1. Possible Options for 802.11 TGs Call for Proposals W. Steven Conner Intel Corp. W. Steven Conner, Intel

2. Possible Criteria for 802.11s CFP • Option 1: CFP References PAR Only • Option 2: CFP References PAR, Minimum Requirements, and (Out-of-)Scope • Possible Sub-documents • Usage Models • Terms/Definitions • Architecture? • Option 3: CFP References PAR, Detailed Functional Requirements, Comparison Criteria, Scope • Possible Sub-documents: • Usage Models • Simulation Scenarios • Terms/Definitions • Architecture? Recommendation / Additional Guidelines Official / Part of FRCC W. Steven Conner, Intel

3. Possible Tradeoffs • Option 1: CFP References PAR Only • Possible Benefits: • See proposals quickly • Possible Downsides: • Broad interpretations of the PAR and assumed scope may lead to wide variation in proposal scope – difficulty in selecting/merging proposals • No formal/detailed selection criteria in place. • Option 2: CFP References PAR, Minimum Requirements, and Scope • Possible Benefits: • Additional guidelines on requirements, establish items that are out of scope up front • Light-weight process to get to CFP quickly • Don’t try to perfect requirements up front – once we have an initial draft, TG can extend/amend • Possible Downsides: • No formal/detailed selection criteria in place • Option 3: CFP References PAR, Detailed FRCC, Scope • Possible Benefits: • Very formal requirements and comparison criteria should help in down-selection of proposals • Possible Downsides: • Process to adopt detailed functional requirements and comparison criteria may take a long time • (TGn spent 5 TG meetings to finalize FRCC before sending out CFP) W. Steven Conner, Intel

4. Recommendation • TGs currently has a target date for CFP, but no process or criteria for CFP • TGs should decide on a process and plan for moving toward an initial draft W. Steven Conner, Intel

5. Discussion?Straw Polls? W. Steven Conner, Intel