Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IEEE Approves Revision of Wireless LAN Standard

Posted by Soulskill on from the we-live-in-exciting-times dept.

An anonymous reader writes "IEEE announced the publication of IEEE 802.11-2012, which defines the technology for the world's premier wireless LAN products. The new IEEE 802.11-2012 revision has been expanded significantly by supporting devices and networks that are faster and more secure, while offering improved Quality of Service and improved cellular network hand-off. The standard's relevance continues to expand with the emergence of new applications, such as the smart grid, which augments the facility for electricity generation, distribution, delivery and consumption with a two-way, end-to-end network for communications and control."

61 comments

  1. Does this technology involve patents . . . ? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

    And license fees?

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:Does this technology involve patents . . . ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Duh? Are you a retard?

    2. Re:Does this technology involve patents . . . ? by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is just a wrap-up standard formalizing a bunch of extensions to the previous standard, such as 802.11.n, so the patent situation is roughly the same as what it's been for 802.11 for the past years. Which is that, yes, there are patents on various things, though the situation is not 100% clear.

      There is a semi-standard licensing pool, the Via WiFi license pool, that claims to hold most of the relevant patents. But Netgear at least partly won its case after they shipped some products that didn't pay to license the Via pool. But balancing that win, Australia's national research organization seems to be successfully claiming relevant patents.

      --
      10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
    3. Re:Does this technology involve patents . . . ? by GIL_Dude · · Score: 2

      I don't have any way of knowing. Apparently the standard is copyrighted and you have to purchase a copy from the site (or have a subscription). Crazy that things that are supposed to be standards can't be viewed (legally) for free.

    4. Re:Does this technology involve patents . . . ? by Aaron+B+Lingwood · · Score: 1

      Crazy that things that are supposed to be standards can't be viewed (legally) for free.

      I have run into this situation many times. Most recently, while planning a satellite bar to deal with takeaway coffee and breakfast rolls, I was alerted by the local council that the exhaust requirements will have to be met according to some Australian Standard or I could find myself in contravention of my liquor licence. An inconvenience but fair enough I thought, until I attempted to view the regulations. I found that I had to pay to view the standard to ensure I wasn't breaking the law.

      --
      [Rent This Space]
  2. Anybody Got a WG Final Draft? by NicknamesAreStupid · · Score: 1

    The published IEEE standard is only for paid subscription.

    1. Re:Anybody Got a WG Final Draft? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 2

      You don't need a subscription. You can buy the pdf for 5 dollars.

  3. Paywalled Standards?? WTF??!!! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Insightful

    OK, so how, precisely, are we to adhere to IEEE standards when viewing the standard is FUCKING PAYWALLED?

    Seriously, folks, this culture of pay-to-play needs to be shut down. When you can't even read a fucking standard which will affect the entire industry without some asshole demanding payment, the system is broken.


    WTF ever happened to public domain?

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    1. Re:Paywalled Standards?? WTF??!!! by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1, Informative

      Yeah, however will you afford the 5 dollars to buy the pdf. Woe is you...

    2. Re:Paywalled Standards?? WTF??!!! by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      we have this thing called the internet, im sure if you look REALLY REALLY hard you can find the specs, there is this site, called http://www.google.com/ , check it out

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    3. Re:Paywalled Standards?? WTF??!!! by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1

      OK, so how, precisely, are we to adhere to IEEE standards when viewing the standard is FUCKING PAYWALLED?

      Wait for a seeder? Just sayin...

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    4. Re:Paywalled Standards?? WTF??!!! by Trepidity · · Score: 0

      What's worse is that sometimes references to these standards are written into laws, meaning that you cannot even really read the law without paying some private organization for a copy of the standard, since it's impossible to determine what the law means without being able to read the standard it references.

      --
      10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
    5. Re:Paywalled Standards?? WTF??!!! by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      The amount is not the point of contention, and you know it. It's the principle of the thing. The internet is supposed to be built on open standards.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    6. Re:Paywalled Standards?? WTF??!!! by yuhong · · Score: 2

      Last time I checked, 6 months after publication it becomes open access and public via GetIEEE802.

    7. Re:Paywalled Standards?? WTF??!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nobody ever said the Internet has to be built upon open standards, and strictly speaking, this is not an Internet standard. The guide is mainly meant for people who are building devices. Are you building a device? If so, $5 is probably nothing.

    8. Re:Paywalled Standards?? WTF??!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man, first-world problems are a bitch. "I can't get a standards doc for free! My life is ruined!!!"

    9. Re:Paywalled Standards?? WTF??!!! by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Just because the rest of the world can't keep it's shit together doesn't mean our problems should be ignored. Fuck off.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    10. Re:Paywalled Standards?? WTF??!!! by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      This just in: This isn't an Internet standard.

    11. Re:Paywalled Standards?? WTF??!!! by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 0

      Says the guy whining over a 5 dollar pdf.

    12. Re:Paywalled Standards?? WTF??!!! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 0

      Yeah, however will you afford the 5 dollars to buy the pdf. Woe is you...

      Gee, I guess you're right; I mean, it's not like this sort of shit every becomes law, which you then have to pay a fucking fee to make sure you're not doing anything illegal, right?

      Wrong.


      Monetization of the standards by which all people are supposed to adhere to is fucking greed and nothing else, no matter how hard assholes and idiots try to rationalize it.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    13. Re:Paywalled Standards?? WTF??!!! by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Your link was about access to public safety codes and had no citation about a private industry standard being forced through law. Yes, public safety codes should be free to access but they are in a completely different class to the latest WLAN standard of which no one is forced to implement or adhere to. Flawed comparison is flawed.

    14. Re:Paywalled Standards?? WTF??!!! by Thaelon · · Score: 1

      This is what happens when you pretend information can be owned.

      --

      Question everything

    15. Re:Paywalled Standards?? WTF??!!! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Says the guy(?) who thinks this has anything to do with money.

      Obsess much?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    16. Re:Paywalled Standards?? WTF??!!! by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Still doesn't make it an Internet standard. The Internet has no reliance on the WLAN standard. They are orthognal standards.

    17. Re:Paywalled Standards?? WTF??!!! by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      So complaining about having to pay money to access the standard isn't about money? lolwut?

    18. Re:Paywalled Standards?? WTF??!!! by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing you didn't read my post. Yes, public safety codes should be freely accessible since they are legally mandated. The WLAN standard is not legally mandated and thus is a completely different thing. Yes, if you were forced by law to implement 802.11 it should be freely accessible, but adhering to the standard IS COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY.

    19. Re:Paywalled Standards?? WTF??!!! by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Why? Because you say so? That's not a compelling argument.

    20. Re:Paywalled Standards?? WTF??!!! by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      Hey. You got one right.
      Him bitching about having to pay $5 to get the PDF is not about the money itself.
      I am not sure how you got this right. I would have bet everything that you were way to wrapped up in how awesome you are to get it. But you did.
      Grats.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    21. Re:Paywalled Standards?? WTF??!!! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      Don't give 'em credit too soon - being right doesn't matter if the individual fails to recognize why.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    22. Re:Paywalled Standards?? WTF??!!! by X0563511 · · Score: 0

      orthognal standards.

      That's not a thing. But I know what you are saying.

      I respectfully disagree. Would you argue that the 802.3 has nothing to do with the internet? You'll notice that wireless and traditional ethernet are all underneath 802, which includes such gems as the standards that govern cable modems? It's all one family, and arguably this family forms the backbone of the internet (in a figurative sense, not the literal). They should all be open. This is an opinion. You are allowed to disagree. You are not likely to convince me otherwise.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    23. Re:Paywalled Standards?? WTF??!!! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      The WLAN standard is not legally mandated and thus is a completely different thing.

      "The"... WLAN... standard...

      'cuz, you know, there's only the one... sorry, thought I was talking to someone who had half a clue.

      Didn't mean to wake you, you probably wouldn't get it anyway, even if we used Muppets for illustration... go on back to your fantasy land of blissful oblivion while the grown-ups discuss important legal matters.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    24. Re:Paywalled Standards?? WTF??!!! by X0563511 · · Score: 0

      Does it have to be? IT'S A FUCKING OPINION.

      We are all allowed to have them and they do not have to jive. STOP FUCKING ATTACKING PEOPLE'S OPINIONS. State your case and move on. If you have to go "nyu ah you're wrong so there" then you're doing it wrong.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    25. Re:Paywalled Standards?? WTF??!!! by X0563511 · · Score: 0

      ... and just so you know, since I just know you are going to say it: you're now on my foe list so slashdot shows you as -1 for me, and I don't have to read your shit ever again. Nothing personal, and it's not meant to be trite.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    26. Re:Paywalled Standards?? WTF??!!! by X0563511 · · Score: 2

      I'd bet Tim and a few of the other early visionaries might disagree with you.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    27. Re:Paywalled Standards?? WTF??!!! by X0563511 · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure we should all just foe Lunix Nutcase (the name should be a clue) and make sure our "Viewing" settings are set to show Foes with a -6 modifier.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    28. Re:Paywalled Standards?? WTF??!!! by sjames · · Score: 1

      Send me a dollar!

      What's wrong, too rich for your blood? Cough it up big spender!

    29. Re:Paywalled Standards?? WTF??!!! by tlhIngan · · Score: 5, Informative

      OK, so how, precisely, are we to adhere to IEEE standards when viewing the standard is FUCKING PAYWALLED?

