1 / 10

TGn Selection Procedure Straw Polls

TGn Selection Procedure Straw Polls. Matthew B. Shoemake, Ph.D. m.b.shoemake@ieee.org July 25, 2003. Proposal for Reaching Consensus on a Selection Procedure. July 2003 session: Beginning discussion of selection procedure Take straw polls to determine member thinking

sdonaldson
Télécharger la présentation

TGn Selection Procedure Straw Polls

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. TGn Selection Procedure Straw Polls Matthew B. Shoemake, Ph.D. m.b.shoemake@ieee.org July 25, 2003 Matthew B. Shoemake, TGn Chair Elect

  2. Proposal for Reaching Consensus on a Selection Procedure • July 2003 session: • Beginning discussion of selection procedure • Take straw polls to determine member thinking • Based on straw polls, direct IEEE 802.11n Chair Elect to draft procedure • Conference calls: • Hold two conference calls just before the September 2003 session to review and refine the draft selection procedure • Confirmed meetings: • August 27, 2003 at 8am PT/11am ET • September 3, 2003 at 8am PT/11am ET • September 2003 Session: • IEEE 802.11n Chair to provide report on status of draft selection procedure • IEEE 802.11n Task Group to review, modify and consider adoption of official selection procedure Matthew B. Shoemake, TGn Chair Elect

  3. Straw Polls (1/5) Results of the straw polls to be used to draft the IEEE 802.11n Selection Procedure. • Should 802.11n define Functional Requirements that must be met for proposal consideration: • YES/NO Result: 101/3 • Should 802.11n define Comparison Criteria that must be addressed/answered for a proposal to be considered: • YES/NO Result: 94/5 • Shall the selection procedure call for all proposals to be strictly classified as MAC proposals or PHY proposals? • YES/NO Result: 2/119 Matthew B. Shoemake, TGn Chair Elect

  4. Straw Polls (2/5) Results of the straw polls to be used to draft the IEEE 802.11n Selection Procedure. • Assuming the following definitions: Complete Proposal - a proposal that meets all the requirements of the PAR and the Functional Requirements Partial Proposal - a proposal that does not contradict the functional requirements or requirements of the PAR but alone does not meet all of the Functional Requirements and requirements of the PAR. Example: A packet aggregation proposal alone would not meet the 100 Mbps PAR requirements, but likewise may not violate any requirement of the PAR. • Should the Selection Procedure: • Allow for only introduction of “complete proposals” - 6 • Allow for only introduction of “partial proposals” - 1 • Allow for introduction of “complete proposals” and “partial proposals” - 120 Matthew B. Shoemake, TGn Chair Elect

  5. Straw Polls (3/5) Results of the straw polls to be used 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 - 3 • 802.15.3a Selection Procedure - 36 • Indifferent - 36 • Other - 9 Matthew B. Shoemake, TGn Chair Elect

  6. Straw Polls (4/5) Results of the straw polls to be used to draft the IEEE 802.11n Selection Procedure. • Should the 802.11n Selection Procedure incorporate a “low hurdle” vote: • YES/NO Results: 87/1 • If so, what should the low hurdle level be? • Greater than 20 % - 11 • Greater than 25 % - 62 • Other - 20 • Should the procedure include a Panel Q&A session? • YES/NO Results: 101/8 • 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 - 44 • Other- 58 Matthew B. Shoemake, TGn Chair Elect

  7. Straw Poll (5/5) Results of the straw polls to be used to draft the IEEE 802.11n Selection Procedure. • When shall the group be able to change the procedure? • Shall require a vote of at least 75% of the members to change the selection procedure - 64 • Shall require a vote of at least 50% of the members to change the selection procedure - 10 • Other - 8 Matthew B. Shoemake, TGn Chair Elect

  8. Background Matthew B. Shoemake, TGn Chair Elect

  9. 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

  10. 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

More Related