1. IEEE 802.21 MEDIA INDEPENDENT HANDOVER DCN: 21-09-0112-00-bcst
Title: Broadcast TG Proposal Guidelines
Date Submitted: July 12, 2009
Presented at IEEE session #33 in San Francisco
Authors or Source(s):
 Juan Carlos Zuniga (InterDigital)
Abstract: This document describes the submission guidelines for b proposals and the down-selection process.
bcst

2. IEEE 802.21 presentation release statements
This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE Working Group. 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.
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
The contributor is familiar with IEEE patent policy, as stated in Section 6 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board bylaws < and in Understanding Patent Issues During IEEE Standards Development
bcst

3. 802.21b Proposal Guidelines Scope of proposals:
Broadcast-related signaling for handover optimization
Interface definitions
MIH-level interface definitions
Link-level interface definitions
Proposals must be submitted to Document Repository (
Group: Broadcast
Document Title: TGb_Proposal_Firstname_Lastname [e.g. TGb_Proposal_JuanCarlos_Zuniga]
Submission Deadline: September 13th (Sun), 2009, end of day AOE (Anywhere On Earth)
After the submission deadline, no new revision of proposal is allowed until the end of September meeting
For questions, please contact Juan Carlos Zuniga Chair of IEEE Task Group b
bcst

4. Proposal Presentation & Down-Selection Process
Process similar to the one being carried out by TGa
The proposal presentation & down-selection process addresses the following issues:
Gives enough buffer time between presentations in order to work out details and build consensus
Provides material to group ahead of time to allow for more thorough review and allow focused discussion
Has a rule to select suitable and proper proposals after two (2) times of proposal presentations
bcst

5. Main difference compared to 802.21a process
Timeline
Call for Proposals (July 2009)
Proposal Presentation I (September 2009)
Proposals must be submitted 1-week prior to meeting
Main difference compared to a process
Harmonization
Proposal Presentation II (November 2009)
Proposals with detailed text must be submitted 1-week prior to meeting
Harmonization
Proposal Presentation III (xxx 2009)
Proposals with detailed text must be submitted 1-week prior to meeting
Harmonization
Presentation & Down-Selection (January 2010)
Proposals with Draft Text must be submitted 2-week prior to meeting
Down-Selection fails
Down-Selection succeeds
Draft Standard
Text is contributed to b draft standard
Regrouping
bcst

6. Proposal Presentation I&II
1. Proposals shall be made available one week prior to presentation time in order to allow for sufficient review time
2. No draft text needed at Proposal Presentation I (e.g. a detailed Power Point presentation is sufficient), but detailed text shall be provided at Proposal Presentation II
3. Each proposal shall follow documents bcst (i.e. present document) and bcst as design guidelines and requirements
5. A proposal may cover fully or partially the b Scope and Requirements
6. A procedural motion may take place at the end of a presentation in Proposal Presentations I and II in order to provide feedback on a proposal
Any revised proposal for Proposal Presentations II should address the received feedback
7. In Proposal Presentation II, proposals are allowed only if they are Revision or extension of a presentation made in Proposal Presentation I
8. No new proposals are allowed in Proposal Presentation II
bcst

7. Proposal Presentation I&II (cont’d)
Definitions:
Revised Proposal
An updated proposal that captures any comments/feedback received during its earlier presentation
Extended Proposal
An extension (e.g. covering a new requirement) of a previously submitted proposal
bcst

8. Presentation & Down-Selection
Authors shall provide Draft Text for review two weeks prior to presentation
Written questions for clarifications shall be submitted to the Task Group one week in advance
 Answers to these questions submitted within 3 days thereafter
A technical motion to approve Draft Text provided by the proposal and make it part of the IEEE b draft specification shall be brought forward to the TG at presentation time
- A proposal containing multiple components can lead to multiple motions
Authors shall indicate at presentation time how many motions they intend to bring forward to the TG
All motions shall be carried out at the end of all presentations
Time allocated for presentations and motions will be advertised in the opening meeting
A technical motion at Down-Selection requires 75% to pass (Members can of course vote on multiple motions)
bcst

9. Presentation & Down-Selection (cont’d)
10. In case no motion passes by 75%, the proposal receiving the most number of votes is selected for another round of confirmation vote by the TG
More than one proposal can be selected at this stage in case the most popular proposal does not cover all work items specified in the CFP
Proposals are selected in decreasing order of popularity (# votes) received
If this confirmation vote fails, Proposal(s) are broken up into several technical items and TG votes on each technical item
11. In case multiple proposals are approved by more than 75% they are integrated into the Draft Text
Proposers work with the Editing Committee which consists of the TG Editor and the TG Chair in order to combine proposals
Conflict and overlaps are brought back to the TG to vote on
Failed proposals are eliminated from further consideration
12. In case no proposal is approved at the end of Down-Selection, the TG may need to regroup. The options include (1) refining the requirements document, (2) refining the evaluation and down-selection criteria, (3) reissuing a new call for proposals
bcst

10. Down-Selection Flowchart
*There could be several proposals under consideration in order to cover different work items
**Overlap is identified by Editing Committee, TG participants, and/or proposers; contention in resolving overlap is brought to TG for vote.
TG vote on all proposals available
Any
proposal
gets 75% Approval ?
Yes
Authors work w/ Editing
Committee to integrate
text into draft specifications No
Any
contentious
overlap**? No
Proposal(s)* getting highest votes are subject to TG confirmation vote
Yes
Options are provided for each overlap area; TG votes on options available for overlap
Inclusion in draft specification
75% Approval?
Yes No
Option gets
75% Approval?
Yes
Yes
Technical item gets
75% Approval? No
Proposal(s) are broken up
into several technical items;
TG votes on each technical item No
Elimination from further consideration
bcst

11. General Presentation Rules
Proposals are categorized into two groups
Presentation Group 1: Full Proposals
Presentation Group 2: Partial Proposals
2. Presentation order is random within each Presentation Group as determined by the TG Chair
3. Time allocated to each presentation is evenly distributed among all presentations in the same Presentation Group
bcst

12. Proposal Guidelines
bcst

13. Remarks
The purpose of Proposal Guidelines is to help submitters provide good and equivalent proposals, and allow them to be equally considered by the Task Group
The Proposal Guidelines should not limit creative ideas and proposals
A proposal may be disqualified for not following the Proposal Guidelines
bcst

14. Proposal Guidelines – References to 802.21
Each proposal is expected to make a clear reference to with regards to:
entities: If a new entity is introduced, then the relation, location, and interface with other entities shall be addressed
Reference points: if new reference point(s) are introduced, the definition and identification of the reference point(s) w.r.t the MIHF communication model specified in the specification shall be made clear
Data fields: if new data fields are introduced, they shall be specified in data format
bcst

15. Proposal Guidelines – Assumptions
If a proposal relies on assumptions not described in the standard, then these assumptions should be explicitly mentioned in order to avoid any confusion and long debates
For example:
Specific media assumptions (e.g. DVB, T-DMB, etc.)
Specific models (e.g. IP Datacast, IETF internet-documents or RFCs, etc.)
Definitions made by other SDOs
bcst