      Seriously, folks, this culture of pay-to-play needs to be shut down. When you can't even read a fucking standard which will affect the entire industry without some asshole demanding payment, the system is broken.

      WTF ever happened to public domain?

      Actually, all IEEE 802 stadanrds are freely available. The reason you have to pay $5 right NOW is if you want it right now. If you want, you can wait 6 months and get it for free.

      The IEEE, like many other orgnaizations (including ISO) have paid standards, and most stndards require payment. It was just the popularity of 802.11 that the IEEE decided to open access to the 802 standard track for everyone. Of course, since the people who want the standard early are all the manufacturers trying to get a leg up on each other, the IEEE offers a brief exclusionary period so those who pay for early access get it. Everyone else too cheap to pay can wait (and delay their product by 6 months).

      Nothing at all unusual - Google does it with Android - want access to the latest Android code, and license "with Google"? You gotta join the OHA and sign a ton of agreements.

      About the only truly open standard spec I can remember is USB. Everything else is paywalled. IEEE's Get802 program is probably one of the few times the IEEE has opened up standards to public viewing - most other standards are closed paywall only.

      Heck, the PCI spec was supposed to be free and open (but paywalled) and some guy went to post them online under that thought. He was forced to remove it.

      Of course, just because it's in the standard doesn't make it free of patent agreements. 802.3 (Ethernet) is still patented, and implementing GigE means having to pay HP for use of auto-MDIX patents. And that's really what happens in standards committees - a lot of back and forth over who can get their patents in the spec. It's why Apple has trouble with nano-SIM (Nokia, RIM oppose it, because it means Apple would pay less in FRAND, even if Apple gives away nano-SIM for free). The best technical stuff rarely comes out of standards - it's all politicking on who can get their patents in, backroom deals, etc.

    30. Re:Paywalled Standards?? WTF??!!! by LDAPMAN · · Score: 2

      While it is certainly the most common transport, there is nothing that requires the use of ethernet for the internet. It's quite possible to get by without it.

    31. Re:Paywalled Standards?? WTF??!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a standard for wireless local area networks. What do you think the internet is? Lets break the word down for you:

      Inter: a prefix occurring in loanwords from Latin, where it meant “between,” “among,” ...
      Net: short for "network"

      I hope you can figure it out from there.

      Exactly. The Internet is a level above this standard. The Internet doesn't care what kind of crappy networks you might use; it simply provides standards for routing among them.

      To use a car analogy, complaining that this standard is not freely available is like saying that the Interstate Highway system is being converted to a toll road because some rich pricks drive $90,000 BMWs on it.

    32. Re:Paywalled Standards?? WTF??!!! by Aaron+B+Lingwood · · Score: 1

      "I can't get a standards doc for free! My life is ruined!!!"

      I'll use an absurdly exaggerated yet not completely unrealistic scenario to highlight the importance of the pay-to-view model of standards

      It is year 2035 and environmental issues are the hot topic in politics. The global population has reached 9 Billion and water has become scarce. An International Standard on toilet flushing systems has been drafted by a consortium of toilet manufacturers, plumbers unions and environmental groups. The standard also gives instructions on how to use a legacy flushing system efficiently by applying a certain pressure for a certain duration to a certain flush button.

      A radical environmentalist party is elected in your state and proposes a law that makes any person that wastes water be arrested as an environmental terrorist. The opposition is corrupt and takes money from the toilet manufacturers and others and appends all these standards to the law. The environmentalists see it as a win and there is majority support

      You hear about this new law and as you don't want to end up in Gitmo, you read up on it. Most of the law is reasonable. Then you get to the standards it references. There are a number of them which you look up online. Most refer to things like 'Farm Irrigation' or 'Industrial Complex Greywater Scheme', but then you come across the 'Household Toilet Efficient Flushing' standard. You do a Google search which comes up with some news and products. There are HTEF-compliant toilets starting at $15,000. You just spent your last $4,000 in replacing a broken toilet. You search more online and find a board that discusses the standard and find you can use your legacy toilet but MUST flush it in a specific way specified by the standard. You contact your local Plumbers Union Branch who offer to send you a copy of the standard for $200. They also offer the alternative of having a certified plumber come to your house and show you how to flush your toilet for $150.

      This is not a situation I want to deal with as my principles are likely to get me incarcerated for life. Yes this scenario is absurd, yet we are getting closer and closer to it every day. Some will find this rant Insightful, some will see it as a Troll. I just hope I can never say I told you so.

      --
      [Rent This Space]
    33. Re:Paywalled Standards?? WTF??!!! by Another,+completely · · Score: 2

      Internet Protocol (IP) starts at layer 3. Ethernet is layer 2. Internet Protocol is about connecting local networks together into a big network, and it is independent of how that local network manages the local point-to-point transport. I can have a site running only ATM, and connect it to the Internet with no problem at all. I don't feel this is being picky, since it's exactly the reason that IP has been so successful.

