IEEE 802.15 Working Group

Letter Ballot #16 for High-Rate WPANs™ (TG3)

OPENING OF BALLOT: TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 2002, at 1200 GMT (700 EST) 




  • IEEE 802.15 Voting members have an obligation to vote. Not returning two valid ballots in a sequence of 3 letter ballots will automatically terminate voting rights.

  • "No" votes require the submission of detailed comments as defined in the IEEE rules for Sponsor Ballots to be counted as valid.  Abstentions are only counted as valid if they are based on "lack of expertise" or "lack of time".



To the 802.15 working group voting members--

As many of you are aware there has been considerable discussion surrounding the choice of security suite for 802.15.3. After the meeting in St. Louis, two proposals for satisfying the ECC suite were proposed. Only one can be included in the draft for recirculation.  Rather than engage in a fruitless debate on completeness and IP, I have decided to put the issue to the working group.

This decision was reached with the help and advice of the 802.15 advisory committee, which includes all the officers of the working group, task groups, study groups and committees. A week ago, we agreed on a plan of action to resolve which ECC security suite to include in the recirculation draft. It was agreed that only one version of the mandatory ECC suite should be in the recirculated draft. The preferred plan of action was to conduct a downselect letter ballot to conclude just prior to the Sydney meeting, unless a compromise proposal could be reached in time to start the draft recirculation this past weekend.

Since compromise text was not available in time to begin recirculation, we are back on the path of conducting a ballot between now and Sydney to pick an ECC security suite proposal to put in the draft and then starting the recirculatoin of the draft right after Sydney. It was felt that this was the best way to determine the wishes of the working group

Letter ballot 16 is to pick an ECC suite to include in the draft, based on the motion which was passed in St. Louis. This ballot starts immediately and ends at noon, Sunday May 12, Sydney time. This is not a ballot to make a final selection of which ECC suite will be in the standard but rather which ECC suite should be included in the draft and subsequently balloted in recirculation.

Again, There are two proposals, one from Ntru (document number 02/210r0) and one from Certicom  (document number 02/200r2). The ballot choices will be 200r2, 210r0, or abstain. Of the non-abstaining votes, the proposal receiving the majority vote will be included in the draft.  Copies of both proposals can be found on the web site. You should base your selection on your view of which proposal best meets the intent of the St. Louis motion. Remember, detailed technical merits and/or alternative solutions should be handled as part of the recirculation ballot of the draft which begins following the Sydney meeting.

Ballots should follow the format

Subject:          LB16-your last name-200r2,210r0,abstain
cc:      ,

The two proposals may contain more information than just the ECC suite.  This selection is only for the ECC portion. Also, I have RAND letters from both Certicom and Ntru.  Direct any questions to John, James or myself

For reference the St. Louis motion was:

Place complete security suite descriptions based on ANSI X9.63-2001 and NTRUEncrypt in the draft,
· A security suite based on ANSI x9.63-2001 will be mandatory when security modes 2 and 3 are enabled, the goal of the mode selected will have no issued worldwide patents,
NTRUEncrypt using ess251 ep1, 02/131r0, will be optional when security modes 2 and 3 enabled.
Complete security suite text due to technical editor (cc to TG3 Chair) in a form similar to 02/131r0, for both items by 5PM PST, April 5,
If complete text specifying an implementation based on ANSI X9.63-2011 security suite is not received and posted to the 802.15.3 email reflector on time, the draft will proceed with the proposal in 02/131r0, as the mandatory security suite,
· The Security modes are as defined on slide 19, 02/096r5.
Add the ability to use access control lists without security enabled that allow for the selection of a set of devices allowed to associate via user configured means.

Slide 19 is:

Mode Security Effect
0 No Security (default)
1 Access control list (no Cryptographic Security)
2 Public key cryptosystem security, no certificates are required, ACLs allowed
3 Public key cryptosystem security, certificates required, ACLs allowed.

Bob Heile, Ph.D
Chair, IEEE 802.15 Working Group on Wireless Personal Area Networks
Chair, ZigBee Alliance
11 Louis Road
Attleboro, MA  02703   USA
Phone: 508-222-1393
Mobile: 781-929-4832
Fax:         508-222-0515


Have you joined the LAN-MAN 802.15 Sponsor Balloting Pool? If not, you should consider joining. It is easy to become an IEEE-SA Member and it provides the IEEE 802.15 Working Group Voter the ability to continue to ballot on the technical validity of our proposed standard(s) - post Working Group or rather in Sponsor Ballot. The IEEE-SA Member dues are nominal. If you are interested point your Browser at the Ballot Pool Form in HTML which you need to fill out and submit to become a member of the 802.15 Wireless Personal Area Networks Balloting Pool.

Note: You can enter the LAN-MAN 802.15 Balloting Pool without an IEEE-SA Member Number but if you do not join the IEEE-SA then you will be dropped from the LAN-MAN 802.15 Balloting Group when it is formed.  Please contact our Sponsor to be added:

If you would like to contact the IEEE 802.15 Webmaster, email to
© Copyright 2001, IEEE.   Terms & Conditions.  Privacy & Security

Small IEEE Logo

(Modified: 08-Jun-2002 ), Rev. 0.2