doc.: IEEE /0190r1 Submission March 2005 John Barr, Motorola/Jim Allen, Appairent TechnologiesSlide 1 NOTE: Update all red fields replacing with your information; they are required. This is a manual update in appropriate fields. All Blue fields are informational and are to be deleted. Black stays. After updating delete this box/paragraph. Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: 11N Liaison Report. Date Submitted: 18 March 2005 Source: Jim Allen, Appairent Technologies, John R. Barr, Motorola Address: 1303 E. Algonquin Road, Schaumburg, IL Voice: , FAX: , Re: [] Abstract:11n Liaison Report Purpose:For the purpose of informing the body. Notice:This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE P 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 acknowledges and accepts that this contribution becomes the property of IEEE and may be made publicly available by P

doc.: IEEE /0190r1 Submission March 2005 John Barr, Motorola/Jim Allen, Appairent TechnologiesSlide 2 11N Liaison Report March 18, 2005 Atlanta, GA

doc.: IEEE /0190r1 Submission March 2005 John Barr, Motorola/Jim Allen, Appairent TechnologiesSlide 3 Sources Based on Shameless plagiarism of.11n documents, primarily: n (TNn Opening Report) n TGn Sync March 5min Summary n WWiSE proposal closing summary March 2005

doc.: IEEE /0190r1 Submission March 2005 John Barr, Motorola/Jim Allen, Appairent TechnologiesSlide 4 TGn - March Schedule Time MondayTuesdayWednesdayThursday 8:00-10:00  Q&A Session #3 (Presentations).19 discussion Confirmation vote 10:30- 12:30  Compilation of Nos Technical Editor Plans for May TGn Timeline 1:30-3:30  Proposal Presentation #1 Proposal Presentation #2 Q&A Session #4 (Presentations)  4:00-6:00 Opening, Minutes, Agenda Comparison Presentations Q&A Session #1 (Presentations) Final Summary Voting procedure Down select vote  7:30-9:30 Comparison Presentations Q&A Session #2 (Presentations)  Mar 14Mar 15Mar 16Mar 17

doc.: IEEE /0190r1 Submission March 2005 John Barr, Motorola/Jim Allen, Appairent TechnologiesSlide 5 Self Proclaimed Advantages SYNC –Further along technically and better documented –Faster to approval Wwise –Added six members –WWiSE has an efficient and streamlined design –Detailed and stable specification, suitable for immediate progress to Draft 1.0 Key differences may be in: –MIMO inter-leaver design –Short cyclic prefix –Efficient pilot tone usage –Compact preambles

doc.: IEEE /0190r1 Submission March 2005 John Barr, Motorola/Jim Allen, Appairent TechnologiesSlide 6 Down Select Ballot Results 331 Total votes 178 votes 53.8% TGn Sync 153 votes 46.2 % WWiSE

doc.: IEEE /0190r1 Submission March 2005 John Barr, Motorola/Jim Allen, Appairent TechnologiesSlide 7 Step When one proposal is left, there shall be a confirmation roll call vote either in favor of the proposal or for none of the above. The proposal shall be required to achieve a 75% majority in order to be submitted to the IEEE n Editor as the initial technical specification. If the remaining proposal fails to achieve a 75% majority, the members who voted "no" shall be requested to provide to the chair their reason(s) for voting no and what would be required to change their vote to affirmative. The proposer shall have an opportunity to respond to the concerns of the no voters, after which a roll call vote will be taken to approve the proposal. Requirement to have a reason to vote no was removed.

doc.: IEEE /0190r1 Submission March 2005 John Barr, Motorola/Jim Allen, Appairent TechnologiesSlide 8 Confirmation Vote Results 321 Total votes 56% For 44% Against Confirmation Failed

doc.: IEEE /0190r1 Submission March 2005 John Barr, Motorola/Jim Allen, Appairent TechnologiesSlide 9 Simplified graphic from TGn Selection Procedure r9 Step 13 to Step 17 Step 15 >1 proposal Left? Step 14 Presentation of remaining proposals Q & A Step 16 Elimination Vote Step 17 Roll Call Confirmation Vote Step 13 Proposals change yes no Approved by at least 75% Draft prepared #1 Approved by < 75% Reasons & cures Responses Step 18 #2 Approved by < 75%Reset to 16 with last 3 proposals

doc.: IEEE /0190r1 Submission March 2005 John Barr, Motorola/Jim Allen, Appairent TechnologiesSlide 10 Technical Editor Election Candidates: –Adrian Stephens –Sean Coffey Delayed selection until after confirmation.

doc.: IEEE /0190r1 Submission March 2005 John Barr, Motorola/Jim Allen, Appairent TechnologiesSlide 11 Plans for May  Degree of compromise/merger between now and May meeting cannot be predicted. For time scheduling purposes, the following represents a plan based upon minimal compromise. Prior to meeting  Proposal team responses to no votes posted to server 10 days prior to May meeting (May 6)  Submission of questions from membership can be supplied In meeting  Proposal team Presentation of responses (4-6 hrs)  Present original votes, remedies, responses  Present updated proposal  Group discussion, Q&A (4 hours)  Confirmation vote #2 (2 hr)  Elect technical editor  Other technical presentations  Coexistence Assurance document development with.19  Plans for July

doc.: IEEE /0190r1 Submission March 2005 John Barr, Motorola/Jim Allen, Appairent TechnologiesSlide 12 Time Line Events PAR Approval Sept. 11, st WG Letter ballot July st Sponsor ballot March 2006 Final WG/SEC approval November 2006 Revcom approval December 2006