1. Incremental Process for 802.19.1
January 2010
Incremental Process for
Date:
Authors:
Notice: This document has been prepared to assist IEEE 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.
Joe Kwak, Alex Reznik, Eldad Zeira (InterDigital)
Steve Shellhammer, Qualcomm

2. January 2010
Abstract
This contribution elaborates the details of the incremental proposal approach.
Pros and cons of incremental vs complete proposal process are discussed
This is provided as discussion topic for Process Ad Hoc group.
Joe Kwak, Alex Reznik, Eldad Zeira (InterDigital)

3. 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 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, incremental proposals are considered separately provided that these fully comply with the high-level detail previously agreed on
This process has been in used within and m is currently following it.
Joe Kwak, Alex Reznik, Eldad Zeira (InterDigital)

4. 802.16m: example incremental process
January 2010
802.16m: example incremental process
As part of the standards development process, TGm agreed to develop the following document
System Requirements Document (SRD)
A set of possible deployment scenarios and applications of the m standard.
A set of performance targets and features that m 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 m standard.
System Description Document (SDD)
Architecture and design of the m 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
See m-09/0019r1 for reference
Joe Kwak, Alex Reznik, Eldad Zeira (InterDigital)

5. 802.19.1: example incremental process
January 2010
: example incremental process
agreed to develop Intermediate Documents
Process document
Project Timeline
SDD including:
Terminology
Architecture: Entities, Functions and Interfaces
Assumptions: requirements for external entities
Outline and numbering of major clauses
These Intermediate documents describe vision for new standard.
Incremental proposal process uses the intermediate documents to call for proposals for clauses of the standard.
Proposals may contain one or more clauses or may provide a complete standard proposal.
Joe Kwak, Alex Reznik, Eldad Zeira (InterDigital)

6. Detailed Steps for Incremental Process
CALL for proposals on one or more clauses based on SDD and SDD outline.
COLLECT proposals, organize based on clause order in SDD outline. Split proposals with multiple clauses.
PRESENT: proposals grouped and presented by clause number. After each set of clause presentations, take straw poll to select "best". When all clauses have been presented, begin downselect voting. Clause authors may choose to merge/modify prior to step 4.
DOWSELECT: for each clause, vote on "best" clause in group. Proposal with fewest votes is eliminated. Repeat until only one clause proposal remains.
MERGE: When all clauses have voted proposal, editor merges and presents draft for additional work.
REFINE: Any section/clause of draft may be improved by alternate/new proposals which are voted in by comparing draft to new proposal. Lowest vote is discarded (same rule as step 4). Iterate step 6 until TG agrees (50% procedural vote) that draft is ready for formal WG LB.
CONFIRM: Begin formal WG LB with written comments required. Address comments and recirculate until 75% approval is obtained.

7. Comparing the Two Approaches
January 2010
Comparing the Two Approaches
Complete proposal approach: (discussed at last adhoc call)
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
Does not favor nor disfavor complete proposals.
A priori requires longer time as the up-front documents (e.g. Process, 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 and promotes the best ideas from all participants, not only those with complete proposals.
Joe Kwak, Alex Reznik, Eldad Zeira (InterDigital)