1. doc.: IEEE 802.11-04/xxxr0 Submission January 2004 John M Kowalski, Sharp Labs Slide 1 A Postmodern Critique of the Comparison Criteria or We’re in Deep Trouble if We Don’t Change Our Ways John M. Kowalski Sharp Labs

2. doc.: IEEE 802.11-04/xxxr0 Submission January 2004 John M Kowalski, Sharp Labs Slide 2 The Problem There may be some misunderstanding about what the CC really are, and how we will really use them eventually. Hence this presentation. Full Disclosure: My axes to grind: –While I’m here as an individual, of course, as an individual, I support my company’s business interests in 802.11. That means: Early time to market No heavy IPR encumbrances Useful for a wide variety of consumer markets.

3. doc.: IEEE 802.11-04/xxxr0 Submission January 2004 John M Kowalski, Sharp Labs Slide 3 Some Facts about 802.11 and Deconstructing the CC Historically, the solution that works well enough – NOT the perfect one- will win. This probably has to do with many individuals having somewhat similar interests to mine. There are unstated “comparison criteria” for many individuals that won’t make its way into the CC, but WILL influence or determine their selection of a proposal: –Is it good for my company? –Will it waste millions of dollars/euros/yen we’ve already invested? –Can I get this from my vendors/Can I sell this early? –Does this affect agreements my company already has in place? –Will accepting this proposal speed up or delay the standard?

4. doc.: IEEE 802.11-04/xxxr0 Submission January 2004 John M Kowalski, Sharp Labs Slide 4 More Facts about 802.11 and Deconstructing the CC Naturally, these are not objective criteria but, in the end these are probably MUCH more important than anything we’re going to put into the document. The CC, at the end of the day only deal with specific technical items in the proposal- BUT these only have a MARGINAL effect on the REAL selection. The business aspects of the technical solution are what is PRIVILGED here. Even technical “objective” results can always be disputed, deconstructed, critiqued, and ignored. The CC do not force any voter to vote any way at all. No matter what’s in them. The standardization process is not a research project. It’s for people to create standards so companies can make money.

5. doc.: IEEE 802.11-04/xxxr0 Submission January 2004 John M Kowalski, Sharp Labs Slide 5 Suggestions (as in “I suggest you use a parachute if you jump out a plane.”) CC should ONLY be present if they can be expected to exhibit a particular, important behavior between 2 or more proposals that IS NOT covered elsewhere. If it can be inferred – even roughly – elsewhere it’s not needed. We still need to cut out particular criteria. When in doubt, throw it out. If we don’t do this we WILL create another religious war.