1. Mesh Networking Task Group Process
Month 2002
doc.: IEEE /xxxr0
November 2004
Mesh Networking Task Group Process
ESS MESH
FREE
IEEE
the
APs
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
Donald Eastlake, 3rd, Motorola
John Doe, His Company

2. Generic Process of Getting to Letter Ballot
Month 2002
doc.: IEEE /xxxr0
November 2004
Generic Process of Getting to Letter Ballot
Adoption of PAR and 5 Criteria
Technical Presentations and Discussions
Specify Any Additional Requirements, Comparison Criteria, or Other Documents
Call For Proposals
Select/Combine from Submitted Complete/Partial Proposals to Produce a Draft
Refine Draft
Letter Ballot
Donald Eastlake, 3rd, Motorola
John Doe, His Company

3. Historical 802.11 Project Timelines
November 2004
Historical Project Timelines
Time from PAR approval to first Letter Ballot – average of 6.6 meetings / 13 months
TGe-7, TGf-7, TGg-9, TGh-4, TGi-6
Time from first Letter Ballot to first Sponsor Ballot – average of 9 meetings / 18 months
TGe-12, TGf-9, TGg-6, TGh-8, TGi-10
(above data compiled by Bruce Kraemer)
Donald Eastlake, 3rd, Motorola

4. Call for and Submission of Proposals
Month 2002
doc.: IEEE /xxxr0
November 2004
Call for and Submission of Proposals
As voted in Berlin, we have publicly announced that we plan to
issue a Call for Proposals shortly after the January 2005 meeting
with documents to be posted before and presentations made at the July 2005 meeting.
Donald Eastlake, 3rd, Motorola
John Doe, His Company

5. 802.11s Project Timelines Our PAR approval was 24 June 2004
November 2004
802.11s Project Timelines
Our PAR approval was 24 June 2004
At the average pace for these Task Groups, our first Letter Ballot would open in July 2005 and our first Sponsor Ballot in January 2007.
We are now behind the average pace for our first Letter Ballot.
We have announced January 2005 for a call for proposals to be submitted in July It will be some number of meeting beyond that before we can try for our first WG Letter Ballot.
Things will generally happen slower than what we aim for.
Donald Eastlake, 3rd, Motorola

6. Ad Hoc Subgroups and TGs Working Documents
Month 2002
doc.: IEEE /xxxr0
November 2004
Ad Hoc Subgroups and TGs Working Documents
Ad Hoc Subgroups
Have no special status unless TGs votes on them or their output.
Any group of members can get together and make submissions.
Within the Policies and Procedures (11-04/510r0), we can do what we want internally:
“Adopted” internal TGs motions/documents can be amended, replaced, or un-adopted.
We can have a “Functional Requirements” document that is as general or specific as we like.
Donald Eastlake, 3rd, Motorola
John Doe, His Company

7. Informal Ad Hoc Subgroups
Month 2002
doc.: IEEE /xxxr0
November 2004
Informal Ad Hoc Subgroups
Functional Requirements and Scope – coordinator Steve Conner
“Functional Requirements & Scope”, 11-04/1174r6
Comparison Criteria – coordinator Steve Conner
“Comparison Criteria”, 11-04/1175r4
Definitions – coordinator Tricci So
“Terms and Definitions for s”, 11-04/1477r0
Usage Models – coordinator Steve Conner
“Usage Models”, 11-04/662r10
Donald Eastlake, 3rd, Motorola
John Doe, His Company

8. Informal Ad Hoc Subgroups (cont.)
Month 2002
doc.: IEEE /xxxr0
November 2004
Informal Ad Hoc Subgroups (cont.)
MAC / Quality of Service / e – coordinator Lily Yang
“Issues for Mesh Media Access Coordination Component in 11s (v03)”, 11-04/968r4
Security / i, 802.1ae, 802.1af – coordinators Jasmeet Chhabra Bob Moskowitz
“802.11s Security Concepts”, 11-04/1115r1
Other
802.11k, h /Radio Resources/Metrics – coordinator
WNM, CAPWAP /Management – coordinator
Donald Eastlake, 3rd, Motorola
John Doe, His Company

9. July 2004 Straw Poll: Informal Group Submissions Status
November 2004
July 2004 Straw Poll: Informal Group Submissions Status
What should be the status of relevant submissions from informal groups if a majority of TGs agrees with the submission?
Strongly included as part of call for proposals – 12
Adopted as internal working documents – 29
Included on a TGs recommended reading list – 3
No special status – 2
Donald Eastlake, 3rd, Motorola

10. Current Adopted Documents
November 2004
Current Adopted Documents
We have adopted three documents as internal working group documents:
11-04/969r2: Draft Terms and Definitions for s
11-04/662r10: Usage Models
11-04/970r3: Proposed TGs Scope
Donald Eastlake, 3rd, Motorola

11. Schedule Projected at Berlin (September) Meeting
Month 2002
doc.: IEEE /xxxr0
November 2004
Schedule Projected at Berlin (September) Meeting
November 2004 (San Antonio, Texas)
Work on Functional Requirements and other documents that may be referenced in the Call for Proposals.
January 2005 (Monterey, California)
Call for Proposals issued immediately after meeting with deadline for submission of two weeks before the July meeting.
March 2005 (Atlanta, Georgia)
Presentations, refinement of selection criteria
May 2005 (Beijing, China)
July 2005 (San Francisco, Califonria) Presentation of Proposals
September 2005 (TBD) Derivation of Draft
November 2005 (Vancouver, British Columbia) Further Refinement of Draft, Letter Ballot Authorized by WG?
Donald Eastlake, 3rd, Motorola
John Doe, His Company

12. Early Draft Call for Proposals
November 2004
Early Draft Call for Proposals
I have put together a suggested draft Call for Proposals: 11-04/1430r1
It includes
Different Levels of Referenced Documents
Deadlines based on our publicly announced planned schedule
Donald Eastlake, 3rd, Motorola

13. Possibilities Between the November 2004 and January 2005 Meetings
Month 2002
doc.: IEEE /xxxr0
November 2004
Possibilities Between the November 2004 and January 2005 Meetings
Possibilities for TGs Activity Between November 2004 and January 2005 Meetings to accelerate action :
Multiple Teleconferences (require 10 days notice, cannot be held more often than weekly (P&P clause 3.6.3))
One Teleconference
Additional official face to face meeting is probably not practical due to holidays and requirement for 30 days notice (P&P clause 3.6.2)
Donald Eastlake, 3rd, Motorola
John Doe, His Company