1. Moving Forward at Dallas Plenary Meeting
January 2006
doc.: IEEE /xxxxr0
November 2006
Moving Forward at Dallas Plenary Meeting
IEEE P Wireless RANs 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.
Release: 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
Patent Policy and Procedures: The contributor is familiar with the IEEE 802 Patent Policy and Procedures including the statement "IEEE standards may include the known use of patent(s), including patent applications, provided the IEEE receives assurance from the patent holder or applicant with respect to patents essential for compliance with both mandatory and optional portions of the standard." Early disclosure to the Working Group of patent information that might be relevant to the standard is essential to reduce the possibility for delays in the development process and increase the likelihood that the draft publication will be approved for publication. Please notify the Chair
Carl R. Stevenson as early as possible, in written or electronic form, if patented technology (or technology under patent application) might be incorporated into a draft standard being developed within the IEEE Working Group. If you have questions, contact the IEEE Patent Committee Administrator at
>
Carl R. Stevenson, WK3C Wireless LLC
George Vlantis, STMicroelectronics, Inc.

2. Discussion Items Project timeline reminder
November 2006
Discussion Items
Project timeline reminder
Proposal to restructure the v0.1 working document to promote efficiency in commenting and to allow parallelism in the comment resolution process
Proposal to parallelize the comment resolution process
Proposal to prioritize the manner in which comments are to be resolved
Proposed procedure for resolving comments
Motions on how to proceed
Carl R. Stevenson, WK3C Wireless LLC

3. Project Timeline Reminder/Realities
November 2006
Project Timeline Reminder/Realities
Goal was to go to WG Ballot in January 2007 and Sponsor Ballot in July (See “Project Timeline” March 2006, document r1)
WG Ballot likely to slip to March 2007, but could still hold the schedule to be ready for Sponsor Ballot by July 2007 – IF everyone works diligently and cooperatively.
Due to regulatory timelines/realities, the group should be prepared to go to WG Ballot, Sponsor Ballot, and publishing of the 1st generation of the Standard as a basic standard that meets the essential requirements but lacks a full complement of “bells and whistles” features with the intent of adding such optional features later through one or more amendments
Carl R. Stevenson, WK3C Wireless LLC

4. Proposal to Restructure Document
November 2006
Proposal to Restructure Document
Propose to restructure document r1 (v0.1) to create a v0.2 working document to promote efficiency in commenting and editing and to allow parallelism in the comment resolution process
Structure of the document to be revised to include clauses in the following order (not counting IEEE required clauses) as follows:
General (1.x Overview; 2.x Normative References; 3.x General Definitions; 4.x Abbreviations and Acronyms; 5.x Parameter Definitions
MAC (6.x mandatory features)
Security (7.x mandatory features)
PHY (8.x mandatory features)
Sensing (9.x mandatory features)
Geolocation/Database (10.x mandatory features)
Normative Annexes (e.g A-Z as required, optional features)
Informative Annexes (e.g. AA-ZZ as required)
The key work here is to move non-mandatory features (see document r1) to the Normative Annexes so that comment resolution and editorial work can focus on the mandatory features first (and also to make the document more readable)
Carl R. Stevenson, WK3C Wireless LLC

5. Proposal to add Parallelism to the Comment Resolution process
November 2006
Proposal to add Parallelism to the Comment Resolution process
In order to execute and expedite the comment resolution process defined in document # r0, the following “ad-hoc” groups should be tasked to prepare suggested comment resolutions and batch these resolutions into motions, so that the WG can approve the resolutions and so the WG editor can implement the resolutions:
PHY
MAC
Sensing
Geolocation/Database
General (i.e. either none of the above or a multiplicity of the above, plus CA document, etc.)
Carl R. Stevenson, WK3C Wireless LLC

