doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 1

IEEE 802 JTC1 Standing CommitteeNovember 2012 agenda

13 November 2012

Authors:

Name Company Phone email

Andrew Myles Cisco+61 2 84461010+61 418 656587

amyles@cisco.com

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

This presentation will be used to run the IEEE 802 JTC1 SC meetings in San Antonio in Nov 2012

• This presentation contains a proposed running order for the IEEE 802 JTC1 Standing Committee meeting in Nov 2012, including– Proposed agenda– Other supporting material

• It will be modified during the meeting to include motions, straw polls and other material referred to during the meeting

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 2

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 3

Participants have a duty to inform in relation to patents

• All participants in this meeting have certain obligations under the IEEE-SA Patent Policy (IEEE-SA SB Bylaws subclause 6.2). Participants: – “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— “Personal awareness” means that the participant “is personally aware that the holder

may have a potential Essential Patent Claim,” even if the participant is not personally aware of the specific patents or patent claims

– “Should inform the IEEE (or cause the IEEE to be informed)” of the identity of “any other holders of such 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; there is no duty to perform a patent search

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 4

There are a variety of 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— http://standards.ieee.org/guides/bylaws/sect6-7.html#6

– IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual— http://standards.ieee.org/guides/opman/sect6.html#6.3

• Material about the patent policy is available at – http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-material.html

• If you have questions, contact the IEEE-SA Standards Board Patent Committee Administrator at patcom@ieee.org or visit http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/index.html

• This slide set is available at http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.ppt

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 5

A call for potentially essential patents is not required in the IEEE 802 JTC1 SC

• 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

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 6

The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC will operate using general guidelines for IEEE-SA 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 5.3.10 and “Promoting Competition and Innovation: What You Need to Know about the IEEE Standards Association's Antitrust and Competition Policy” for more details.

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 7

Links are available to a variety of other useful resources

• Link to IEEE Disclosure of Affiliation – http://standards.ieee.org/faqs/affiliationFAQ.html

• Links to IEEE Antitrust Guidelines– http://standards.ieee.org/resources/antitrust-guidelines.pdf

• Link to IEEE Code of Ethics– http://www.ieee.org/web/membership/ethics/code_ethics.html

• Link to IEEE Patent Policy– http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.ppt

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 8

The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC will operate using accepted principles of meeting etiquette

• IEEE 802 is a world-wide professional technical organization

• Meetings are to be conducted in an orderly and professional manner in accordance with the policies and procedures governed by the organization.

• Individuals are to address the “technical” content of the subject under consideration and refrain from making “personal” comments to or about the presenter.

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

• Call to Order

• Select recording secretary <- important!

• Approve agenda

• Details on next page

• Conduct meeting according to agenda

• Recess

• Call to Order

• Select recording secretary <- important!

• Conduct meeting according to agenda

• Recess

The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC has three slots at the San Antonio plenary meeting

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

• Call to Order

• Select recording secretary <- important!

• Conduct meeting according to agenda

• Adjourn

Tuesday13 Nov, PM1

Wednesday 14 Nov, PM1

Thursday15 Nov, PM1

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC has a detailed list of agenda items to be considered

In no particular order:

• Approve minutes– Plenary meeting in July 2012 in San Diego

• Review extended goals– From IEEE 802 ExCom in Nov 2010

• Review IEEE 802.11 WG liaisons to SC6– Review latest liaisons of Sponsor Ballot drafts– Review status of JTC1 ballot on IEEE 802.11-2012

• Review results of SC6 meeting in September in Austria– Status of “agreement” between SC6 and IEEE 802– Status of WAPI, EUHT, TLSec, TEPA-AC, TAAA, TISec, …

• Discus next steps after SC6 meeting in September in Austria

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 10

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 11

The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC will consider approving its agenda

Motion to approve agenda

• The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC approves the agenda for its meeting in San Antonio in Nov 2012, as documented on page 10 of <this slide deck>

• Moved: Bruce

• Seconded: Paul

• Result: unanimous

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC will consider approval of previous minutes

Motion to approve minutes

• The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC approves the minutes for its meeting in Atlanta in July 2012, as documented in 11-12-1303

• Moved: Bruce

• Seconded: Paul

• Result: unanimous

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 12

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 13

The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC reaffirmed its general goals in Sept 09, but they were extended in Nov 2010

Agreed (with changes from Nov 2010) goals

• Provides a forum for 802 members to discuss issues relevant to both:– IEEE 802– ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6

• Recommends positions to ExCom on ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 actions affecting IEEE 802– Note that 802 LMSC holds the liaison to SC6, not 802.11 WG

• Participates in dialog with IEEE staff and 802 ExCom on issues concerning IEEE ’s relationship with ISO/IEC

• Organises IEEE 802 members to contribute to liaisons and other documents relevant to the ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 members

Extensions

• The extensions to our goals came out of the 802 ExCom ad hoc held in November 2010 on the Friday evening

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

The IEEE 802.11 WG has liaised various Sponsor Ballot drafts to ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6

• Normally the 802.11 WG liaises Sponsor Ballot documents. However, the WG told SC6 it would liaise 802.11ac as soon as it passed a LB; we did!

• 802.11ac D4.0 needs to liaised soon

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 14

Task Group

After San Fran

After Okinawa

After Atlanta

After Jack.

