1. TGac PHY AdHoc Agenda, Minutes, and Strawpolls – September 2011
February 2010
doc.: IEEE /0211r1
September 2011
TGac PHY AdHoc Agenda, Minutes, and Strawpolls – September 2011
Date:
Authors:
Slide 1
Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong
Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

2. February 2010
doc.: IEEE /0211r1
Abstract
Agenda, Minutes, and Stawpolls for the TGac PHY AdHoc September 2011
Slide 2
Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong
Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

3. February 2010
doc.: IEEE /0211r1
Important IEEE Links
The following slides in this deck are believed to be the latest available however the Source locations are:
For summary, see opening-presentation
Don’t forget attendance check during PHY AdHoc session.
Slide 3
Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong
Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

4. February 2010
doc.: IEEE /0211r1
Member Affiliation
It is defined in the IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws, as: “An individual is deemed “affiliated” with any individual or entity that has been, or will be, financially or materially supporting that individual’s participation in a particular IEEE standards activity. This includes, but is not limited to, his or her employer and any individual or entity that has or will have, either directly or indirectly, requested, paid for, or otherwise sponsored his or her participation.
Slide 4
Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong
Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

5. Declaration of Affiliation
February 2010
doc.: IEEE /0211r1
Declaration of Affiliation
Revision: May 2007 Standards Board Bylaw
Openness
Openness is defined as the quality of being not restricted to a particular type or category of participants. All meetings involving standards development an all IEEE Sponsor ballots shall be open toa all interested parties. Each individual participant in IEEE Standards activities shall disclose his or her affiliations when requested. A person who knows or reasonably should know, that a participant’s disclosure is materially incomplete or incorrect should report that fact to the Secretary of the IEEE-SA Standards Board and the appropriate Sponsors.
Slide 5
Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong
Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

6. February 2010
doc.: IEEE /0211r1
Affiliation Policy
Requirement to declare affiliation at all standards development meetings and recorded in the minutes
Affiliation not necessarily same as employer
Declaration requirement may be familiar to some 802 WGs, though WG declaration process may evolve
11. What if I refuse to disclose my affiliation?
As outlined in IEEE-SA governance documents, you will lose certain rights. In a working group where voting rights are gained through attendance, no attendance credit will be granted if affiliation isn’t declared. Similarly, voting rights are to be removed if affiliation isn’t declared.
Affiliation declaration will be added to Sponsor ballot
Slide 6
Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong
Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

7. February 2010
doc.: IEEE /0211r1
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
Slide 7
Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong
Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

8. IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards
February 2010
doc.: IEEE /0211r1
IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards
6.2 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. 2
Slide 8
Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong
Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

9. IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards
February 2010
doc.: IEEE /0211r1
IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards
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. 3
Slide 9
Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong
Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

10. IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards
February 2010
doc.: IEEE /0211r1
IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards
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. 4
Slide 10
Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong
Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

11. Other Guidelines for IEEE WG Meetings
February 2010
doc.: IEEE /0211r1
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
Slide 11
Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong
Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

12. Important Questions about Patents
February 2010
doc.: IEEE /0211r1
Important Questions about 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 that standard?
Minute any responses that were given, specifically the patent claim(s)/patent application claim(s) and/or the holder of the patent claim(s)/patent application claim(s) that were identified (if any) and by whom.
Slide 12
Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong
Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

13. Ad Hoc Operating Rules (1/2)
11ac selection procedure ( r5) 5.
b. A straw poll result of >=75% is required within an Ad Hoc to approve the resolution of all or part of an issue and forward that resolved item to the Taskgroup where it becomes a motion that requires >=75% approval to modify the specification framework or the draft specification.
c. In the case a consensus can not be reached within an Ad Hoc group (a stalemate that prohibits further progress), the subject is moved to the Taskgroup if an Ad Hoc straw poll vote to move the subject to the Taskgroup achieves >50% approval.
Slide 13
Slide 13
Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

