TGs Process, February Date: 2006-02-08 Authors: February 2007 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/0235r1 February 2007 TGs Process, February Date: 2006-02-08 Authors: Notice: This document has been prepared to assist IEEE 802.11. 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 802.11. 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 Working Group 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 <stuart.kerry@philips.com> 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 802.11 Working Group. If you have questions, contact the IEEE Patent Committee Administrator at <patcom@ieee.org>. Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola

February 2007 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/0235r1 February 2007 Abstract Slides for discussion of the IEEE 802.11 TGs process in getting through Working Group Letter Ballot and Beyond. Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola

Mesh Networking Task Group Process February 2007 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/0235r1 February 2007 Mesh Networking Task Group Process TGs Motto: “Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing left to add but when there is nothing left to take away.” Donald E. Eastlake 3rd <Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com> +1-508-786-7554 Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola

Process of Getting to Letter Ballot and Beyond February 2007 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/0235r1 February 2007 Process of Getting to Letter Ballot and Beyond Completed Steps | Future Steps Adoption of PAR and 5 Criteria Technical Presentations and Discussions Specify Any Additional Requirements, Comparison Criteria, or Other Documents Call For Proposals Presentation of Proposals Select from Submitted Complete Proposals to Produce a Draft Refine Draft 1st Letter Ballot – November 2006 – Fails Revise Draft – Resolve comments 2nd Letter Ballot – May 2007(?) Recirculation Sponsor Ballot – November 2007(?) Final WG/EC Approval IEEE SB REVCOM Approval Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola

Process for Developing Submissions and Comment Resolutions February 2007 Process for Developing Submissions and Comment Resolutions You can not have a half way official body in 802.11. While it is hard to cover all contingencies in a concise statement, there are generally two choices: TGs can have regular sessions at 802.11 meetings and can have ad hoc meetings and teleconferences in accordance with the 802.11 rules with the required prior notice to all 802.11 members and minutes published afterwards. It can also break into subgroups during such official meetings, the notice and minutes requirements generally being met by the notice and minutes of the TGs meeting. One or more individual 802.11 members can develop submissions or comment resolutions. TGs can not, in general, direct how they meet or communicate. They can not claim their submission / group has any special status. Such unofficial work cannot be announced in TGs. Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola

Process for Refining Draft February 2007 Process for Refining Draft Letter Ballot on Draft D1.0 authorized at November 2006 meeting. Approval rate 48.12%, failed. This is not unusual. Most 802.11 Drafts fail the first Letter Ballot and some fail two or three times before they pass. 5,703 comments received (including 192 on apparently invalid ballots). 10 more comments added at January meeting. Task group voted to proceed based on Draft D1.0 and to consider all comments for resolution. Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola

3 Cycles of Comments and Resolution February 2007 3 Cycles of Comments and Resolution Call for Informal Comments Comment Resolution Comment Resolution WG Letter Ballot / Recirculation Sponsor Ballot / Recirculation Comment Resolution Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola

Advantages/Disadvantages of Passing/Failing Letter Ballot February 2007 Advantages/Disadvantages of Passing/Failing Letter Ballot Advantages Disadvantages Passing Letter Ballot You enter “re-circulation” so subsequent votes are 15 days and voters can only add comment each time on parts of the Draft that have changed or been affected by changes. The voting pool is fixed and no new people joining 802.11 can vote. You must resolve every comment by a ¾ vote. You can only change the draft through the resolution of comments. Failing Letter Ballot You are free to make whatever changes in the Draft the task group wants. Your next Letter Ballot must be at least 30 days and will include everyone in the 802.11 Working Group at that time and they can comment on any part of the Draft. Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola

Comments Resolved at London Meeting February 2007 Comments Resolved at London Meeting Overall Summary Total Open Closed %Closed Editorial Comments: 2,841 646 2,195 77.26% Technical Comments: 2,872 2,066 806 28.06% Total Comments: 5,713 2,712 3,001 52.53% Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola

Schedule Projected at London, England (January) Meeting February 2007 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/0235r1 February 2007 Schedule Projected at London, England (January) Meeting January 2007 (London, England) Comment Resolution March 2007 (Orlando, Florida) May 2007 (Montreal, Quebec) Comment Resolution, Second Letter Ballot authorized July 2007 (San Francisco, California) September 2007 (Waikoloa, Hawai‘i) First Letter Ballot Re-circulation November 2007 (Atlanta, Georgia) Second Letter Ballot Re-circulation January 2008 (Sydney, New South Wales) Third Letter Ballot Re-circulation March 2008 (New Orleans, Louisiana) Sponsor Ballot Authorization by WG Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola

Multi-Meeting Process Flow February 2007 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/0235r1 February 2007 Multi-Meeting Process Flow Jan. Meeting London, UK Mar. Meeting Orlando, Florida May Meeting Montreal, Quebec Hillsboro Ad Hoc Meeting Eindhoven Ad Hoc Meeting Complete Comment Resolution? Comment Resolution Comment Resolution Comment Resolution and Agenda Telecons Comment Resolution and Agenda Telecons Draft D1.02 Draft D1.01 Draft D2.0? Draft D1.03+ Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola

March – Orlando Meeting Schedule February 2007 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/0235r1 February 2007 March – Orlando Meeting Schedule Hours based on the 13 hours (7 sessions) we will get: 0.5 hr Opening Sessions: Administrivia, Minutes, Agenda, Process 3 hr ad hoc Comment Resolution 8.5 hr Comment Resolution 1 hr Closing Session: Process, Teleconferences/Ad Hocs Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola

TGs Activity Between Meetings February 2007 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/0235r1 February 2007 TGs Activity Between Meetings TGs Activities Between Meetings Requiring Notice: One or more face to face ad hoc meetings, requires 30 days notice (P&P clause 3.6.2). One or multiple Teleconferences, requires 10 days notice, not more often than weekly (P&P clause 3.6.3). Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola

TGs Activity Between Meetings February 2007 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/0235r1 February 2007 TGs Activity Between Meetings Pre-approved ad hoc 6-8 February in Hillsboro, Oregon, to work on comment resolution. Pre-approved ad hoc 11-13 April in Eindhoven, Netherlands, to work on comment resolution. Teleconferences 5pm Wednesdays Eastern US time for up to 1 ½ hours with the following primary topics: 31 January – ad hoc and teleconferences agenda 14 Feb – General Area comments/issues 21 Feb – Security Area comments/issues 28 Feb – MAC Area comments/issues, March meeting agenda 7 Mar – RFI Area comments/issues, March meeting agenda 21 Mar - ? (After March 802.11 meeting) Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola

References Earlier TGs Process Submissions February 2007 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/0235r1 February 2007 References Earlier TGs Process Submissions January 2006, 11-07/0059r2, London, England November 2006, 11-06/1753r2, Dallas Texas September 2006, 11-06/1386, Melbourne, Australia July 2006, 11-06/1028r2, San Diego, California June 2006, 11-06/840r2, Hillsboro, Oregon (ad hoc) March 2006, 11-06/340r1, Denver, Colorado January 2006, 11-06/130r1, Waikoloa, Hawai‘i November 2005, 11-05/1137r1, Vancouver, British Columbia September 2005, 11-05/878r1, Garden Grove, California July 2005, 11-05/662r1, San Francisco, California 11-06/328r0, 11-06/329r3, Confirmed Proposal 11-07/23r10, LB#93 Comments Resolution Spreadsheet Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola