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

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

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

19. PHY AdHoc Agenda May 9-12, 2011
11/700r0 TGac D0.1 comment resolution - cid 1649 Minho Cheong (ETRI) PHY
11/699r0 TGac D0.1 comment resolution - corrections to equation errors Minho Cheong (PHY)
11/694r0 TGac D0.1 comment resolution - clause Minho Cheong (ETRI) (PHY)
11/693r0 TGac D0.1 comment resolution - cid 1589, 295, 1219, 296, 297, 1634, 429, 430, 431, 432 Minho Cheong (ETRI) (PHY)
11/692r0 TGac D0.1 comment resolution - cid 397,611,1636,1645,645 Minho Cheong (ETRI) (PHY)
11/684r0 TGac D0.1 Comment Resolution – Segment Deparser Youhan Kim (Atheros) (PHY)
11/665r0 Equation 22-2 Youhan Kim (Atheros) PHY
11/663r1 Stream Parser Youhan Kim PHY
Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

20. PHY AdHoc Agenda May 9-12, 2011 11/727r0 Clause 22.2.3 Youhan (PHY)
11/659r0 Reference waveform generator for 11ac: Status Update (PHY)(PHY)
11/731 Proposed text for TGac Draft 0.1 comment-CID 812 on China channelization Zhendong Luo (CATR) (PHY)
11/631 D0.1 Comment Resolution for CID 238, 875, 896, 852, 1116, 1572, 1104, 1617, 1218, 1433 (PHY)
11/ 723r0 D01-comment-resolution-cids (Vinko Erceg) (PHY)
11/667r0 comments on channelization CIDs 1696, 1391 (Raja Banerjea) (PHY)
11/590r2 comments 480, 481, 1562 (ZTE) (PHY)
11/761r0 comment 812 (Brian Hart) (PHY)
11/602r0 short GI indication (Raja Banerjea) (PHY)
Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

21. PHY AdHoc Minutes February 2010 doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0211r1 Slide 21
Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong
Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong
Page 21
Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

22. PHY AdHoc Minutes May 9, 2011 Document 11/693r0 Document 11/694r0
CIDs 1589, 295, 1219, 296, 297, 1634, 429, 430, 431, 432
CIDs 1219 and 432 were modified
Latest document version is 11/693r1
Resolutions were accepted unanimously
Document 11/694r0
CIDs 312, 320, 323, 1223, 324, 872, 326, 873, 889, 1224, 874, 333, 1225, 1350, 876, 1226, 833, 834, 596, 336, 877, 335, 598, 878
CIDs 1223, 1224, 833 reason for rejection was included
Latest document version is 11/694r1
Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

23. PHY AdHoc Minutes May 9, 2011 Document 11/699r0 Document 11/663r1
CIDs 1637, 416, 1670, 1683, 1685, 443, 445, 447, 1630, 1692, 1693
CID 447 overlaps with CID 880 that was motioned already and resolves it
Latest document version is 11/699r1
Resolutions were accepted unanimously
Document 11/663r1
CIDs 426, 427, 428, 1657
Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

24. PHY AdHoc Minutes May 9, 2011 Document 11/665r0 Document 11/684r0
CIDs 350
Resolution was accepted unanimously
Document 11/684r0
CIDs 306, 435, 1673, 434, 632, 1680
Resolutions were accepted unanimously
Document 11/659r0
Waveform generator status update
Pre-motion at the end of document passed unanimously
Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

25. PHY AdHoc Minutes May 9, 2011 Document 11/731r0 CIDs 812
There were discussion on the proposed resolution of the CID.
Strawpoll results to accept the resolution to the comment failed:
Yes: 6
No: 12
Abs: 12
Brian will bring an alternative resolution to the comment (global channels)
Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

26. PHY AdHoc Minutes May 10, 2011 Document 11/667r0 Document 11/602r0
CIDs 1696, 1391
CID 1391 was modified
Latest document revision is 11/667r1
Resolutions were accepted unanimously
Document 11/602r0
CIDs 1325, 1499, 108, 110, 138, 1026, 1141, 1253, 1326, 1411, 1456, 1480, 929
Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

27. PHY AdHoc Minutes May 10, 2011 Document 11/700r0 Document 11/727r0
CID 1649
Resolutions were accepted unanimously
Document 11/727r0
CIDs 1104, 1617, 149, 1218, 1433, 217
Resolutions need to be updated
No strawpoll
Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

28. PHY AdHoc Minutes May 10, 2011 Document 11/631r3 Document 11/590r2
CIDs 238, 875, 896, 852, 1116, 1572
CIDs 1104, 1617, 1218, 1433 are covered in 11/727
CID 1116 will be updated based on document 11/1264r1
CID 896 was deferred
No strawpoll, document will be updated
Document 11/590r2
CIDs 480, 481, 1562
Resolutions were accepted unanimously
Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

29. PHY AdHoc Minutes May 10, 2011 Document 11/723r0
CIDs 648, 649, 650, 1336, 1711, 546, and 1567
Resolution to CID 1336 was updated
Latest document revision is 11/723r1
Resolutions were accepted unanimously
Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

30. PHY AdHoc Minutes May 11, 2011
Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

31. PHY AdHoc Minutes May 12, 2011
Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

32. PHY AdHoc Strawpolls February 2010 doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0211r1
Slide 32
Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong
Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong
Page 32
Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong

33. Straw Poll #1 Do you support .. Yes: No: Abs: Slide 33
Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong
Erceg, Banerjea, and Cheong