TGac Ad-hoc lifecycle model

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Doc.: IEEE /1392r0 Submission November 12, 2008 De Vegt (Qualcomm)Slide 1 Inputs for a VHT Selection Procedure Date: Authors:
Advertisements

Doc.: IEEE /0237r0 Submission February 12, 2009 Rolf de Vegt (Qualcomm)Slide 1 Inputs for a ac Spec Framework Methodology Date:
Doc.: IEEE /1167r0 Submission November 2009 Osama Aboul-Magd (Samsung)Slide 1 TGac Ad Hoc Group Operation and Chair Selection Procedure Date:
Doc.: IEEE /0184r0 Submission January 2011 Rolf de Vegt (Qualcomm)) Slide ah Spec Development Discussion Document Date: Authors:
Doc.: IEEE /0707r0 Submission May 2011 Minyoung Park, Intel Corp.Slide 1 Overview on TGah Specification Framework Development Date:
Doc.: IEEE /1442r2 Submission December 2012 Marc Emmelmann, Fraunhofer FOKUSSlide 1 TGai Draft Review Overview Date: Authors:
Doc.: IEEE /0413r0 Submission March 2010 Osama Aboul-Magd (Samsung)Slide 1 TGac March 2010 Closing Report Date: Authors:
Doc.: IEEE /0147r0 Submission January 2012 Rolf de Vegt (Qualcomm)) Slide ai Spec Development Process Update Proposal Date:
Doc.: IEEE /0034r0 Submission January 2004 Dr. John R. Barr, MotorolaSlide 1 Project: IEEE Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks.
Doc.: IEEE /1583r1 Submission November 2011 Osama Aboul-Magd (Huawei Technologies)Slide 1 TGac November 2011 Closing Report Date: Authors:
Doc.: IEEE /0025r1 Submission January 2012 Rolf de Vegt (Qualcomm)) Slide ai Spec Development Discussion Document Date: XX Authors:
VHT Frame Padding Date: Authors: Month Year
11ac 80MHz Transmission Flow
Submission Title: [TG3 Closing Report 17May01]
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
TGac Ad-hoc lifecycle model
TGac Documents and Timeline
80MHz Tone Allocation Date: Authors: Month Year Month Year
Proposed TC Issues Process
Towards an Improved Proposal Development Process for VHT
Preamble Parameters Date: Authors: Slide 1.
Jan 14, 2010 La Jolla, CA Session #65
Sounding and P Matrix Proposal
VHT Packet Duration Signaling
Proposal for TGad Selection Procedure and Timeline
Towards an Improved Proposal Development Process for VHT
TGz Los Angeles Closing Report
Guidelines for Internal TGad Comment Submission and Resolution
Sept 2018 Sub 1 GHz Interest Group
Guidelines for Internal TGad Comment Submission and Resolution
Proposed Specification Framework for TGac – Introductory Comments
802.11af Liaison Report Date: Authors: November 2011
802.11af Liaison Report Date: Authors: January 2012
802.11af Liaison Report Date: Authors: March 2012
<month year> <doc.: IEEE doc> January 2016
TGac Ad-hoc lifecycle model
Proposed Scope for Tgac Ad Hoc Groups
TGz Beijing May 2010 Closing Report
Proposed Specification Framework for TGac – Introductory Comments
Avoiding unnecessary delays in the WG Letter Ballot process
Comparison of Draft Spec Framework Documents
802.11ai Spec Development Process Update Proposal
TGac MU-MIMO ad-hoc report Nov 09
A cascading process for major amendments
Proposed Specification Framework for TGac – Introductory Comments
TGaf San Francisco Closing Report
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
Preamble for 120MHz Date: Authors: Nov, 2010 Month Year
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
TGn Chair’s Status Update
GroupID in VHT-SIG Field
Proposed Specification Framework for TGac – Introductory Comments
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
Nov 2018 Sub 1 GHz Interest Group
Bits Consideration for SIGNAL fields
Selection Procedure for TGai
802.11ax Spec Development Process Proposal
VHT NAV Assertion Date: Authors: Month Year
Strawmodel ac Specification Framework
Bits Consideration for SIGNAL fields
802.11be Timeline proposal Date: Authors: May 2019
Spec Framework Decision Process Alternatives
Avoiding unnecessary delays in the WG Letter Ballot process
Liaison Report Date: Authors: September 2010
Proposed Scope for Tgac Ad Hoc Groups
Nov 2018 Sub 1 GHz Study Group Date: Authors: Nov 2018
802.11ax Spec Development Process Proposal
May 2019 doc.: IEEE July 2019 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title:
TGn Editor Report Sept 2007 Date: Authors: Sept 2007
September, 2019 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: CID 422 Proposal Date Submitted: Sept.
Presentation transcript:

