1 / 29

IEEE 802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs )

IEEE 802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs ). TG3a Down Selection Subcommitee (SC) Down Selection Process Discussion. Contents. Down Selection Subcommittee (SC) Work To Date, unfinished business next steps Overview of the process and timelines Selection Process

mjeannette
Télécharger la présentation

IEEE 802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs )

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. IEEE 802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) TG3a Down Selection Subcommitee (SC) Down Selection Process Discussion Mary DuVal TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

  2. Contents • Down Selection Subcommittee (SC) Work To Date, unfinished business next steps • Overview of the process and timelines • Selection Process • Evaluation • Down Selection Mary DuVal TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

  3. Next Steps • Committee analysis of scoring – how to organize? • Definition of committee analysis activity to be determine by end of January meeting • Email discussion encouraged • Review Evaluation Annex text for 02/105 • Proposed text is located in 02/471r4 • Review in January • Down selection Voting Procedure(02/465r1) • Members are encouraged to review steps 3 – 10 • Suggest concall to discuss 3 – 10 to identify areas of concern (12/4 and 12/11 at 11 am CST – host?) • Formal editing of this procedure will continue in the January meeting starting at step 3 Mary DuVal TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

  4. SC Overview Nov02 to Jan03 • The SG3a/TG3a CFP was released 3Dec02 • The TG3a PAR was approved by NesCom/StdsBD on 11Dec02 • ConCalls held on 4Dec02 and 11Dec02 and the minutes can be found in –02/491r1 Mary DuVal TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

  5. Session #22/FLL SC - Contributions • -03/031r0 [03031r0P802-15_TG3a-PHY-Selection-Criteria.doc] • Annex A based on SC –02/471r4 • -03/041r0, r1 [03041r1P802-15_TG3a-Down-Selection-Voting-Procedure.doc] • Based on -02/465r1, -02/487r0 • -03/042r0 [03042r0P802-15_TG3a-Down-Selection-Process-Discussion.ppt] Mary DuVal TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

  6. Overview of IEEE Process Mary DuVal TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

  7. Call for Applications, Intentions, Proposals, and Down Selection Process Legend: CFI = Call For Interest CFA = Call For Applications CFI/CFP = Call For Intent/Call For Proposals Mary DuVal TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

  8. The figure to the right depicts the current state of the TG3a CFP Process thinking. The WG requires a CFI to prepare the agenda. Typically a CFP runs 60-90 days and the CFI is 30 days BEFORE CFP deadline. The CFI/CFP Process Mary DuVal TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

  9. After the 4Dec02 ConCall ChuckB decided to create a flow chart based on –02/465r1 (-03/041r1) The steps in the graphic represent paragraphs in the procedure. Down Selection Procedure, 02/491r1 Mary DuVal TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

  10. Proposed CFP Timeline • Nov02 Session #21/Kauai, HI USA • We approved and then released the CFP on 3Dec02. • Jan03 Session #22/Ft Lauderdale, FL USA • We are planning that the TG3a approve the docs from the SG3a. • Mar03 Session #23/Dallas, TX USA • Proposals will be first heard in this Mar03 session. • May03 Session #24/Singapore, Singapore • If too many proposal for the Mar03 session, this will be the overflow. • We should spend part of this session discussing proposals presented, answering technical questions/concerns (i.e. put the diehard engineers in a room and let them verbally duke it out). • Spend time on conference calls discussing proposals to let everyone get comfortable (before and after this session). • Jul03 Session #25/San Francisco, CA USA • Down Selection and Voting will occur here • 1st opportunity for automatic quorum after Mar03 presentations • Sep03 Session #26/TBA • Potential to start the drafting process - proposals for draft improvements should be entertained at this time • Nov03 Session #27/Albuquerque, NM USA • TG3a drafting process • ... Mary DuVal TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

  11. You are here SG3a Future Planning PAR CFA 2002 CFP 2003 Draft J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J S O N A D D The CFA was released on 11Dec01 and closed on 21Jan02. The CFI/CFP was released on 3Dec02 – CFI closes 3Feb03 and CFP closes 3Mar03. Mary DuVal TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

  12. Ad Hoc Summary and Current Status Mary DuVal TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

  13. Ad Hoc Summary • The ad hoc session was called to order by Ian Gifford, at 7 p.m. No minutes were taken other than the following slides. • Attendees: • The Ad Hoc Editing Team consisted of: Jim Allen, Steve March, Steve Turner, John Santhoff, Anuj Batra, Rick Roberts, Matt Welborn, Ian Gifford (facilitator), Len Miller, and Gregg Rasor. Thank you! • We recessed to the Hotel Bar at 8:30 p.m.  Mary DuVal TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

