1. Jul 12, 2010
07/12/10
Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Specialty Networks (WSN)
Submission Title: TG4z EIR Opening Report for September 2019
Date Submitted: September 2019
Source: Tim Harrington, Pro-ID Consulting
Contact:
Voice: ,
Re: Enhanced Impulse Radio Technical Group
Abstract: Opening report
Purpose: Provide information for opening Sessions
Notice: This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE P It is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein.
Release: The contributor acknowledges and accepts that this contribution becomes the property of IEEE and may be made publicly available by P
Slide 1
Slide 1
Page 1

2. Sign In for attendance
Slide 2

3. 07/12/10
Jul 12, 2010
Scope
This amendment enhances the HRP and LRP UWB PHYs and associated ranging techniques. Areas of enhancement include additional coding and preamble options, improvements to existing modulations to increase the integrity and accuracy of the ranging measurements, and additional information element definitions to facilitate ranging information exchange. The amendment defines MAC changes to support these PHY enhancements. Typical range of the radio is up to 100 meters.
Slide 3
Slide 3
Page 3

4. EIR Officers Chair: Tim Harrington, UWB Alliance
07/12/10
07/12/10
EIR Officers
Chair: Tim Harrington, UWB Alliance
Vice Chair and Secretary: Benjamin A. Rolfe, UWB Alliance
Technical Editor: Billy Verso, DecaWave
Slide 4
Slide 4
Page 4

5. Overhead
IEEE Slides Review and modify agenda Approve agenda
Slide 5

6. Instructions for the WG Chair
The IEEE-SA strongly recommends that at each WG meeting the chair or a designee:
Show slides #1 through #4 of this presentation
Advise the WG attendees that:
The IEEE’s patent policy is described in Clause 6 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws;
Early identification of patent claims which may be essential for the use of standards under development is strongly encouraged;
There may be Essential Patent Claims of which the IEEE is not aware. Additionally, neither the IEEE, the WG, nor the WG chair can ensure the accuracy or completeness of any assurance or whether any such assurance is, in fact, of a Patent Claim that is essential for the use of the standard under development.
Instruct the WG Secretary to record in the minutes of the relevant WG meeting:
That the foregoing information was provided and that slides 1 through 4 (and this slide 0, if applicable) were shown;
That the chair or designee provided an opportunity for participants to identify patent claim(s)/patent application claim(s) and/or the holder of patent claim(s)/patent application claim(s) of which the participant is personally aware and that may be essential for the use of that standard
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.
The WG Chair shall ensure that a request is made to any identified holders of potential essential patent claim(s) to complete and submit a Letter of Assurance.
It is recommended that the WG chair review the guidance in IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual and in FAQs 14 and 15 on inclusion of potential Essential Patent Claims by incorporation or by reference.
Note: WG includes Working Groups, Task Groups, and other standards-developing committees with a PAR approved by the IEEE-SA Standards Board.
Slide 6

7. Participants, Patents, and Duty to Inform
All participants in this meeting have certain obligations under the IEEE-SA Patent Policy.
Participants [Note: Quoted text excerpted from IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws subclause 6.2]:
“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
“Should inform the IEEE (or cause the IEEE to be informed)” of the identity of “any other holders of 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
No duty to perform a patent search
Slide 7

8. 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
Slide 8

9. Call for Potentially Essential Patents
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
Slide 9

10. 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 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.
Slide 10

11. 07/12/10
Jul 12, 2010
Meeting Goals
Resolve comments from 1st Recirculation of WG letter ballot
Start recirculation
Slide 11
Slide 11
Page 11

12. 4z-EIR Schedule for the Week
Don Sturek, Itron
4z-EIR Schedule for the Week
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
AM 1
TG4z EiR
AM 2
PM 1
PM 2
PM 3

13. 07/12/10
Jul 12, 2010
Agenda
z-TG4z September Interim Agenda-agenda.xlsx
Slide 13
Slide 13
Page 13

14. IEEE-SA RevCom Comment Resolution Preparation Guidelines
The Guideline is intended to provide assistance to the Standards Committee in preparing comment resolutions that increase the likelihood of quick project approval at RevCom. RevCom guidance on the contents of the disposition and disposition detail fields: The disposition status field of a comment resolution must be set to one of: Accepted, Revised or Rejected. This section gives guidance on how to determine which is the appropriate disposition status, and based on that, what might go in the disposition detail field.