14. Ad Hoc Operating Rules (2/2)
d. A motion passing with >50% in the Taskgroup shall be sufficient to move an issue previously assigned to an Ad Hoc group to any Ad Hoc group. A straw poll vote of >50% is required in an Ad Hoc group to refuse an issue from the Taskgroup.
e. An issue may be sent from one Ad Hoc to another if both the sending Ad Hoc and the receiving Ad Hoc approve straw polls for taking the respective actions with >50% approval. A notice should be sent to the reflector indicating the approval of a straw poll to move an issue.
f. To be accepted into the TGac Draft specification, proposals from Ad Hoc group require a motion that passes with >=75% Taskgroup approval
Slide 14
Slide 14
Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

15. Pre-motions or Straw Polls
Before November 2010,
All the straw polls in the PHY Ad-hoc session were done as a conventional name ‘straw poll’, regardless of whether they are for Task Group motion or not
From November 2010 on,
All the straw polls have been classified between pre-motions and (just) straw polls according to authors’ intention
Pre-motions are for Task Group motion
Straw polls are just sounding-out questions
Both can be voted by every attendee at the PHY Ad-hoc, regardless of the status of his/her WG11 voting right
This classification was suggested by Brian Hart (Cisco)
Slide 15
Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

16. PHY AdHoc Topics
PHY AdHoc group discussion topics in document ac-ad-hoc-groups-scope.ppt:
Pilots
Data tones
Preamble
Enhanced MCS
Sounding
Higher Bandwidth modulation
Parsing and Interleaving
Coding, STBC
Spatial Mapping & Cyclic Delays
Mask, Regulatory, ACI, Sensitivity, etc. - additional possible topics
Slide 16
Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

17. Interpretive Guide – Text Coloring
February 2010
doc.: IEEE /0211r1
Interpretive Guide – Text Coloring
Text coloring:
Black = pending agenda item
Red = item partially addressed
Green = item completed
Gray = item not addressed in the session indicated at the top of the slide
Slide 17
Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong
Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

18. PHY Ad-Hoc Agenda February 2010 doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0211r1 Slide 18
Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong
Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

19. PHY Ad-Hoc Agenda Sept. 19-22, 2011
11/1260, Proposed resolution for CID 2934 on L-SIG parity bit, Peter Loc
This will be revisited in Atlanta meeting in November 2011
11/1208r2, “D1.0 Comment Resolution”, Chao-ChunWang
Only on CID3253 (rate rounding up or down)
11/1199r0, “D1.0 Comment Resolution – Various PHY CIDs”, Reza Hedayat
R1 will be revisited in the upcoming conference call
11/1235r0, “D1.0 Comment Resolution - Misc. PHY Comments Part 2 , Youhan Kim
11/1284r1, “D1.0-comment-resolution-equation-errors”, Minho Cheong
11/1216r1, “D1_comment_resolution_brianh_part6”, Brian Hart
R2 will be revisited on CID 2464 in the upcoming conference call
Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

20. PHY Ad-Hoc Agenda Sept. 19-22, 2011 (2)
February 2010
doc.: IEEE /0211r1
PHY Ad-Hoc Agenda Sept , 2011 (2)
11/0928r3, “MCS Tables”, Eldad Perahia
Resolution change to CID3050, 3051, 3052, 3053, 3054, 3055, 3056 to match to the pre-motioned CID3502
11/1282r1, “D1.0-comment-resolution-clause ”, Minho Cheong
11/1293r2, “Draft1-1-PHY-Comment-Resolution-Section to ”, Allert van Zelst
11/1128r3, “D1_comment_resolution_brianh_part5”, Brian Hart
Only on CID 3301, 2811
11/1042r1, “D1 comment resolution brianh part3”, Brian Hart
Only on CID 2938 (40+40MHz)
11/1284r2, “D1.0-comment-resolution-equation-errors”, Minho Cheong
Resolution change only to CID2215, 2217
Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong
Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