AfterHawaii

After Atlanta

After San Diego

After Palm Sp

July 11 Sept 11 Nov 11 Jan 12 Mar 12 May 12 July 12 Sept 12

TGae - D5.0 D7.0 - Ratified - - -

TGaa - D6.0 D7.0 - Ratified - - -

TGac - - - D2.0 - D3.0 - -

TGad - - - D5.0 D6.0/D7.0 D8.0 D9.0 -

TGmb - D10.0 D12.0 - Ratified - - -

TGs Ratified - - - - - - -

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

Publication of IEEE 802.11-2012 is important so we can submit it to ISO/IEC for “International” ratification

• One of the issue that comes up continuously is claims that IEEE 802.11 is not “International”– This has been repeated continuously by various Chinese stakeholders,

particularly in relation to the amendments that have not been sent to ISO/IEC– Interestingly, the Swiss NB rep recently agreed that IEEE 802.11 is

“international” in practice

• One way of resolving this issue is to submit IEEE 802.11-2012 to ISO/IEC JTC1 for FDIS ballot under the PSDO agreement as ISO/IEC 8802-11

• This was done earlier this year after SC6 invited IEEE 802 to submit IEEE 802.11-2012, thus bypassing the 60 day pre-ballot in the PSDO– In the future it will not be possible to bypass the pre-ballot in SC6– The FDIS ballot is undertaken in JTC1

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 15

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

Andrew Myles, Cisco

JTC1 ratified IEEE 802.11-2012 in October 2012 with only one negative vote

• The FDIS ballot on IEEE 802.11-2012 passed– P members: 15 in favour out of 16 (94%) – requirement of >= 66.6%– P & O Members: 1 negative out of 20 (5%) - requirement of <= 25%

• The only NB voting no was China, with comments that asserted– 802.11 is “Devoid of real mutual authentication”– “WEP mechanism downgrades the security levels, and results in not resolving

security problems …”– “The protocols are not intact”— Seems to claim that the 4 way hand shake will fail

– IEEE 802.11-2012 does not refer to latest version of 802.1X— And 802.1X material referenced is not in referenced version

– “There are numerous editorial and grammatical errors …”— Amusingly the first example cited is incorrect

• It is not known when the publication processes will be completed– Update: Published on 13 November 2012– Q: How do 802.11 members get hold of a copy?Slide 16

ISO_IEC_IEEE_FDIS_8802-11_SAC.doc

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

It is proposed that the comments on IEEE 802.11-2012 be forwarded to TGmc for processing

• Comments in an FDIS are not resolved in ISO/IEC but are normally handled in the maintenance process

• Given that IEEE 802.11 WG is responsible for the maintenance process for ISO/IEC 8802-11 it is proposed that the comments be passed to TGmc for processing– Further explanation of the responsibility will come later

• It is also proposed that this plan be included in a liaison statement to SC6

• Update– Dorothy will accept into 11mc– For processing and sending to SC6 – Expect to do so in January at the interim– 802.11 WG is empowered to send resolutions to SC6– Bruce will inform EC on Friday

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 17

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

SC6 held a plenary meeting in Graz, Austria in Sept (same week at IEEE 802.11 WG meeting)

• SC6 delegates from NBs of – Austria – China– Germany– Japan – Hong Kong China (Correspondent) – Korea– Netherlands– Spain– Switzerland– UK– USA— Andrew Myles (HoD)

 

• Delegates from Liaison Organizations – JTC1/SC21– JTC1/SC25– ECMA– IEEE 802— Bruce Kraemer (HoD)— Dan Harkins

– IEEE— Jodi Haasz

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 18

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

Andrew Myles, Cisco

SC6 held a plenary meeting in Graz, Austria in Sept (same week at IEEE 802.11 WG meeting)

• In SC6/WG1 the attendance count on day 1 was:– China 14 ← largest group– IEEE 3– Korea 8– HK 1– Germany 1– Japan 1– Netherlands 2– Switzerland 1– US 1– UK 1– Austria 1

• A large number of NBs continued their tradition of not attending– Belgium– Canada – Czech Republic – Finland – Greece – Kazakhstan – Kenya – Luxembourg – Russian Federation – Tunisia 

Slide 19

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

Andrew Myles, Cisco

SC6/WG1 had a varied agenda in Graz in Sept 12

• 1. Welcome

• 2. Roll Call of Delegates

• 3. Approval of Agenda

• 4. Meeting Report on the SC6/WG1 Guangzhou Meeting

• 5. SC6 WG1 Active Work Items– 5.1 Acoustic Local Area Network– 5.2 Wireless Power Transfer PLC

Standards– 5.3 Study Group Report on PLC

Harmonization– 5.4 Ubiquitous Green Community

Control Network Protocol– 5.5 NFC

• 5.6 IEEE 802 Liaison– 5.6.1 Liaison Statement– 5.6.2 IEEE Agreement

• 5.7 Liaison report from Ecma

• 5.8 Revision

• 5.9 Others– 5.9.1 TePA-AC– 5.9.2 TLSec– 5.9.3 LRWN– 5.9.4 WLAN– 5.9.6 Procedures

• 6. Development, Review, & Approval of Draft WG1 Resolutions

Slide 20

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

In Feb 12, SC6 approved a table with proposed dispositions for various ISO/IEC 8802 standards

• In June 2011, the UK NB made a proposal to “clean up” various IEEE 802 related documented in ISOIEC

• In Feb 2012, the IEEE 802 delegation presented a liaison that was in response to a UK NB proposal for the disposition of various ISO/IEC 8802 standards– See N15106

• It was ultimately agreed that the table of proposed dispositions proposed by IEEE 802 in the liaison should be accepted– Resolution 6.1.7: Noting the liaison response from IEEE 802 in 6N15106, SC6

instructs its Secretariat to revise the SC 6 Program of Work based on the table below

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 21

N15106

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

In Feb 12, SC6 approved a table with proposed dispositions for various ISO/IEC 8802 standards

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 22

Project Number Year Name Recommendation05.01.00 8802-1 2011 SPECIFIC LANS Overview Retain. IEEE 802 will provide text for a replacement when the

current 802 O&A revision project is complete

05.01.01 8802-1 - SPECIFIC LANS Cooperative agreement with IEEE 802

Cancel project. Delete the draft.

