Download
ieee 802 jtc1 standing committee november 2012 agenda n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
IEEE 802 JTC1 Standing Committee November 2012 agenda PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
IEEE 802 JTC1 Standing Committee November 2012 agenda

IEEE 802 JTC1 Standing Committee November 2012 agenda

241 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

IEEE 802 JTC1 Standing Committee November 2012 agenda

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. IEEE 802 JTC1 Standing CommitteeNovember 2012 agenda • 13 November 2012 Authors: Andrew Myles, Cisco

  2. 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

  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 Andrew Myles, Cisco

  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 Andrew Myles, Cisco

  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 Andrew Myles, Cisco

  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. Andrew Myles, Cisco

  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 Andrew Myles, Cisco

  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. Andrew Myles, Cisco

  9. The IEEE 802 JTC1 SC has three slots at the San Antonio plenary meeting Tuesday 13 Nov, PM1 Wednesday14 Nov, PM1 Thursday 15 Nov, PM1 • 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 • Call to Order • Select recording secretary <- important! • Conduct meeting according to agenda • Adjourn Andrew Myles, Cisco

  10. 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

  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 Andrew Myles, Cisco

  12. 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

  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 Andrew Myles, Cisco

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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? Andrew Myles, Cisco

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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  Andrew Myles, Cisco

  20. 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 Andrew Myles, Cisco

  21. 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

  22. In Feb 12, SC6 approved a table with proposed dispositions for various ISO/IEC 8802 standards Andrew Myles, Cisco

  23. 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

  24. 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

  25. 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

  26. SC6 & IEEE 802 have been working through the process to define an agreement between them Feb 12 SC6 defines process to define agreement July 12 IEEE 802responds Mar 12 Chinese & Swissprovide questions Aug 12 ISO CSprovided input May 12 IEEE 802responds Sept 12 US NB proposes compromise Jun 12 Chinese & Swissprovide comments Sept 12 SC6 agree on resolutions Andrew Myles, Cisco

  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. Andrew Myles, Cisco

  28. 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

  29. 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

  30. 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

  31. 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

  32. 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

  33. 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 Controversial Andrew Myles, Cisco

  34. 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

  35. … 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

  36. 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

  37. 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 Andrew Myles, Cisco

  38. 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

  39. 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

  40. 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

  41. 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

  42. 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

  43. 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

  44. 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) Andrew Myles, Cisco

  45. 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

  46. 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

  47. 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

  48. 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 28455-2012as of 1 Oct 12; the “T” means it is recommended, ie not mandatory Andrew Myles, Cisco

  49. 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

  50. 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