21. PHY Ad-Hoc Agenda Sept. 19-22, 2011 (3)
February 2010
doc.: IEEE /0211r1
PHY Ad-Hoc Agenda Sept , 2011 (3)
11/1313r0, “Draft 1.1 Comment Resolutions for Section ”, Allert van Zelst
11/1168r2, “misc phy mac cids”, Eldad Perahia
Resolution change only to CID3139
11/1324r1, “D1.0-comment-resolution-clause ”, Minho Cheong
11/1302r1, “D1.0 Comment Resolution - CID 2668”, Youhan Kim (re-assigned from MU to PHY)
11/1325r1, “D1.0-comment-resolution-clause ”, Minho Cheong
Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong
Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

22. PHY Ad-Hoc Minutes February 2010 doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0211r1 Slide 22
Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong
Page 22
Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

23. PHY Ad-Hoc Minutes Sept. PM#1 19, 2011
Document 11/1208r2
“D1.0 Comment Resolution”, (Chao-Chun)
Discussion only one remaining CID#3253
There have been agreement that don’t need to change how to represent the rate in unit of 1Mbps. Still rounding up.
Pre-motion on comment resolution to CID3253 passes
Document 11/1199r0
“D1.0 Comment Resolution – Various PHY CIDs”, (Reza)
Pointed out that resolution to 3390 is already partially introduced in Draft 1.1.
Reza will prepare revision 1 for the next meeting (No pre-motions this session)
Document 11/1235r0
“D1.0 Comment Resolution - Misc. PHY Comments Part 2”, (Youhan)
Allert presented instead of Youhan.
Pre-motion on all the comment resolution passes
Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

24. PHY Ad-Hoc Minutes Sept. AM#1 20, 2011
Document 11/1284r0
“D1.0-comment-resolution-equation-errors”, (Minho)
Pre-motion on resolutions to all the CIDs passes
Document 11/1216r1
“D1_comment_resolution_brianh_part6”, (Brian)
Pre-motion on resolutions to CID 2466 passes
Pre-motion on resolutions to CID 2464 deferred
This will be revisited with revision 2 for the upcoming conference call
Document 11/0928r3
“MCS Tables”, (Eldad)
Pre-motion on resolution changes to CID 3050, 3051, 3052, 3053, 3054, 3055, 3056 passes to match to the already pre-motioned resolution to CID 3502
Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

25. PHY Ad-Hoc Minutes Sept. PM#1 20, 2011
Document 11/1282r1
“D1.0-comment-resolution-clause ”, (Minho)
Pre-motion on resolutions to all the CIDs passes
Document 11/1293r2
“Draft1-1-PHY-Comment-Resolution-Section to ”, (Allert)
Document 11/1128r3
“D1_comment_resolution_brianh_part5”, (Brian)
Pre-motion on resolution to the remaining CID 3301, 2811 passes
Document 11/1042r1
“D1 comment resolution brianh part3”, (Brian)
Pre-motion on resolution to the remaining CID 2938 passes
Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

26. PHY Ad-Hoc Minutes Sept. AM#2 22, 2011
Document 11/1282r2
“D1.0-comment-resolution-clause ”, (Minho)
Pre-motion on resolution changes to CID 2215, 2217 passes
Document 11/1313r0
“Draft 1.1 Comment Resolutions for Section ”, (Allert)
Pre-motion on resolutions to all the CIDs passes
Document 11/1168r2
“misc phy mac cids”, (Eldad)
Pre-motion on resolution to the remaining CID 3139 passes
Document 11/1324r1
“D1.0-comment-resolution-clause ”, (Minho)
Pre-motion on resolution to all the CIDs passes
Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

27. PHY Ad-Hoc Minutes Sept. AM#2 22, 2011 (2)
Document 11/1302r1
“D1.0 Comment Resolution - CID 2668”, (Youhan)
Pre-motion on resolution to CID 2668 passes
Document 11/1325r1
“D1.0-comment-resolution-clause ”, (Minho)
Pre-motion on resolutions to all the CIDs fails by (Y11/N 5/A2)
But, this is brought to the task group session by author’s request and passed in the task group motion by (Y34/N4/A0)
Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

28. PHY Ad-Hoc Pre-Motions and Straw polls
February 2010
doc.: IEEE /0211r1
PHY Ad-Hoc Pre-Motions and Straw polls
Slide 28
Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong
Page 28
Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