6. Proposal to Prioritize the Comments to be Resolved
November 2006
Proposal to Prioritize the Comments to be Resolved
In order to further expedite comment resolution process, the “ad-hoc” groups shall first prioritize the comments and then schedule the work on the resolutions to the comments in the following order of priority:
Editorial
0. Assigned to WG editor who, if he agrees the comment is editorial, is empowered to implement the suggested resolution (otherwise he will transfer it to one of the technical ad hocs for resolution).
Technical
1. “Holes in the Draft” (i.e. comments which address a deficiency in the draft specified by the Functional Requirements Document)
2. Mandatory features of a Single-Channel System (i.e. allows for “staging” the standard, e.g d followed by e; or b followed by g and n)
3. “Green and red” topics from document
4. Optional Features in the Annexes according to the ”yellow, salmon, and grey” topics from document
5. Other Technical Features not in the Draft (Comments should cite posted submissions with normative text as well as any other posted supporting material.)
Carl R. Stevenson, WK3C Wireless LLC

7. Proposed Procedure for Resolving a Comment (p 1 of 2)
November 2006
Proposed Procedure for Resolving a Comment (p 1 of 2)
“Ad-hoc” groups provide “Resolutions” and record them in the comment database. By majority, the “Ad-hoc” chooses one of the following resolution types:
Accept the commenter’s “Suggested Resolution” as the ad-hoc’s “Resolution” in the spreadsheet.
Reject the “Comment” and “Suggested Resolution”, and record the reason in the “Resolution” field.
AP (Accept in Principle) and provide “actionable text” for the editor to resolve the Comment in the “Resolution” field.
Defer the Comment for a future (assigned) submission, or future discussion, or for a vote by the WG body.
Transfer the Comment to one of the other “ad-hoc”s
X Duplicate of another Comment
Carl R. Stevenson, WK3C Wireless LLC

8. Proposed Procedure for Resolving a Comment (p 2 of 2)
November 2006
Proposed Procedure for Resolving a Comment (p 2 of 2)
“Ad-hoc” groups record the vote of the Resolution in the comment database:
Unanimous (100%): Typically, unanimous comment resolutions are “batched” together by the “ad-hoc” into a single motion and approved by the WG.
Strong Majority (>=75%): Typically, these comments resolutions are “batched” together by the “ad-hoc” into another motion and approved by the WG. Since these resolutions are not unanimous, there is an opportunity at the WG level for the dissenters to have the objectional resolution voted upon separately from the rest of the motion.
Majority (>=50%) Because the “ad-hoc” does not reach a strong majority, these resolutions are typically voted upon separately at the WG-level.
“Ad-hoc” group can work on comment resolutions in weekly teleconferences, or in face-to-face “ad-hoc meetings”, or in “pre-meetings”, or in break-out sessions during the meetings.
Carl R. Stevenson, WK3C Wireless LLC

9. 1Posted in the ieee802.org/22 “Meeting Documents” area for March 2006
November 2006
Motion #1:
Motion: Move to reaffirm the process of document r0 “Process Advancing the work of the WG”1 as the guidelines for modifying the WG document P rX.doc with the expectation that the document will be ready to go to formal WG Ballot by the end of the March 2007 session.
Moved: George Vlantis
Seconded: Gerald Chouinard
Yes 30
No 0
Abstain 0
1Posted in the ieee802.org/22 “Meeting Documents” area for March 2006
Carl R. Stevenson, WK3C Wireless LLC

10. November 2006
Motion #2:
Motion: Move to adopt the proposed document restructuring and comment resolution procedure described in Slides 4 to 8:
Moved: George Vlantis
Seconded: Gerald Chouinard
Yes 27
No 0
Abstain 0
Carl R. Stevenson, WK3C Wireless LLC

11. Detailed Project Timeline Reminder
November 2006
Detailed Project Timeline Reminder
November 2006
Restructure Document to v0.2
Start informal comment cycle
January 2007
Comment resolution
Recirculation(s)
March 2007
Final comment resolution
V1.0 to formal WG Ballot
May
Resolve comments
Recirulation(s)
July 2007
Finish comment resolution
Seek permission to go to Sponsor Ballot
Carl R. Stevenson, WK3C Wireless LLC