IEEE develops many standards that achieve global recognition and use
Andrew Myles, Cisco

4. The 802.11 standard meets the standard of “global recognition and use”
The WG has defined the standard over a period of 21 years
It now includes many amendments; a, b, d, e, g, h, i, j, k, n, p, r, u, v, w, z
Amendments in development include s, aa, ac, ad, ae, af, ah, ai
Revisions were issued in 1997, 1999, 2003, 2007
The standard is internationally recognised
The standard is frequently specified by governments & commercial enterprises
ISO/IEC JTC1 has ratified the base standard and various amendments
802.11i was the last amendment ratified by JTC1 (in 2006)
The standard is widely used
Almost one billion new devices per annum support the standard
Most of these devices are certified for interoperability by the Wi-Fi Alliance

5. The 802.11 WG continues to support an ongoing relationship with SC6
The WG appreciates its ongoing relationship with SC6 for matters of mutual interest
Mainly WANs, MANs, LANs, PANs; both wireless and wired
A healthy on going relationship between WG and SC6 provides:
Mechanisms for SC6 NBs to provide input into the development of the internationally recognised IEEE standard
Processes for SC6 and IEEE to provide expert comment on the work of the other organisation, particularly to avoid duplication of efforts by their respective committees (source: PSDO)
Options for mutual recognition of the standards developed by each committee

6. The relationship between 802
The relationship between WG & SC6 has been supported in a variety of ways
Historically the main mechanism for interaction between the two SDOs was submission of standards for ratification by JTC1
Traditionally they were submitted through the UK NB
Since the PSDO was agreed interactions between the two SDOs have used a variety of collaboration mechanisms
Appointment of liaison officers
ISO has provided access to SC6 documents to WG liaison officers
WG documents are mostly available to general public anyway
Transmission of formal liaison documents
Most formal liaisons have been authored by WG
Some SC6 NB authored documents have been used as proxy liaisons
Liaising of draft standards/amendments
Since 2010, most drafts at Sponsor Ballot level have been liaised to SC6
Attendance at meetings
IEEE 802 representatives have attended SC6 neetings
Individuals from NBs have attended IEEE WG meetings as individuals

7. How can the formal liaison process between the 802
How can the formal liaison process between the WG and SC6 be improved?
Over the last two years the IEEE WG has liaised many documents to SC6
Including N14611, N14551, N14494, N14492, N14316, N14152, N14142, N13939, N13938, N13919
Only one document or response has been formally sent by SC6 to IEEEE WG in that time
N14194 is only formal response from SC6 (Jan 10, thanking IEEE 802)
A number of responses have been received from SC6 NBs but it is difficult to know whether they represent an SC6 position
This situation is partially caused by different time scales of the two organisations
IEEE WG meet every 2 months, whereas SC6 meets every 9 months
Are there any possible process improvements that will allow the WG to determine the SC6 position in a timely manner?

8. Does SC6 want to continue receiving Sponsor Ballot drafts from the 802
Does SC6 want to continue receiving Sponsor Ballot drafts from the WG?
The IEEE WG has liaised most drafts at Sponsor Ballot level to SC6 since Jan 2010
See next page for details
The goal of the liaisons is to provide SC6 NB early visibility of material that may be sent to SC6 for ratification
The liaisons all included an invitation to provide comments
As of May 2011, no technical comments have been received from any NBs on any draft liaised to SC6
N14251 contains a liaison from China on minor process issues
The IEEE WG interprets the lack of technical comments from SC6 NBs as an indication of confidence in the IEEE standards development & maintenance processes 
However, it is worth discussing whether SC6 wants to continue receiving the Sponsor Ballot drafts?

9. The 802.11 WG has liaised most Sponsor Ballot drafts to SC6 since early 2010
Task Group
Liaised after LA
Orlando
Beijing SD
Liaised after Hawaii
Liaised after Dallas
Sing.
Status
Jan 10
Mar 10
May 10
July 10
Sept 10
Nov 10
Jan 11
Mar 11
May 11
TGmb -
D6.0
D8.0
TGs
D10.0
TGu
D11.0
D13.0
Ratified
TGv
D9.0
D15.0
TGz
D7.0
D12.0
Ratifed

10. Does SC6 need to continue to ratify 802.11 standards?
In the past the WG has regularly sent the base standard and some amendments to JTC1 for ratification
The fast track process was traditionally used with submissions by the UK NB
The submissions halted after the controversy caused by i’s approval and WAPI’s rejection by JTC1 in 2006
The WG had intended to submit to JTC1 as a new base standard for ratification using the PSDO defined process
is likely to include all ratified amendments and s
However it is unclear that JTC1 ratification is actually needed
The PSDO already recognises many IEEE standards as having global scope
This was recently noted in N14611 in relation to IEEE 802.3
The SC6 NBs have implicitly indicated confidence in the IEEE WG processes by their lack of comment on Sponsor Ballot drafts
Does SC6 believe it needs to ratify IEEE standards, given they are already have international status and acceptance?