Mesh Networking Task Group Process Month 2002 doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/xxxr0 November 2004 Mesh Networking Task Group Process ESS MESH FREE IEEE 802.11 the APs Donald E. Eastlake 3rd <Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com> +1-508-786-7554 Donald Eastlake, 3rd, Motorola John Doe, His Company

Generic Process of Getting to Letter Ballot Month 2002 doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/xxxr0 November 2004 Generic Process of Getting to Letter Ballot Adoption of PAR and 5 Criteria Technical Presentations and Discussions Specify Any Additional Requirements, Comparison Criteria, or Other Documents Call For Proposals Select/Combine from Submitted Complete/Partial Proposals to Produce a Draft Refine Draft Letter Ballot Donald Eastlake, 3rd, Motorola John Doe, His Company

Historical 802.11 Project Timelines November 2004 Historical 802.11 Project Timelines Time from PAR approval to first Letter Ballot – average of 6.6 meetings / 13 months TGe-7, TGf-7, TGg-9, TGh-4, TGi-6 Time from first Letter Ballot to first Sponsor Ballot – average of 9 meetings / 18 months TGe-12, TGf-9, TGg-6, TGh-8, TGi-10 (above data compiled by Bruce Kraemer) Donald Eastlake, 3rd, Motorola

Call for and Submission of Proposals Month 2002 doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/xxxr0 November 2004 Call for and Submission of Proposals As voted in Berlin, we have publicly announced that we plan to issue a Call for Proposals shortly after the January 2005 meeting with documents to be posted before and presentations made at the July 2005 meeting. Donald Eastlake, 3rd, Motorola John Doe, His Company

802.11s Project Timelines Our PAR approval was 24 June 2004 November 2004 802.11s Project Timelines Our PAR approval was 24 June 2004 At the average pace for these Task Groups, our first Letter Ballot would open in July 2005 and our first Sponsor Ballot in January 2007. We are now behind the average pace for our first Letter Ballot. We have announced January 2005 for a call for proposals to be submitted in July 2005. It will be some number of meeting beyond that before we can try for our first 802.11 WG Letter Ballot. Things will generally happen slower than what we aim for. Donald Eastlake, 3rd, Motorola

Ad Hoc Subgroups and TGs Working Documents Month 2002 doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/xxxr0 November 2004 Ad Hoc Subgroups and TGs Working Documents Ad Hoc Subgroups Have no special status unless TGs votes on them or their output. Any group of 802.11 members can get together and make submissions. Within the Policies and Procedures (11-04/510r0), we can do what we want internally: “Adopted” internal TGs motions/documents can be amended, replaced, or un-adopted. We can have a “Functional Requirements” document that is as general or specific as we like. Donald Eastlake, 3rd, Motorola John Doe, His Company

Informal Ad Hoc Subgroups Month 2002 doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/xxxr0 November 2004 Informal Ad Hoc Subgroups Functional Requirements and Scope – coordinator Steve Conner w.steven.conner@intel.com “Functional Requirements & Scope”, 11-04/1174r6 Comparison Criteria – coordinator Steve Conner <w.steven.conner@intel.com> “Comparison Criteria”, 11-04/1175r4 Definitions – coordinator Tricci So <tso@nortelnetworks.com> “Terms and Definitions for 802.11s”, 11-04/1477r0 Usage Models – coordinator Steve Conner <w.steven.conner@intel.com> “Usage Models”, 11-04/662r10 Donald Eastlake, 3rd, Motorola John Doe, His Company

Informal Ad Hoc Subgroups (cont.) Month 2002 doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/xxxr0 November 2004 Informal Ad Hoc Subgroups (cont.) MAC / Quality of Service / 802.11e – coordinator Lily Yang <lily.l.yang@intel.com> “Issues for Mesh Media Access Coordination Component in 11s (v03)”, 11-04/968r4 Security / 802.11i, 802.1ae, 802.1af – coordinators Jasmeet Chhabra <jasmeet.chhabra@intel.com>, Bob Moskowitz <rgm@trusecure.com> “802.11s Security Concepts”, 11-04/1115r1 Other 802.11k, 802.11h /Radio Resources/Metrics – coordinator WNM, CAPWAP /Management – coordinator Donald Eastlake, 3rd, Motorola John Doe, His Company

July 2004 Straw Poll: Informal Group Submissions Status November 2004 July 2004 Straw Poll: Informal Group Submissions Status What should be the status of relevant submissions from informal groups if a majority of TGs agrees with the submission? Strongly included as part of call for proposals – 12 Adopted as internal working documents – 29 Included on a TGs recommended reading list – 3 No special status – 2 Donald Eastlake, 3rd, Motorola

Current Adopted Documents November 2004 Current Adopted Documents We have adopted three documents as internal working group documents: 11-04/969r2: Draft Terms and Definitions for 802.11s 11-04/662r10: Usage Models 11-04/970r3: Proposed 802.11 TGs Scope Donald Eastlake, 3rd, Motorola

Schedule Projected at Berlin (September) Meeting Month 2002 doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/xxxr0 November 2004 Schedule Projected at Berlin (September) Meeting November 2004 (San Antonio, Texas) Work on Functional Requirements and other documents that may be referenced in the Call for Proposals. January 2005 (Monterey, California) Call for Proposals issued immediately after meeting with deadline for submission of two weeks before the July meeting. March 2005 (Atlanta, Georgia) Presentations, refinement of selection criteria May 2005 (Beijing, China) July 2005 (San Francisco, Califonria) Presentation of Proposals September 2005 (TBD) Derivation of Draft November 2005 (Vancouver, British Columbia) Further Refinement of Draft, Letter Ballot Authorized by WG? Donald Eastlake, 3rd, Motorola John Doe, His Company

Early Draft Call for Proposals November 2004 Early Draft Call for Proposals I have put together a suggested draft Call for Proposals: 11-04/1430r1 It includes Different Levels of Referenced Documents Deadlines based on our publicly announced planned schedule Donald Eastlake, 3rd, Motorola

Possibilities Between the November 2004 and January 2005 Meetings Month 2002 doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/xxxr0 November 2004 Possibilities Between the November 2004 and January 2005 Meetings Possibilities for TGs Activity Between November 2004 and January 2005 Meetings to accelerate action : Multiple Teleconferences (require 10 days notice, cannot be held more often than weekly (P&P clause 3.6.3)) One Teleconference Additional official face to face meeting is probably not practical due to holidays and requirement for 30 days notice (P&P clause 3.6.2) Donald Eastlake, 3rd, Motorola John Doe, His Company