05.02.00 8802-2 1998 SPECIFIC LANS Logical Link Control 90.93

Retain in stabilized state

05.03.00 8802-3 2000 SPECIFIC LANS CSMA/CD Edn. 6

Retain. Will be superseded as soon the next revision of IEEE 802.3 is ratified by ISO/IEC.

05.05.00 8802-5 1998 SPECIFIC LANS Token Ring. Edn.3

Retain in stabilized state

05.11.00 8802-11 2005 LANS. Wireless MAC/PHY specifications Edn. 2

Retain. Will be superseded as soon the next revision of IEEE 802.11 is ratified by ISO/IEC

05.21.01 11802-1 2005 LAN GUIDELINES LLC Addresses

Retain. IEEE 802 will provide a replacement at a future date

05.22.01 11802-2 2005 LAN GUIDELINES Standard group MAC addresses

Retain. IEEE 802 will provide a replacement at a future date

05.25.00 11802-5 1997 Media Access Control (MAC) Bridging of Ethernet v2.0 in Local Area Network

Retain in stabilized state.

05.31.00 15802-1 1995 COMMON LANS MAC service Retain. IEEE 802 will provide a replacement based upon 802.1AC at a future date

05.33.00 15802-3 1998 COMMON LANS MAC bridges Retain. IEEE 802 will provide a replacement at a future date based upon either 802.1D-2005 or 802.1Q-2011

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

The proposal that only IEEE 802 “maintain, alter & extend” 8802 standards was controversial in Feb 12

• The IEEE 802 liaison also indicated that IEEE 802 would be willing to submit standards (particularly 802.1 and 802.3) to ISO/IEC under certain conditions – “…it is essential that ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 agrees that the responsibility to

maintain, alter or extend the functionality of IEEE 802 standards ratified by ISO/IEC remains solely with IEEE 802”

• This condition was particularly controversial among most NBs

• The main issue of contention appeared to revolve around the definition of “extend”

• Many NBs were concerned it was a restriction on SC6’s ability to do their normal work

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 23

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

In Feb 12, SC6 ultimately decided on a process to help resolve issues related to the IEEE 802 proposal

SC6 Resolution 6.1.4 (Liaison to IEEE 802) in Feb 2012

• SC 6 instructs its Secretariat to forward the following liaison statement to IEEE 802:– “SC6 appreciates and acknowledges IEEE 802’s proposal (6N15106) for an

agreement.– SC 6 will forward an initial list of related questions from its NBs and LO to IEEE

802 by 2012-03-09– SC 6 requests a response and a draft MoU from IEEE 802 by 2012-05-01. A

second list of questions will be provided to IEEE 802 by 2012-07-01– SC 6 requests a response and updated MoU from IEEE 802 by 2012-08-01.”

• Approved unanimously

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 24

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

The IEEE 802’s goal was an agreement that allows 802.1 & 802.3 to be submitted to JTC1 under the PSDO

• IEEE 802 would like to have the possibility to submit its standards to JTC1 under the PSDO for ratification

• The potential benefits include:– Universal recognition of “international” status– Review by a ISO/IEC JTC1 NBs

• The risks are that IEEE 802 standards will be modified by SC6 without the permission or cooperation of IEEE 802– No one wants “another WAPI”– Of course this could always happen, even without an agreement

• IEEE 802.11 WG previously decided to move ahead under the PSDO without any further agreement

• The IEEE 802.1 WG and IEEE 802.3 WG wanted an agreement of some sort to mitigate the perceived risks

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 25

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

SC6 & IEEE 802 have been working through the process to define an agreement between them

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 26

N15226 N15227

SC6 defines process to define agreement

Chinese & Swissprovide questions

N15271

IEEE 802responds

Chinese & Swissprovide comments

IEEE 802responds

Feb 12

Mar 12

May 12

Jun 12

July 12

N15335 N15325

ISO CSprovided input

Aug 12

US NB proposes compromise

Sept 12

N15363

N15381

SC6 agree on resolutions

Sept 12

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

Andrew Myles, Cisco

Slide 27

The IEEE 802 proposed a final version of the agreement after the 802 plenary meeting in July 12

Proposed Agreement between IEEE 802 and SC6

• Best practice indicates a single SDO should have responsibility for developing or maintaining a standard, albeit in cooperation with all relevant stakeholders

• IEEE 802 will have sole responsibility for maintaining, altering and extending all ISO/IEC 8802 standards adopted from IEEE 802 standards

• An extension is defined as functionality that makes use of internal interfaces in an ISO/IEC 8802 standard (and the corresponding IEEE 802 standard); internal interfaces are designed solely for the use of IEEE 802 participants members developing IEEE 802 standards within the context of approved IEEE 802 projects

• SC6 may request clarification from IEEE 802 as to whether a particular interface in an ISO/IEC 8802 standard (and the corresponding IEEE 802 standard) is an internal interface

• SC6 may request that IEEE 802 define develop new external interfaces in an ISO/IEC 8802 standard (,and the corresponding IEEE 802 standard), required to enable SC6 to define additional functionality beyond the ISO/IEC 8802 standard

• IEEE 802 will continue to consult with SC6 during the IEEE 802 standards development process to ensure the development of standards that reflect the needs of a broad range of stakeholders.

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

The ISO/IEC CS representative ruled in Aug 12 that SC6 could not enter into an “agreement” with IEEE 802

• Henry Cuschieri (ISO CS) sent a letter to the Chair of SC6 after having his attention brought to the IEEE 802 proposed agreement

• He ruled that:– … this type of agreement would need to be formally approved through ISO CS,

and as necessary ISO Council and TMB, and the IEC would need to agree that it should apply to SC 6

• He also expressed a concern that the proposed agreement was:– … inconsistent with the rights of any member to propose appropriately justified

work within the scope of a committee

• Later discussions with Henry suggested that he may have misunderstood elements of the proposal because it is not IEEE 802’s to stop such work

• The bottom line is that any “agreement” between SC6 and IEEE 802 is infeasible …

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 28

N15381

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

The US NB proposed a compromise solution that based on the existing PSDO agreement

Observation 1

• Clause A1.2.1 of the PSD states, “The intention is …to maintain, to the greatest extent possible, one common ISO/IEEE Standard on a given subject”

Conclusion 1

• Revisions of ISO/IEC 8802 standards should not be developed independently in parallel by IEEE 802 and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 29

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

The US NB proposed a compromise solution that based on the existing PSDO agreement

Observation 2

• Clause A1.2.1 of the PSDO allows “the relevant ISO Committee” (SC6 in this case) to  decide “not to participate in the revision process”

Conclusion 2

• SC6 is empowered under the PSDO to decide not to participate in the revision process for ISO/IEC 8802 standards

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 30

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

The US NB proposed a compromise solution that based on the existing PSDO agreement

Observation 3

• Clause A1.2.1 of the PSDO states, “ISO shall ensure that the ISO/IEEE Standard is not revised until IEEE has completed its revision”

Conclusion 3

• SC6 should not start any revision process of ISO/IEC 8802 standards that are subject to maintenance and development by IEEE 802

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 31

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

The US NB proposed a compromise solution that based on the existing PSDO agreement

Observation 4

• IEEE 802 has a continuous, and very effective, process of maintenance and development of its active IEEE 802 standards projects

Conclusion 4

• IEEE 802 should have primary responsibility for revisions

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 32

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

The US NB proposed a compromise solution that based on the existing PSDO agreement

Observation 5

• SC NBs always have the right to propose appropriately justified work within the scope of a committee

• SC NBs should not be restricted from proposing work that competes with IEEE 802 standards, but should also not threaten their integrity

Conclusion 5

• A proposal by SC6 NB is not justified if it revises an ISO/IEC 8802 standard that is being revised by IEEE 802

• In the context of this agreement, a revision is any activity that changes or extends the functionality of an ISO/IEC 8802 standard by means other than the use of interfaces in the standard that were defined to allow such changes or extensions by parties other than IEEE 802

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 33

Co

ntr

ove

rsia

l

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

The US NB proposal led to a possible resolution for discussion …

Possible motion, with wording subject to discussion:

• As empowered by clause A1.2.1 of the PSDO agreement between ISO and IEEE, SC6 agrees that it will not participate in the revision of any ISO/IEC 8802 standard while IEEE 802 has an ongoing maintenance or amendment process for the IEEE 802 equivalent of the standard

• In context of this motion, a revision activity is any activity that changes or extends the functionality of an ISO/IEC 8802 standard by means other than by the use of interfaces in the standard that were defined to allow such changes or extensions

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 34

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

… but it was not acceptable for various reasons

The proposal was not acceptable because

• For Chinese & Swiss NBs the 2nd paragraph was seen as a threat to WAPI style proposals

• The Swiss NB wanted independent motions for 802.11, 802.1 and 802.3

• For other NBs, there was concern the second paragraph might stop SC6 from doing competitive work, which derived from confusion about its meaning

• There was also a concern that the delegation of authority had no defined end point

• Most NBs wanted the delegation of authority to IEEE 802 explicitly to exclude “systematic review, stabilization and withdrawal” processes

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 35

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

The US NB then proposed (N15448) a new resolution that solved most of the issues discussed

• The goals of the modified proposal were to– Define separate explicit motions for 802.11, 802.1 and 802.3– Avoid any suggestion that SC6 NBs could not propose competitive projects– Define an end point for the delegation of authority from SC6 to IEEE 802 WGs

as being while revisions, amendments and corrigenda are being developed– Ensure the delegation of authority did not include “systematic review,

stabilization and withdrawal“

• Subsequent discussion modified the proposal further to:– Make it clear that the word “revision” in the proposal used the ISO definition— We will discuss this definition in more detail later

– Add that the delegation of authority was conditional that SC6 and its NBs having access to a mechanism that allows them to contribute to the revision process in the relevant IEEE 802 WG

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 36

N15448

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

Andrew Myles, Cisco

The 802.11 resolution ended up being very simple

802.11 resolution (Res 6.1.9)…

• As empowered by clause A1.2.1 of the PSDO agreement between ISO and IEEE, SC6 decides to allocate responsibility for the revision process of the ISO/IEC 8802-11 standard to the IEEE 802.11 WG while the IEEE 802.11 WG has an ongoing revision process for the IEEE 802.11 standard.