15. RevCom Guidelines
Disposition status is “Accepted” - Means: The CRC agreed exactly with comment and change proposed by the commenter. - Prerequisite: The changes proposed in the comment contain sufficient detail so that voters can understand the specific changes that satisfy the commenter and the editor can make the change. -The disposition detail field should be left blank

16. RevCom Guidelines Disposition status is “Revised”
Means: CRC agrees in principle with the comment and/or proposed change, and one or more of:
the CRC disagrees with all or part of the specific details in the proposed change in the comment,
the proposed change in the comment does not contain sufficient detail so that the CRC can understand the specific changes that satisfy the commenter, or
the changes made by the CRC contain additions or modifications to what was proposed by the commenter
the proposed change offers more than one alternative
- The disposition details field should contain sufficient detail so that voters can understand the specific changes determined by the CRC and the editor can make the change

17. RevCom Guidelines Disposition status is “Rejected”
-Used when one or more of these applies:
- the CRC disagree with the comment
- the comment is out of scope
- the proposed change in the comment does not contain sufficient detail so that the CRC can understand the specific changes that satisfy the commenter
- the CRC cannot come to a consensus to make changes necessary to address the comment
- the comment is in support of an unsatisfied previous comment associated with a disapprove vote and does not provide substantive additional rationale
- the comment includes an attachment that does not meet the criteria indicated by the myBallot system; that the CRG cannot address as a single issue; or that does not relate to a specific line, paragraph, figure, or equation in the balloted draft
- the commenter has indicated to the CRG chair that they wish to withdraw the comment

18. RevCom Guidelines
The disposition detail field should explain why the comment is being
rejected using one or more of these reasons:
- an explanation of why the CRC disagrees with the comment,
- a statement that the comment is out of scope, and the rationale,
- a statement that the proposed change in the comment does not contain sufficient detail so that the CRC can understand the specific changes that satisfy the commenter
- a statement that the CRC could not reach consensus on the changes necessary to address the comment, along with the reason
- a statement that the CRC has previously considered the comment (or a substantively similar comment), along with identification (by reference or copy) of the original comment and its disposition detail and status
a statement of why the CRC considers the attachment does not meet the criteria indicated by the myBallot system; or cannot be addressed as a single issue; or does not relate to a specific line, paragraph, figure, or equation in the balloted draft
- a statement that the commenter has withdrawn the comment

19. Motions and Discussion
Discussion will be limited to 2 minutes per presenter
1 rebuttal up to 1 minutes
May be extended at the discretion of Chairman upon request

20. July Accomplishments
Progress on CR of 1st WG letter ballot 1st recirculation started by CRG between meetings

21. Jul 12, 2010
07/12/10
Timeline
March 2018 – 2nd Call for proposals – resolved comments on PAR and CSD
July 2018 – Review new proposals – Merge Baselines for draft
Sept 2018 – Drafting using merged baselines
Nov 2018 – Drafting using merged baselines
Jan 2019 – Complete drafting – informal ballot
March 2019 – Comment Res – 1st Working Group ballot
May 2019 – Comment Resolution
July Comment Res – Recirc Working Group ballot
Sept 2019 – Comment Res – Recirc Working Group ballot
Nov 2019 – Comment resolution & start SA ballot
Jan Comment Res – Forward to RevCom
Page 21

22. Examples
Disapprove vote, cited as technical: “Class 1E is a name and therefore the "c" must be capatalized regardless of the formatting utilized for Terms and Definitions” Disposition detail was Rejected with the following detail: “I will leave this up to IEEE and IEC to determine what is the correct format.” RevCom Member commented, questioning this disposition detail and offered the following: “The only valid promise of future action is to refer a comment to the publication editor for consideration during publication editing. It is not clear that "IEEE and IEC" meant the IEEE-SA editors.”

23. Example
Approve vote with comment: “Delete "European community (CE)", if only third party certification is accepted. Or add the alternative of self declaration.” Disposition status was Accepted with the detail: “Added the alternative of self declaration, "an accredited testing laboratory“” RevCom Member commented: “Comment should have been "revised" because the comment itself offers a choice, and it is not possible to implement both parts of an exclusive choice.”