      802.11 (the original subject) is just one of the ways that you might choose to run a local network, and its success doesn't come particularly from any close links to IP, so far as I'm aware. I think its successful because it's good at local wireless data transport, but it's not necessary to run the Internet.

    34. Re:Paywalled Standards?? WTF??!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The amount is not the point of contention, and you know it. It's the principle of the thing. The internet is supposed to be built on open standards.

      Imagen the wonderful work that could get done if all the people who complained about trivial amounts of money actually did some productive work instead. True, those fat-cats at the standards organizations who get $5 per copy from the 100 people in the world who want to read this standard would read slashdot comments and not learn that you are so upset, but overall I think the world would be better.

    35. Re:Paywalled Standards?? WTF??!!! by X0563511 · · Score: 0

      Yep. Because you are omnipotent and know what I do for a living, and know that it is nonproductive. I'm sure that's how it works.

      Hint: you are not imnipotent, you do NOT know what I do for a living, and it IS productive.

      Some of us care about things even if we don't work with them as part of our jobs.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  4. 802.11 has become way too complex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In my opinion cramming in more and more features into the Wifi protocol zoo is a bad idea.
    How can we expect devices to function reliably if drivers have to consider dozens, if not hundreds of situations.
    I doubt there is a single person who knows about every aspect of IEEE 802.11.

    1. Re:802.11 has become way too complex by Kompressor · · Score: 1

      I doubt there is a single person who knows about every aspect of IEEE 802.11.

      There is. His name is Matthew S. Gast. Read this book and you'll have a solid foundation, too.

      --
      kmem russian roulette: Aquillar> dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/kmem bs=1 count=1 seek=$RANDOM
    2. Re:802.11 has become way too complex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know that book, but it has been released in pre-802.11n times.

  5. you must be new here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    been going on for several decades now

  6. pay the fucking money and then read it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK, so how, precisely, are we to adhere to IEEE standards when viewing the standard is FUCKING PAYWALLED?

    You buy a copy of it and read it. Then write your code to what you read.

    What's so fucking hard about that?

    1. Re:pay the fucking money and then read it by skids · · Score: 1

      It's not that it is hard, or particularly expensive, it is that it is a barrier to casual perusal. Said casual perusal is important, because a bored network admin who just happens to read the standard (which is way beyond his job requirements to do) might actually avoid mis-applying the technology in some obscure way that, while it works just fine for now, eventually causes grief down the road. Moreover, even though these standards are vetted pretty well, it is often the case that they still have a hole in them here or there that only a practicing in-the-trenches professional would spot.

      Me I just wanted to see if they formalized any DH-exchange-based alternative to the weak 4-way handshake, or maybe formalized a way to close the hole-196 attack vector by specifying a per-host GTK mode for networks where multicast just doesn't make sense anyway (which is the case for most enterprise BYOD WLANs, which are precisely the ones most affected by hole-196.)

      It's worth maybe an hour of my spare time. It isn't worth $5 of my money on top of that at this point. While I do think people who arrange and work hard on standards should get paid for their efforts, this is not the right bridge at which to collect that toll... all it does is annoy and discourage technical journalists and volunteer open source developers.

      --
      Someone had to do it.
  7. Re:802.11fu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amen brother. The standards industry helping companies misrepresent performance in the most fundamental way. Never seen that before. Network speeds below that advertised, never seen that before. Managing client expectation or worse... enterprise users, never seen that before. The promise of wireless modulation beyond the academically plausible spectral efficiencies of ~ 4 Mbps/Mhz with smoke and mirrors like compression and caching, never. ever. seen. that.

    It's ok... NASA says we can get there, with fucking Morse coded lasers, preferably on giant sharks, in outer space in less than ten years, and latency wont be a problem because there are 11 dimensions that can be entangled backwards in fucking time with perfect one way trap door encryption algorithms that have flawless implementations.

    Amen.

  8. I paid the $5 by Rob+from+RPI · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's not worth it. It's a high level overview, and it's only 38 pages. I care deeply about the changes in it, and this doesn't mention ANY of the new important things that was meant to happen (eg, better adhoc). So, it's a bit of a let down, actually.

    --Rob

    --
    Schlock Mercenary.
    1. Re:I paid the $5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyway, this standard revision is nothing more than bugfixes and bloat. What i would like to know is whether you can now actually implement 802.11 by only looking at the specifications and have a working network at the end. That would be a huge improvement over the previous revision.

      Payin' $5 for bugfixes and bloat kind of remind me of Windows ME.

  9. AE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is actually 802.11ae-2012. This is the standard that replaces 802.11n