• A condition of this motion is that SC6 and its NBs have access to an established mechanism to contribute to the revision process in the IEEE 802.11 WG

… unanimously approved, except China

• China stated they needed to see rationale, details of mechanism and more time to obtain instructions

Slide 37

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

The 802.1 resolution was similar to the 802.11 resolution

802.1 resolution (Res 6.1.10) …

• As empowered by clause A1.2.1 of the PSDO agreement between ISO and IEEE, SC 6 decides to allocate responsibility for the revision process of any ISO/IEC 8802-1 standard to the IEEE 802.1 WG while the IEEE 802.1 WG has an ongoing revision process for the IEEE 802.1 standard.

• A condition of this resolution is that SC 6 and its NBs have access to an established mechanism to contribute to the revision process in the IEEE 802.1 WG.

… unanimously approved, except China

• China stated they needed to see rationale, details of mechanism and more time to obtain instructions

• They also stated that it was odd to pass such a motion before ISO/IEC 8802-1 exists

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 38

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

The 802.3 resolution was similar to the 802.11 resolution

802.3 resolution (Res 6.1.11) was …

• As empowered by clause A1.2.1 of the PSDO agreement between ISO and IEEE, SC 6 decides to allocate responsibility for the revision process of any ISO/IEC 8802-3 standard to the IEEE 802.3 WG while the IEEE 802.3 WG has an ongoing revision process for the IEEE 802.3 standard.

• A condition of this resolution is that SC 6 and its NBs have access to an established mechanism to contribute to the revision process in the IEEE 802.3 WG.

…unanimously approved, except China

• China stated they needed to see rationale, details of mechanism and more time to obtain instructions

• They also stated that it was odd to pass such a motion before ISO/IEC 8802-1 exists

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 39

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

SC6 also passed a resolution inviting IEEE 802 to exchange information with SC6

Cooperation resolution (Res 6.1.12) was …

• SC 6 invites the IEEE 802 WG’s to exchange information about new work items that are within the scope of SC 6 and the respective IEEE 802 WG for information and potential coordination

…unanimously approved by all NBs

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 40

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

The definition of “revision” has proved problematic

• During discussions it was agreed to use the ISO definition of “revision”

• Subsequently, it turned out that there were multiple ISO definitions in a variety of documents

• Unfortunately, the definition is a key driver of the semantics of the resolutions

• However, behind the scenes discussion has led to the following interpretation of the 802.11 resolution – The resolution applies to revisions, amendments and corrigenda of ISO/IEC

8802-11.– The resolution does not apply to systematic review, stabilization and withdrawal

of ISO/IEC 8802-11.– The resolution does not apply to any standards other than ISO/IEC 8802-11.– SC6 retains full rights to propose any new work.

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 41

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

The resolution provides a lower risk path for “international standardisation” of 802 standards

• IEEE 802.1/3/11 WGs have an opportunity to submit their standards to JTC1 under the PSDO for “international” standardisation

• The WGs will have sole responsibility for the revision of those standards, while a revision process of any sort is underway in the WGs– This is effectively continuously until the WGs hibernate given that IEEE 802

WGs typically undertake continuous amendment and revision of standards

• The WGs may benefit from input from SC6 NBs during the revision process

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 42

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

The IEEE 802 WGs only need to provide SC6 NBs an opportunity to contribute for the resolution to stand

• The US NB proposal in Graz was:– IEEE 802 should send documents to SC6 for comment, including— Motion to start a SG— PAR documents when approved by WG— PAR documents when approved by 802 EC— Approved requirements documents— Draft standards at Letter Ballot and Sponsor Ballot stage

• The discussion was that the IEEE 802 WGs would accept any comments from SC6 NBs– It was recognised that the comments may come in too late for normal

processing …– … but they would be considered in good faith at the time if possible or later if

necessary

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 43

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

Andrew Myles, Cisco

The IEEE 802 WGs only need to provide SC6 NBs an opportunity to contribute for the resolution to stand

IEEE 802 proposal in Graz

• 802.11 will continue to provide drafts for comment prior to publication.– Posted on ISO website maintained by 802.11

• 802.11 will continue to provide “pipeline” status information on all amendment/revision/maintenance activities. In meeting report.

• 802.11 Could provide SC6 with notification of proposed new work items (Study Groups, Project Authorization Requests in IEEE, PAR approvals) before formal approval of the project by the IEEE Standards Board. (Posted on ISO website maintained by 802.11)

• Additionally 802 Could provide similar “pipeline” status information on amendment/revision/maintenance activities.

• 802 Could provide SC6 with notification of proposed new work items (Study Groups, Project Authorization Requests in IEEE)

Slide 44

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

It is not certain that the resolution would avoid a WAPI like situation in the future

• WAPI is always raised as an example of how things can go wrong

• The question is what does this resolution do to protect against future WAPI-like situations?

• US NB asserted in Graz that the resolution means the IEEE 802.11 WG and not SC6 would consider a WAPI-like proposal because:– WAPI is effectively an amendment to 802.11– WAPI would “fork” the 8802-11 standard contrary to the PSDO

• Other NBs agreed with this position, at least in private

• The Swiss and Chinese NBs disagreed with this perspective during the meeting

• The bottom line is that the resolution does not guarantee another WAPI-like situation will not occur in the future … but it certainly helps!