29. Pre Motion #1 (PM#1 19)
Do you support resolution to CID 3253 in document 11/1208r2?
Yes:
No:
Abs:
Pre Motion passes with no objection.
Slide 29
Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

30. Pre Motion #2 (PM#1 19)
Do you support resolution to CID 3814, 3447, 3815 in document 11/1235r0?
Yes:
No:
Abs:
Pre Motion passes with no objection.
Slide 30
Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

31. Pre Motion #3 (AM#1 20)
Do you support resolution to CID 3450, 3635, 3661 in document 11/1284r1?
Yes:
No:
Abs:
Pre Motion passes with no objection.
Slide 31
Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

32. Pre Motion #4 (AM#1 20)
Do you support resolution to CID 2466 in document 11/1216r1?
Yes:
No:
Abs:
Pre Motion passes with no objection.
Slide 32
Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

33. Pre Motion #5 (AM#1 20)
Do you support resolution to CID 3050, 3051, 3052, 3053, 3054, 3055, 3056 in document 11/0928r3?
Yes:
No:
Abs:
Pre Motion passes with no objection.
Slide 33
Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

34. Pre Motion #6 (PM#1 20)
Do you support resolution to CID 2985, 2216, 2386, 2389, 2215, 2376, 2217, 2387, 2384, 2383, 2375, 2377, 2378, 2692, 3678 in document 11/1282r1?
Yes:
No:
Abs:
Pre Motion passes with no objection.
(FYI, resolutions to CID 2215, 2217 is changed later by Pre Motion #10)
Slide 34
Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

35. Pre Motion #7 (PM#1 20)
Do you support resolution to CID 2049, 2139, 2200, 2140, 2201, 2141, 2202 in document 11/1293r2?
Yes:
No:
Abs:
Pre Motion passes with no objection.
Slide 35
Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

36. Pre Motion #8 (PM#1 20)
Do you support resolution to CID 3301, 2811 in document 11/1128r3?
Yes:
No:
Abs:
Pre Motion passes with no objection.
Slide 36
Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

37. Pre Motion #9 (PM#1 20)
Do you support resolution to CID 2938 in document 11/1042r1?
Yes:
No:
Abs:
Pre Motion passes with no objection.
Slide 37
Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

38. Pre Motion #10 (AM#2 22)
Do you support resolution to CID 2215, 2217 in document 11/1282r2?
Yes:
No:
Abs:
Pre Motion passes with no objection.
Slide 38
Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

39. Pre Motion #11 (AM#2 22)
Do you support resolution to CID 2204, 2346, 3723, 2351, 3596, 2206, 2051, 2354 in document 11/1313r0?
Yes:
No:
Abs:
Pre Motion passes with no objection.
Slide 39
Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

40. Pre Motion #12 (AM#2 22)
Do you support resolution to CID 3139 in document 11/1168r2?
Yes:
No:
Abs:
Pre Motion passes with no objection.
Slide 40
Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

41. Pre Motion #13 (AM#2 22)
Do you support resolution to CID 2393, 2394, 2963, 2395, 3606, 2396, 2397, 2398, 2401, 3142, 2403 in document 11/1324r1?
Yes:
No:
Abs:
Pre Motion passes with no objection.
Slide 41
Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

42. Pre Motion #14 (AM#2 22)
Do you support resolution to CID 2668 in document 11/1302r1?
Yes:
No:
Abs:
Pre Motion passes with no objection.
Slide 42
Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

43. Pre Motion #15 (AM#2 22)
Do you support resolution to CID 3393, 3394, 3395, 3452, 3453, 2904, 3276 in document 11/1325r1?
Yes: 11
No: 5
Abs: 2
Pre Motion fails
(But, this is directly brought to the task group session by author’s request)
Slide 43
Banerjea, Erceg and Cheong

44. Straw poll No straw poll is done during Okinawa meeting July 2011
doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0
Straw poll
No straw poll is done during Okinawa meeting
Fei Tong, CSR
Fei Tong, CSR