TGn Chair’s Status Update

1. TGn Chair’s Status Update Matthew B. Shoemake, Ph.D. m.b.shoemake@ieee.org July 21, 2003 Matthew B. Shoemake, TGn Chair Elect

2. Formation of IEEE 802.11n • It is expected that approval of the IEEE 802.11n PAR will be voted on by the IEEE 802 ExCom (Executive Committee) on July 25, 2003 • The first official meeting of Task Group N is planned for September 15, 2003 Matthew B. Shoemake, TGn Chair Elect

3. HTSG • Until 802.11n receives official approval of its Project Authorization Request (PAR) from the ExCom, we will continue to do work under the HTSG charter • The HTSG charter has been extended through the May 2003 and July 2003 sessions • Top priority of HTSG should remain gaining PAR approval: • July 2003 - Process comments from SEC and update as necessary • In the interim, HTSG can conduct business that helps progress the forthcoming TGn • Usage Model Special Committee • Channel Model Special Committee • General submissions • Selection Procedure Matthew B. Shoemake, TGn Chair Elect

4. Stages of Standard Development • Project Authorization (PAR) • Anticipate approval in July 2003 • Ideas, Procedures and Models • This is where HTSG can help TGn get a head start • Selection Stage • Execution of selection procedure • First Draft Approved and Forwarded to WG Ballot • Required support of 75% of members • Forward to Sponsor Ballot • Draft, having been polished via WG balloting, is forwarded to Sponsor Balloting pool • Sponsor Ballot pool is group of voters formed by the IEEE Standards Organization • Final Approval • Achieve when draft passes sponsor balloting, comments have been properly processed and the IEEE Standards Board approves the amendment Matthew B. Shoemake, TGn Chair Elect

5. Ideas, Procedures and Models (1/2) • Items that must be completed before we officially start the 802.11n selection procedure: • Usage Models • Channel Models • Official Selection Procedure Adopted • Functional Requirements Adopted • Comparison Criteria Adopted • Draft Call for Proposals and/or Technical Contributions • Draft Press Announcement for Approval of 802.11n PAR • Publicity Committee and HTSG to have joint meeting on Thursday July 24, 2003 to review draft announcement from the Publicity Committee Matthew B. Shoemake, TGn Chair Elect

6. Ideas, Procedures and Models (2/2) Usage Models Selection Procedure Comparison Criteria Functional Requirements Comparison Criteria Functional Requirements PHY Models MAC Models PHY Models MAC Models • Setting of usage models should affect the comparison criteria, functional requirements and PHY and MAC modeling • Eventually the comparison criteria, functional requirements, PHY and MAC modeling should be used in the selection procedure Matthew B. Shoemake, TGn Chair Elect

7. Top Items for HTSG Early Consideration (1/2) • Usage Models • Is important to start sharing ideas on usage models and technologies • Presentations on usage models and what 802.11n should be are encouraged • Usage models should affect the selection procedure, channel and MAC models, comparison criteria and functional requirements • Channel Modeling Matthew B. Shoemake, TGn Chair Elect

8. Top Items for HTSG Early Consideration (2/2) • Official Selection Procedure • Need to think this through very carefully considering: • Past success and failures of other Task Groups • Difference between PARs of previous Task Group and TGn • The size of TGn • Procedure must be fair • Procedure should be deterministic • Procedure should encourage scientific decision making • Procedure should encourage cooperation among members Matthew B. Shoemake, TGn Chair Elect

9. Adoption of HTSG Actions by TGn • All “early” work done by HTSG will need formal approval/ratification by TGn • In an effort to maximize our efficiency, it is encouraged to work inside HTSG with due diligence and commitment, such that any work that is completed by HTSG can be adopted with no or minimal modification by TGn • Likewise, for any work not completed by HTSG, it is desirable that TGn be able to pick this work up and continue rather than starting over Matthew B. Shoemake, TGn Chair Elect

10. Selection Procedure • Propose that we kick off discussion on selection procedure during July 2003 session: • Review selection procedures of 802.11g and 802.15.3a • Take straw polls to determine what the simple majority supports • Use the results of the straw polls to draft the IEEE 802.11n Selection Procedure • Have three conference calls just before the September 2003 session to refine the draft • Tentatively August 27, September 3 and September 10 • Bring the draft to the September 2003 session for further review, modification and ultimate adoption Matthew B. Shoemake, TGn Chair Elect

11. Previously Used Selection Procedures: 802.11g • 802.11g procedure drew from the 802.11b procedure • 802.11g procedure has been leveraged by 802.11h and 802.15.3a • Selection Procedure (11-00-209r3): http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/11/Documents/DocumentHolder/0-209.zip • Functional Requirements (11-00-210r4) must be met to be considered by the TGg • Comparison Criteria (11-00-211r9) are questions that must be answered by each proposer to be considered by TGg • No scoring system and members free to vote at will • Issue with 802.11g procedure: • Step 19 was not very clear, and at a critical stage of the process, there were varying interpretations of the process • 802.15.3a attempted to fix this problem Matthew B. Shoemake, TGn Chair Elect

12. Previously Used Selection Procedures: 802.15.3a • IEEE 802.15.3a built on 802.11g procedure and has attempted to plug holes and remove any ambiguities • Selection Procedure (doc. 15-03-41): http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/15/pub/2003/Jan03/03041r7P802-15_TG3a-Down-Selection-Voting-Procedure.doc • Added very clear flow chart for procedure • IEEE 802.15.3a procedure includes: • “Technical Requirements” (doc. 15-03-30) • “Selection Criteria” (doc. 15-03-31) • Low hurdle vote: > 20% Matthew B. Shoemake, TGn Chair Elect

13. Straw Polls (1/3) Results of the straw polls to draft the IEEE 802.11n Selection Procedure. • What should be used as a baseline for the 802.11n Selection Procedure? • 802.11g Selection Procedure YES/NO • 802.15.3a Selection Procedure YES/NO • Other: ___________ • Should 802.11n define Functional Requirements that must be met for proposal consideration: • YES/NO • Should 802.11n definite Comparison Criteria that must be addressed/answered for a proposal to be considered: • YES/NO Matthew B. Shoemake, TGn Chair Elect

14. Straw Polls (2/3) Results of the straw polls to draft the IEEE 802.11n Selection Procedure. • Should the 802.11n Selection Procedure incorporate a “low hurdle” vote: • YES/NO • If so, what should the low hurdle level be? • Greater than 20 % • Greater than 25 % • Neither • Should the procedure include a Panel Q&A session? • YES/NO • Should the procedure timeline target be: • Initial presentations made in January 2004 with low hurdle vote in March 2004 and subsequent procedure steps continuing in May 2004 • Other Matthew B. Shoemake, TGn Chair Elect

15. Straw Poll (3/3) Results of the straw polls to draft the IEEE 802.11n Selection Procedure. • In the event that one proposal remains, but has not achieve 75% support shall the procedure call for: • 802.15.3a model: • “No voters” must state objections • Remaining proposer allowed to address objections, one more vote taken • If 75% not reached on that vote, go back to in procedure and reinstate last three proposals • 802.11g model: • Indefinite voting on remaining proposal as long as its support does not fall below 33 1/3 % • Other • When shall the group be able to change the procedure? Matthew B. Shoemake, TGn Chair Elect