• The resolution definitely does not stop any competitive proposals!

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 45

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

The SC will discuss the possible impact of the SC6 resolution

Questions for discussion

• Are IEEE 802 willing to submit 802.1 & 802.3 to JTC1 under the PSDO on the basis of this resolution?

• Are there any objections (philosophical & practical) in sending the requested material to SC6?

• Is the risk of “another WAPI” reduced by this resolution?

• Might the risk of “another WAPI” be increased if we do not collaborate with SC6 in this way?– eg one could modify 802.1 by creating a standard that normatively referenced

most of 802.1 but changed a small feature– By having an ongoing relationship we at least might have a say …

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 46

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

The SC will discuss the possible next steps

Questions for discussion

• Should IEEE 802 document a process for collaboration?– Criteria: lowest amount of work?– Can we just send SC6 an existing report on a regular basis + all balloted drafts

• Should IEEE 802 express an intent to submit 802.1 and 802.3?– When would we do so?

• Should IEEE 802 send a package to SC6 with the latest versions of 802.1 and 802.3 in the meantime?

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 47

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

TePA-AC, the 802.1X replacement, is now a Chinese National Standard

• In previous SC6 meetings the China NB have proposed a protocol called TePA-AC, which is roughly an 802.1X replacement

• At the SC6 meeting in February 2012, an IWNCOMM representative presented TePA-AC again, emphasising its use of TePA, and concluding– “Network access control is widely used in many network environments.– TePA-AC in N14399 is different from IEEE 802.1x.”

• IWNCOMM claimed that TePA-AC covered a different application space from 802.1X

• The discussion concluded with the China NB informing SC6 that further standardisation work on TePA-AC would continue in BWIPS– BWIPS is the organisation under CESI that standardised WAPI– TEPA-AC is a Chinese National standard as GB / T 28455-2012 as of 1 Oct 12;

the “T” means it is recommended, ie not mandatory

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 48

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

There is no further standardisation news related to TLSec, the proposed 802.1AE replacement

• In previous SC6 meetings the China NB have proposed a protocol called TLSec, which is roughly an 802.1AE replacement

• At the SC6 meeting in February 2012, an IWNCOMM representative presented TLSEc again, emphasising its use of TePA, and concluding– “It is necessary to do more research on LAN layer 2 security.– TLSec in N14402 is different from IEEE 802.1AE”

• IWNCOMM asserted that China Telecom were supporting this work

• The discussion concluded with the China NB informing SC6 that further standardisation work on TLSec would continue in BWIPS– BWIPS is the organisation under CESI that standardised WAPI– There is no evidence that it has been standardised yet

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 49

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

There is no further standardisation news related to TAAA, the proposed LRWN security replacement

• In previous SC6 meetings the China NB have proposed a protocol called TAAA, which is roughly WAPI for Long Range Wireless Networks

• At the SC6 meeting in February 2012, an IWNCOMM representative presented TAAA again, emphasising its use of TePA, and concluding– “TAAA applies to various LRWN.– The details of the solution may be discussed further.”

• It appears from the subsequent discussion that a LRWN could include both LTE & 802.16

• There is no evidence of any standardisation work in China on TAAA

• It is also not clear why a LRWN needs its own special security mechanism and why it doesn’t just have the same requirements as any other wireless network

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 50

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

Andrew Myles, Cisco

In Graz the presentations from China NB on TLSec, TEPA-AC and TAAA continued

• In Graz the China NB presented again on each of their proposals, responding to previous comments by IEEE 802– See N15364 for TEPA-AC

– See N15365 for TLSec

– See N15366 for TAAA

• After each presentation questions were asked but no consensus reached

• The China NB were not proposing any actions

• The Chinese NB were encouraged by various people to provide an overview at the IEEE 802.1 meeting in Vancouver in Jan 13– So far they have not confirmed attendance despite a reminder after Graz

Slide 51

N15364

N15365

N15366

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

The IEEE 802 delegation commented on each of the TLSec, TEPA-AC and TAAA presentations

• Dan Harkins led the questioning from the IEEE 802 delegation

• He also gave a presentation explaining the 802.1 approach– See N15421

• The China NB subsequently gave a presentation that attempted to rebut the points in N15421 but placing big red crosses though many slides– It appears the actual presentation was never made available

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 52

N15421

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

There was discussion in WG1 and WG7 in relation to TISec (a IPSec replacement)

• The China NB are also proposing TISec as a TEPA based replacement of IPSec– See N15369

• It appears that TISec is also on the Standards Track in China – See attached

• The presentation was briefly discussed in WG1 but was primarily promoted in WG7, which is the group defining a new Internet

• The IEEE 802 delegation’s primary observation was that TISec appears to directly copy ESP from RFC 4303 , with some minor modifications

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 53

N15369

TISec

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

The next steps for TLSec, TEPA-AC and TAAA are still unclear … as they are for IEEE 802

• The facts are:– The China NB are still promoting TLSec, TEPA-AC and TAAA – At least one of these protocols has been standardised in China

• Options for next steps for China NB include:– No action– No action, after change of gov’t in China– Action, after change of gov’t in China– Action, after they become Chinese National Standards– Action, if the SC6 Chair is removed (news: SC6 Chair endorsed by JTC1)– Change of tactics, to what?

• How much effort should IEEE 802 put into making sure these standards are not promoted based on incorrect assertions?– Is there still the threat of another WAPI?

