Comments on Standards Development Process January 2010 Comments on Standards Development Process Date: 2010-01-18 Authors: Notice: This document has been prepared to assist IEEE 802.19. It is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein. Release: The contributor grants a free, irrevocable license to the IEEE to incorporate material contained in this contribution, and any modifications thereof, in the creation of an IEEE Standards publication; to copyright in the IEEE’s name any IEEE Standards publication even though it may include portions of this contribution; and at the IEEE’s sole discretion to permit others to reproduce in whole or in part the resulting IEEE Standards publication. The contributor also acknowledges and accepts that this contribution may be made public by IEEE 802.19. Patent Policy and Procedures: The contributor is familiar with the IEEE 802 Patent Policy and Procedures <http:// ieee802.org/guides/bylaws/sb-bylaws.pdf>, including the statement "IEEE standards may include the known use of patent(s), including patent applications, provided the IEEE receives assurance from the patent holder or applicant with respect to patents essential for compliance with both mandatory and optional portions of the standard." Early disclosure to the TAG of patent information that might be relevant to the standard is essential to reduce the possibility for delays in the development process and increase the likelihood that the draft publication will be approved for publication. Please notify the Chair <shellhammer@ieee.org> as early as possible, in written or electronic form, if patented technology (or technology under patent application) might be incorporated into a draft standard being developed within the IEEE 802.19 TAG. If you have questions, contact the IEEE Patent Committee Administrator at <patcom@ieee.org>. Joe Kwak, Alex Reznik, Eldad Zeira (InterDigital) Steve Shellhammer, Qualcomm

January 2010 Abstract This contribution highlights several approach to standards development that have been used by IEEE 802 Pros and cons of each approach are discussed A standards development process for 802.19.1 is proposed Straw Poll of group Joe Kwak, Alex Reznik, Eldad Zeira (InterDigital)

Two Standards Development Approaches January 2010 Two Standards Development Approaches Complete proposal approach WG/TG establishes proposal guidelines and evaluation methodologies A call for proposal is issued. While partial proposals are generally welcome there is an expectation that at least some complete proposals will be presented Competing complete proposals are discussed and evaluated by the group. These are modified or merged so as to make them acceptable to an ever-increasing portion of the WG/TG. (Hopefully) a single proposal results which garners the necessary 75% support This approach is usually used by 802.11 and many other groups within 802 Incremental progress approach Agree on broad strokes and high-level structure of the standard/amendment first As work on details proceeds and the standard/amendment details are filled in, feature proposals are considered separately provided that these fully comply with the high-level detail previously agreed on This process has been in used within 802.16 and 802.16m is currently following it. We’ll use the 802.16m process to provide a more concrete example of how this proceeds Joe Kwak, Alex Reznik, Eldad Zeira (InterDigital)

802.11n: example complete proposal process January 2010 802.11n: example complete proposal process 802.11n developed a set of up-front requirement specs This led to a call for proposals Ref: IEEE 802.11-08/1392r0 Usage Models Channel Models Functional Requirements Comparison Criteria Call for Complete Proposals Step 2 Next Slide Joe Kwak, Alex Reznik, Eldad Zeira (InterDigital)

802.11n: example complete proposal process January 2010 802.11n: example complete proposal process Once proposal come in these are evaluated The process continues until only 1 proposal is “left standing” This full proposal then requires 75% approval Joe Kwak, Alex Reznik, Eldad Zeira (InterDigital)

802.16m: example incremental process January 2010 802.16m: example incremental process As part of the standards development process, 802.16 TGm agreed to develop the following document System Requirements Document (SRD) A set of possible deployment scenarios and applications of the 802.16m standard. A set of performance targets and features that 802.16m compliantsystems shall meet or exceed. Evaluation Methodology Document (EMD) A complete set of parameters, models, and methodologies for the link-level and system-level simulations that allow fair evaluation/comparison of various technical proposals. Channels Models: A set of spatial channel model parameters are specified to characterize particular features of MIMO radio channels to be used for simulating technical proposals for the future 802.16m standard. System Description Document (SDD) Architecture and design of the 802.16m air interface amendment Captures the core technical concepts behind the features included in the amendment Will enable analysis and/or simulations for characterizing the coarse level performance benefits of the air interface in association with the Evaluation Methodology Document These document then lead to the amendment to 802.16 See 802.16m-09/0019r1 for reference Joe Kwak, Alex Reznik, Eldad Zeira (InterDigital)

802.16m: example incremental process January 2010 802.16m: example incremental process Development of Intermediate Documents (SRD, EMD, SDD) Performed using a 50% voting process until a complete (or close to complete) version is available A formal motion (75% approval) was used to adopt each one Once adopted, a format change, via a 75%-approval CR required to change Development of the standard amendment The SDD effectively dictated the “table of content” of amendment Proposal on various features considered separately Each requires compliance with SRD/EMD/SDD as appropriate Each requires 75% approval for acceptance and/or change If a feature violated SRD/EMD/SDD A CR for an appropriate SRD/EMD/SDD must be approved first The feature of interest can be introduced for approach no earlier then 1 meeting after the necessary SRD/EMD/SDD change is approved See 802.16m-08/0043r0 for details Joe Kwak, Alex Reznik, Eldad Zeira (InterDigital)

Comparing the Two Approaches January 2010 Comparing the Two Approaches Complete proposal approach Pros: Is potentially faster, as good proposals are available early in the process and can be moved on quickly Cons: Can result in a stalemate is several good proposals are available without a clear winner Failure of a proposal returns the group to square 1 – even if all available proposal had agreement in general details Open to derailment of process by late-comers to the group Discourages incremental improvements by others Incremental process approach Provides a means for a group to agree on the high-level issues up-front Disagreement and stalemate on a particular feature does not stall the rest of the process Establish barrier to change high-level agreements late in the standards development process A priori requires longer time as the up-front documents (e.g. 802.16m’s SRD/EMD/SDD) have to be discusses before the group gets to the “meat.” Summary The incremental process requires a potentially longer initial development time, but reduces the risk of stalled progress. Joe Kwak, Alex Reznik, Eldad Zeira (InterDigital)

Standards Development Process for 802.19.1 January 2010 Standards Development Process for 802.19.1 Our proposal Take advantage of the benefits offered by the incremental approach Develop a set of documents which are agreed on up-front and frame the rest of the process Minimize the impact of the development timeline by minimizing the number and scope of up-front document Potential documents to develop System Design Document, which may contain Set of common terms, definitions and acronyms Set of features/mechanisms the standards will defined Architecture definitions Evaluation Methodology How well does a technique improve coexistence Complexity of adding new technique to each 802 MAC/PHY? Other considerations?? Joe Kwak, Alex Reznik, Eldad Zeira (InterDigital)

Straw Poll Which standard development process do you support for 802.19.1? Complete Proposal process Incremental Proposal process Not sure Vote only for one of the above three choices.