1. September 2004
Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)
Submission Title: [TGn to WG15 Liaison Report]
Date Submitted: [16 September 2004]
Source: [James D. Allen] Company [Appairent Technologies]
Address [Add address Street, City, PC, Province/State, Country]
Voice:[Add telephone number], FAX: [Add FAX number], [Add address]
Re: [Excerpted from TGn Chair’s closing report, document xxx n]
Abstract: [Summary of September 2004 Berlin meeting status]
Purpose: [Inform the WG]
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
James D. Allen, Appairent Technologies

2. Partially From Document 11-04-1030-02-000n
September 2004
These notes courtesy of Bruce Kraemer, Chair TGn with my editorial comments
Partially From Document n
James D. Allen, Appairent Technologies

3. September Summary Good news 32 presentations completed
Because the presentations did not fill every available meeting minute there was adequate time to caucus and, at least tentatively, explore possible mergers which would result in new completes or revised completes.
Bad News
Complete presentations did not have adequate time to present or answer audience questions.
Not enough time to conduct panel discussion or additional selection steps.
Not known how many completes will exist in November
James D. Allen, Appairent Technologies

4. September 2004
James D. Allen, Appairent Technologies

5. November Agenda Challenge
September 2004
November Agenda Challenge
Panel Discussion
Possible inclusion of one or more additional complete proposal
Extended presentation and Q&A time for completes
Additional technical presentations anticipated
Need to refresh audience memory
James D. Allen, Appairent Technologies

6. You Are here Selection Process 665r9 September 2004
Mergers may
take place.
Step 11
The TG may
Step 11
decide time
Mergers may
required for
Step 13
The remaining
take place.
Step 7
Initial 60 Minutes
consideration of
proposals may
undergo technical
The TG may
presentation for all
new mergers
Step 8
proposals.
changes without
decide time
Panel discussion.
requiring a
required for
consideration of
Step 16
merge.
new mergers
Step 9
Elimination vote.
Recess to allow
Eliminate proposal
Any new
merger granted at
with least support.
mergers? Y
option of TG.
Presentation of
merged proposals. N Y
Any Mergers
Presentation of all
take place? Y
remaining
proposals
Discard un-
Step 10
merged partial
proposals.
Step 13 N
The remaining
proposals may
Final 5 minute
undergo technical
More than 1
Panel Discussion Y
at option of the
Step 12
statement.
changes without
proposal left?
25% low-bar
requiring a
chair
Elimination vote
merge. N
60 minute
Step 15
Step
presentation of 17
More than 1
Roll-call
Statements from
Step 14
remaining N
proposals
proposal left?
confirmation vote
no voters of why
they voted no.
including Q & A N
Step 20
Editor prepares
Step 19
Draft 1.0. Vote that
Adopt proposal as
it is technically
initial technical Y
75% for ?
Response by
consistent with
specification
proposers.
technical spec. N Y
75% for ?
75% for ?
Roll-call
confirmation vote Y
Step 11
Step 18
Forward Draft 1.0
Step 21
to WG for Letter
Mergers may
Ballot
take place. N
Bring back last
The TG may
three proposals
decide time
required for
The remaining
Step 13
consideration of
proposals may
new mergers
undergo technical
Drawing by Adrian Stephens
Procedure End
changes without
September 16, 2003
requiring a
merge.
James D. Allen, Appairent Technologies

7. Selection Process 665r9 A September 2004 Step 11 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9
Mergers may take place. The TG may decide time required for consideration of new mergers.
Initial 60 minutes presentation for all proposals.
Panel discussion.
Step 11
Step 7
Step 8
Step 9
Any new mergers?
Recess to allow merger granted at option of TG. Presentation of merged proposals.
By Nov 4th Y N
Discard unmerged partial proposals.
Note this
Step 10
Step 13
Final 5 minute statement. 25% low-bar Elimination vote.
The remaining proposals may undergo technical changes without requiring a merge.
Step 12
60 minute presentation of remaining proposals..
James D. Allen, Appairent Technologies

8. Partial proposals are need to merge to be voted on.
September 2004
My Comments:
Interesting points:
Well run
Partial proposals are need to merge to be voted on.
was presented by Allen as an independent proposal
Many techniques included data aggregation
Many techniques included increasing band to 40 MHz.
Working with .11, .15 and .19 leadership to make sure .15 has some say as to how channels are bonded and how coexistence is optimized – more later.
Heard that up to 680 Mbps was proposed
James D. Allen, Appairent Technologies