TGac Ad-hoc lifecycle model Month Year doc.: IEEE 802.11-yy/xxxxr0 TGac Ad-hoc lifecycle model Date: 2009-11-16 Authors: John Doe, Some Company

Introduction TGac Ad-hocs are starting up activity this week There needs to be a clear expectation of the phases of activity (the “lifecycle”) performed by an ad-hoc Earlier work (11-09/0237) addressed the contents of the framework document. It did not address how high-level design decisions should be recorded. This submission highlights the need to record these design decisions before drafting text. Also there are two questions that need to be discussed and addressed now: Are transitions between phases of activity formalized (e.g. formal sign-off that requirements are complete)? Do we record high-level design decisions in the Framework document, or some other document?

Lifecycle Establishing requirements Making top-level design decisions Writing draft text Resolving comments

Establishing requirements Purpose of this phase is to determine the features that the ad-hoc is supporting During this phase we expect to see justification of features i.e. performance simulations/results, complexity estimates Output is the Framework document, e.g. “Preamble shall support colored training symbols” ** ** The example is fictitious :0)

Making top-level design decisions During this lifecycle phase, the ad-hoc considers alternative proposals that show how to meet its requirements (which have been documented in the framework doc). Eventually the group decides on mechanisms/methods/structures that meet its requirements. The output is in a TBD document (could be Framework document, or new system design document), containing high-level design e.g. “The preamble supports colored training symbols through the following structure: following the single spatial stream VHT SIG field there will be n VHT-LTFs, where n is the total number of spatial streams. the colors of the LTFs will be selected in order from: red, green, blue, red, green, blue … ” ** * This is still a fictitious example

Writing draft text During this phase, the ad-hoc writes text for incorporation into the draft amendment. Only “low level design” decisions are made at this stage All feature decisions and top-level design decisions have been made in previous phases of the lifecycle Phase is complete when the draft is approved for ballot

Resolving comments Comments will be received during letter ballot The ad-hoc will be asked to provide resolutions for comments “in scope” of its charter, to be approved by TGac This phase completes when the IEEE Standards Board have approved the amendment

Moving between phases of the lifecycle Do we have a hard switch? i.e. Once an ad-hoc has started making top-level design decisions, is it allowed to go back and change its requirements? Switch into comment resolution is necessarily “hard” because it is dependent on entry to letter ballot If we have a hard switch, we need to formalize two transitions: From requirements to top-level design From top-level design to drafting text If have a “soft” switch, an ad-hoc can move between phases as it needs e.g., to reflect learnings from design back into requirements Which is going to be the most effective way to operate?

Recording the top-level design We need a place to record top-level design decisions We have only two documents so far: Framework Draft Amendment Do we need a third document “System design spec”, or can we use the framework document to capture this output?

Comparison of the ‘Hard Switch’ and ‘Soft Switch’ Approaches Month Year doc.: IEEE 802.11-yy/xxxxr0 Comparison of the ‘Hard Switch’ and ‘Soft Switch’ Approaches ‘Hard Switch’ ‘Soft Switch’ ‘Requirements Definition’ ‘Systems Design’ ‘Spec Text Development’ System Design Document Spec Framework Document System Design Document Draft Text Draft Text Source: Rolf de Vegt (this and next slide) Slide 10 Page 10 John Doe, Some Company

Alternatives for Major Taskgroup Decision Points Month Year doc.: IEEE 802.11-yy/xxxxr0 Alternatives for Major Taskgroup Decision Points Framework Update System Design Draft Text Coex PHY MAC MU Framework Update System Design Draft Text Hard Switch Letter Ballot Framework Update System Design Draft Text Framework Update System Design Draft Text System Design Draft Text Coex PHY MAC MU System Design Draft Text Soft Switch Letter Ballot System Design Draft Text System Design Draft Text = Taskgroup Approval Decision Point Slide 11 Page 11 John Doe, Some Company