  14. Ad Hoc Status • The Ad Hoc committee reviewed the TG3a minutes –03/012r1 and applied all the edits that were referred to the ad hoc Down Selection Subcommittee from the Task Group 3a. • Contributions: • -03/041r2, Ad Hoc 13Jan03 edits • -03/041r3, Post Ad Hoc 14Jan03 edit Mary DuVal TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

  15. Ad Hoc Status (cont.) • Open Issues List: • CFP Presentation order in Mar03? • Pick from a hat. – accept as SOP • Panel Sessions? • After Initial Proposals (Step 2) - accept • When 2 Proposals remain (Step 7) - accept Mary DuVal TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

  16. Ad Hoc Status (cont.) • Open Issues List: • Voting Definition, Format, Examples • Low Hurdle Vote (Step 3) – modified to Consider/Not Consider • e.g., TGg see –03/041r5 • Elimination Vote (Step 7) • e.g., TG3 see –00/373r3 and –00/374r3 • Roll Call Vote (Step 9) • e.g., TG3 see –00/373r3 and –00/374r3 • Jim Allen edits [03041r1P802-15_TG3a-comments - JDA.doc] • Editorial - accepted Mary DuVal TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

  17. Ad Hoc Status (cont.) • 14Jan03 • Open Issues List: • RickA comments (verbal, 14Jan) - accept • Chang comments: • Merged and non Merged present - accept • JohnB edits • Active Proposals on Panel - accept • Prep time prior to Panel – rock n roll Mary DuVal TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

  18. Ad Hoc Status (cont.) • 15Jan03 • Open Issues List: • Reviewed –02/491r1 for consistency and acceptance • BobH, JohnB, ChuckB comments • RickR and IanG prepared r5 • See next slide Mary DuVal TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

  19. Ad Hoc Status (cont.) • 15Jan03 • Open Issues List: • Corrected flow for Step 2. • Deleted 1st sentence moved to intro of Step 3. • Corrected text and example in Step 3. • Changed vote to ballot to be clear. • Deleted “abstention counted” sentence. • Corrected example text and table for consistency. • Corrected text in Step 7. • Added text to address Soo-Young Chang’s comment. • Corrected text in Step 8. • Added text to define deliverable to WG. • Corrected text in Step 9. • Created a stop on round 2 of confirmation. Mary DuVal TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

  20. Backup Slides Mary DuVal TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

  21. Down Selection Process Red = Winner straw poll • Options Considered with Straw Poll Results • Separate Evaluation/Down Selection Voting: 42 • Evaluation is the Down Selection Voting (combined) : 3 • Down Selection Voting only: 0 • Abstain: 14 Mary DuVal TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

  22. Evaluation Process • Evaluation is Really 2 discussions (or phases) • Criteria Importance Level • Mandatory/Optional • ABC • A: Mandatory requirement • B: Important desired requirement • C: A nice to have requirement • Weighted values (0 – 10) • None • Scoring • Pass/Fail • Pugh Matrix • Better (+), Same, Worse (-) than a Baseline Solution • Rating (n > 2) • None Mary DuVal TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

  23. Evaluation ProcessOptions Matrix Scoring Mary DuVal TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

  24. Evaluation Process Grey = Voted off the straw poll Red = Winner straw poll Mary DuVal TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

  25. Criteria Importance Level Results Mary DuVal TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

  26. Criteria Importance Level Results (cont.) Mary DuVal TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

  27. Red = Winner straw poll Scoring Discussion • Document scoring method in Annex for inclusion in IEEE P802.15-02/105 Alternate PHY Selection Criteria • Contribution in 02/271r4, text to be reviewed in January • Decisions • Extent of Scoring: tabulated information (13) vs. tabulated information with committee analysis (35) vs. abstain (1) • Definition of committee analysis activity to be determine by end of January meeting • Criteria to Score: only most important (A’s only) vs. all criteria (no objections) • Definition of N > 2 Rating • How many levels desired: 3 levels (26) vs. 5 levels (23) vs. abstain (4) • Levels labeling: + / 0 / - (24) vs. a worded version (21) vs. abstain (3) Mary DuVal TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

  28. Down Selection Voting Procedure Red = Winner straw poll Options Considered with Straw Poll Results • Ranking vote (lowest rank voted off): 2 • Vote for desired proposal (lowest # of votes is off): 14 • 2 staged vote (eliminate low support proposals, vote for desired proposal): 22/32 • Two votes per voting member (lowest number off): 18/21 • Abstain: 5/5 Mary DuVal TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

  29. Down Selection Procedure Activity • Ad hoc group met Tuesday evening to develop proposed text for sub-committee • Sub-committee reached consensus on items 1 & 2 (of 10) – see 02/465r1 for current text • Procedure must be set in by the end of January meeting • Members are encouraged to review steps 3 – 10 • Suggest concall to discuss 3 – 10 to identify areas of concern (12/4 and 12/11 at 11 am CST – host?) • Formal editing of this procedure will continue in the January meeting starting at step 3 Mary DuVal TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

More Related