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 54

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

The China NB presented a WLAN optimisation proposal but there are no obvious next steps

• The China NB presented “WLAN Network Optimization Technology Requirements”– See N15367

• It seems to be some centralised control system for WLANs that optimises the network parameters based on packet traces, etc

• The presentation and questioning went relatively poorly for the presenter

• No obvious next steps

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 55

N15367

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 56

The “WAPI story” has been going on for a very, very, very long time ... and was thought to be over ...

Brief summary of highlights/lowlights

• 2003: WAPI mandated for use in China, implemented by named firms

• 2004: Mandate withdrawn after China agrees to standardise WAPI first

• 2005: WAPI submitted to ISO/IEC fast track ballot in parallel to IEEE submitting 802.11i, after much controversy and appeals

• 2006: WAPI fails ISO/IEC fast track ballot and 802.11i passes, amid much controversy and appeals

• 2009: WAPI mandated in handsets and for SPs in China

• 2009: WAPI submitted to ISO/IEC as NP

• 2010: WAPI NP ballot passes but comments not resolved

• Nov 2011: China NB announced that they had withdrawn the WAPI NP

• Feb 2012: SC6 formally cancelled the WAPI NP

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

... but there was some sort of protest from the China NB relating to the WAPI NP process

• The China NB stated they withdrew the project because:– The project has “experienced and still been suffering many unreasonable

obstacles”– It is likely the project will not complete within required time limits because of an

“unfair and unjustified environment,”

• It is believed that the China SC6 Mirror Committee has protested to ISO/IEC about:– Various aspects the WAPI NP process– Alleged bias of the SC6 Chair

• The details of any protest from the China SC6 Mirror Committee or any response from ISO/IEC are unavailable– It was hoped that details would become available at the last SC6 meeting ...– ... but there was no discussion related to WAPI at the SC6 meeting except in

passing

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 57

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

Any un-cancelling of the WAPI NP may require ballots of SC6 NBs, JTC1 NBs & comment resolution

• The China NB suggested at the time of cancellation they may resubmit WAPI “when a more favorable standardization environment is available”

• The ISO/IEC Directives are not very clear on the process for a project to be re-established once it has been cancelled

• The best hint comes from the latest NP Ballot form, which includes an option for:– “THIS PROPOSAL RELATES TO THE RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF A

CANCELLED PROJECT AS AN ACTIVE PROJECT”

• This form and the latest ISO/IEC Directives (plus JTC1 supplement) suggest if there was a proposal to re-establish WAPI then:– It would have be sent to a new letter ballot of SC6 NBs– Assuming the ballot passed, any resulting negative

comments would have to be resolved and balloted by the JTC1 NBs

• However, it is possible that ISO/IEC CS may decree another process …

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 58

JTC1 NP form.pdf

ISO_IEC_Directives_Part_1_(Procedures_fo

JTC 1 Supplement, 2012, PDF Version.pdf

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

It is unclear what is next for WAPI, from either a regulatory or standards perspective

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 59

Regulations Standards

• WAPI is still required by Type Approval regulations in handsets in China– These regulations are not available

in written form, although their existence was disclosed by China in WTO discussions

• WAPI is still also informally required by SPs in China

• It is hoped any requirement for WAPI in devices will be repealed soon given that WAPI will not become an ISO/IEC standard

• WAPI is a Chinese National Standard

• There are no known plans to standardise WAPI internationally

• It has been speculated that China may resubmit WAPI if the current SC6 Chair is not reappointed by JTC1 in Nov 12 (latest news: he was reappointed)

• Please provide the SC any updates to this regulatory and standards situation

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

The recent standardisation UHT or EUHT in China exacerbated fears about these standards …

• Nufront and the China NB had previously proposed standardisation of UHT (11n extension) & EHUT (11ac replacement) by SC6– EUHT is also known as N-UHT

• The IEEE 802 delegation expressed concern about various aspects of this proposal at the San Diego SC6 meeting in June 2011

• It was also feared that type approval regulations will be used to mandate UHT/EUHT, similar to those used for WAPI

• It was expected that the issue would be raised again at the China meeting of SC6 in February 2012 … but it was not

• Since the SC6 meeting in Feb 12, MIIT has announced that UHT and EUHT have been approved as voluntary Chinese National Standards– This occurred after a somewhat unusual process in CCSA that effectively

ignored the concerns of many Chinese and non-Chinese companies– The actual text appears to be unavailable as of July 2012, even in hard copy

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 60

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

… but fears about UHT & EUHT decreasing as 5GHz is opened up in China & there was no mention at SC6

• UHT/EUHT were not mentioned at the SC6 meeting in September 2012, although two Nufront representatives were in attendance– Bruce Kraemer may report on his ongoing conctact with Nufront

• It was previously feared there was a connection between EUHT and the slowness opening up 5GHz in China … but that fear was mitigated after MIIT recently accelerated the process to open up the band

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 61

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

ISO and IEEE are renegotiating the PSDO, and are after comments

• The ISO and IEEE are renegotiating the PSDO

• IEEE 802 may want to provide comments to IEEE staff

• Does this group have any comments?– IEEE should ensure only groups with an established track record may propose

use of PSDO; 802.1/3/11 would all qualify– The default state should be that all revisions are undertaken by the source IEEE

group, but that group must provide a way for NB reps to participate and contribute

– Revisons should be better defined to include any activity that ultimately leads to the next edition of a standard, including amendments and corrections

– A revision should also include any work that relies on an IEEE standard ratified under the PSDO and yet adds to, changes or replaces its functions, particularly if it does so in a way that effectively generates independent and incompatible standards

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 62

PSDO

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

There are actions following this meeting

Jan 13

• 802.11 TGmc to process Chinese comments on 802.11-2012 for liaison back to SC6 by 802.11 WG

• 802.11 to develop mechanism to all SC6 NBs to participate in revision process

• 802.11 to determine which amendments/revisions to send to ISO under PSDO

Mar 13

• Obtain buy-in from 802.1 and 802.3 for participation mechanism

• 802 EC to approve liaison to SC6 on participation mechanism

• 802.1 and 802.3 to decide when/if/what they want to submit to SC6 under the PSDO

• Empower the HoD

• Obtain expert assistance for SC6

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 63

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

IEEE 802 JTC1 SC will consider any motions

• The motions will be constructed during the week

• They are likely to include motions to approve– ….

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 64

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

Are there any other matters for consideration by IEEE 802 JTC1 SC?

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 65

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC will adjourn for the week

Motion:

• The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC, having completed its business in San Diego in July 2012, adjourns

• Moved:

• Seconded:

• Result: unanimous

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 66

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

Slides for IEEE 802.1 WG

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 67

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

802.1 WG could make a decision to submit its standards to ISO to mitigate risks from TEPA-AC & TLSec

Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 68

Activities are continuing in SC6 that are potentially

contrary to 802.1 interests

The risks related these activities can be mitigated

by submitting 802.1 for ISO ratification

• A recent resolution by SC6 provides a framework for submitting 802.1 standards for ISO ratification

• The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC is developing the details of the required “participation mechanism”

• Related to TEPA-AC & TLSec

In the meantime, 802.1 WG could start the process of obtaining ISO ratification

• The WG could make the decision today• The process will take at least 6 months, probably

longer

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

Activities are continuing in SC6 that are potentially contrary to 802.1 interests

• The China NB has been promoting a number of competitors to 802.1 standards in ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6– TEPA-AC is roughly a replacement to 802.1X– TLSec is roughly a replacement to 802.1AE

• The main concerns related to these proposals are:– They are being promoted on basis of assertions that 802.1 standards are flawed

in some way– There is a fear that ISO/IEC standardisation will allow 802.1 standards to be

banned in China (& other countries) using the “WAPI model”

• It both cases China has stated they will:– Standardise the protocols in China— TEPA-AC was standardised in October

– Propose the standards for ratification by ISO— Not clear when?

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 69

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

The risks related to TEPA-AC & TLSec can be mitigated by submitting 802.1 for ISO ratification

• 802.1 WG could submit their standards for ratification by ISO/IEC under the PSDO agreement– The PSDO agreement is between IEEE and ISO and allows fast track

ratification by ISO of IEEE standards– IEEE 802.11-2012 was ratified under this agreement in October 2012

• The benefits are:– 802.1 standards will obtain an “international” stamp that is recognised by all

countries– 802.1 standards will have status in ISO/IEC that makes it more difficult for

others to propose duplicate standards– The process of ISO/IEC ratification of 802.1 standards may lead to a better

understanding and apreciation in SC6 of 802.1 technology

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 70

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

Andrew Myles, Cisco

A recent resolution by SC6 provides a framework for submitting 802.1 standards for ISO ratification

802.1 resolution (Res 6.1.10) …

• As empowered by clause A1.2.1 of the PSDO agreement between ISO and IEEE, SC 6 decides to allocate responsibility for the revision process of any ISO/IEC 8802-1 standard to the IEEE 802.1 WG while the IEEE 802.1 WG has an ongoing revision process for the IEEE 802.1 standard.

• A condition of this resolution is that SC 6 and its NBs have access to an established mechanism to contribute to the revision process in the IEEE 802.1 WG.

Summary

• Delegates responsibility for any revisions (including amendments, corrigenda) to IEEE 802.1 WG

• The delegation is valid until 802.1 WG stops its revision activities

• The delegation is conditional on mechanism being established that allow SC6 NBs to provide comments to 802.1 WG

Slide 71

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC is developing the details of the required “participation mechanism”

• The likely mechanism (based on discussions at the recent SC6 meeting) will need to include:– Notifying SC6 of SG establishment– Notifying SC of PAR approval– Providing SC6 all LB and SB drafts— 802.11 WG has been doing this for about 2 years

– Providing SC6 NBs and their reps an opportunity to comment on drafts— They will not get a vote— Their comments will be processed in good faith; if they are late they may be pushed

into normal maintenance processes— 802.11 WG has sent comment from recent vote in JTC1 on 802.11-2012 to TGmc

• The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC will develop a formal proposal in Jan 2013 in context of 802.11 but it will be applicable to 802.1 and 802.3

• This proposal will be provided to 802.1 WG in Mar 2013 for approval

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 72

doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/1327r2

Submission

Nov 2012

In the meantime, 802.1 WG could start the process of obtaining ISO ratification

• The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC leadership is confident that a participation mechanism can be put in place

• In the meantime, 802.1 WG could decide to start the process of getting 802.1 standards ratified by JTC1– The process takes 6-12 months– The 802.11 WG has already gone down this route– IEEE staff would handle all the mechanics– It just needs a decision by the WG!

• There are some open questions– Does 802.1 WG want to start the process?– Which standards should be sent ? 1X, 1AE, 1Q– What would they be called in ISO? Hopefully something like ISO/IEC 8802-1X— IEEE staff are asking about naming

Andrew

Myles, Cisco

Slide 73