Minutes of Tgn Selection Procedure Conference Calls

September 2003 doc.: IEEE802.11-03/678-01

IEEE P802.11 Wireless LANs Minutes of TGn Selection Procedure Conference Calls

Date: August 27 and September 3, 2003

Author: Garth Hillman Advanced Micro Devices 5204 East Ben White Blvd, Austin, TX 78741 Mail Stop - PCS4 Phone: (512) 602-7869 Fax: (512) 602-5051 e-Mail: [email protected]

Wednesday August 27, 10 – 11 AM CDT

Attendance = 11

Name Affiliation Email Address

Andelman, Dov Envara [email protected] Bjerke, Bjorn A. Qualcomm [email protected] Boer, Jan Agere [email protected] Hillman, Garth AMD [email protected] Hinsz, Chris Symbol Technologies [email protected] Lanzl, Colin Aware [email protected] Malik, Rahul Panasonic Labs [email protected] Medvedev, Irina Qualcomm [email protected] Molnar, Peter RFMD [email protected] Shoemake, Matthew Texas Instruments [email protected] Terry, John Nokia Research Center [email protected]

Tentative Minutes of TGn Conference Calls page 1 Garth Hillman, AMD September 2003 doc.: IEEE802.11-03/678-01

1. Chairperson, Matthew Shoemake, called the meeting to order at 10:10 AM CDT. 2. Chairperson stated the purpose of the meeting was to fine tune the selection procedure for presentation at TGn session in the September IEEE 802.11 Plenary meeting 3. Chairperson proposed the following agenda: a. Review results of Straw Polls on the Selection Criteria taken at the July meeting as reflected in doc. 11-03/626r1 b. Update Selection Procedure Document, doc. 11-03/665r0 using a two step approach: i. Step 1 – review entire document as independently edited by the chairperson to reflect the results of the straw polls without opportunity for comment ii. Step 2 – repeat step 1 but with comments allowed on a clause by clause basis c. Complete the clause by clause review during the September 3 ad hoc conference call 4. Agenda was adopted unanimously 5. Chairperson reviewed 11-03/626r1 and commented on bullet 4 that he would like to focus on the steps and leave the time scales until last; no decent was heard. 6. Chairperson reviewed 11-03/665r0 as edited by himself and without allowing comments. He pointed out the note he added to item 7 regarding partial proposals and that he would modify item 8 to have it state that there ‘will’ be a panel discussion instead of ‘may’. 7. Chairperson then lead a discussion of 11-03/665r0 on a clause by clause basis: a. General comments – none b. Item 1 – Q – how will input such as UM (User Model) inputs from WFA (Wi-Fi Alliance) be handled? A – The Usage Model Special Committee chaired by Adrian Stephens will incorporate them as appropriate into the UM output document. c. Item 2 – ‘may’ here does not imply optional but rather that selected portions of the channel model will be used in each of the scenarios and that it is not mandatory that the entire channel model be applied to each UM scenario. d. Items 3&4 – no comments other than editorial e. Item 5 – Simplify by rewording as “TGn shall issue a call for proposals”. It was mentioned that all steps do not need to be done serially; a reference to the flow diagram will be added by Chairperson to indicate which steps can be done in parallel and which must be done serially. f. Item 6 – add the following sentence “Before voting on a proposal the proposal shall be clearly classified as ‘complete’ or ‘partial’. g. Item 7 – Action Item - Chairperson will edit to add a statement explicitly stating that partial proposals can be merged to form a complete proposal and a statement explicitly stating that proposals can be reclassified. h. General comment – in order to avoid what has happened in .3a it was suggested that statements be added clarifying timing requirements to allow sufficient time for review for example. Action Item - Chairperson and Collin Lanzl committed to draft suitable text. 8. Action Item -Chairperson will complete the edits as agreed to during todays call and reissue the document as 11-03/665r1 in time for the next conference call.

9. Continuation conference call – Wednesday, September 3, 10-11 AM CDT; call-in number - +1 972-995-8255; Participant code: 471691 10. Conference Call recessed at 11 AM

Wednesday, September 3, 10 – 11 AM CDT

Attendance = 14

Name Affiliation Email Address

Allen, James Appairent [email protected] Bjerke, Bjorn A. Qualcomm [email protected] Boer, Jan Agere [email protected] Bonneville, Herve Mitsubishi [email protected] Hillman, Garth AMD [email protected] Hinsz, Chris Symbol Technologies [email protected] Kim, Youngsoo Samsung [email protected] Lanzl, Colin Aware [email protected] Medvedev, Irina Qualcomm [email protected] Molnar, Peter RFMD [email protected] Shoemake, Matthew Texas Instruments [email protected] Schreder, Brian Agere [email protected] Stephens, Adrian Intel [email protected] Tomcik, Jim Qualcomm [email protected]

11. Chairperson reconvened the conference call at 10:05 CDT 12. Chairperson emailed copies of Document 665r1 to attendees who did not have it available. Chairperson asked members to review the document as background 13. Chairperson reviewed the current status of the development of a selection procedure and history of how we got here. See notes from August 27, 2003 meeting above. 14. Chairperson proposed that continuing the review of Document 665r1 item by item starting with item 6 (so that a completed review is ready for the Singapore meeting) be the agenda for this meeting was accepted without comment.

15. Item 6 discussion: a. Item 6 provides the context for item 7 b. The issue is the need to add time that allows the body to review changes between presentations and voting c. 03/665r1 now includes language to address the timing issue d. After a discussion about what % vote was required to consider/confirm that a proposal was complete, it was agreed to change item 6 from simple majority to 75% in order to reclassify a proposal as not complete as long as the definition of a complete proposal is added back in. There was no objection. e. It was agreed without objection that the definition of a complete proposal should be: i. Does not violate the PAR ii. Meets ALL functional requirements iii. Meets ALL MANDATORY selection criteria f. It was agreed without objection that the definition of a partial proposal should be: i. Does not violate the PAR ii. Does NOT meet ALL of the functional requirements iii. Does NOT meet ALL MANDATORY selection criteria 16. General discussion on the question of ‘should proposals voted on contain normative text?’ and ‘if presentations include the normative text, what is the roll of editor?’ The consensus was: a. Proposals should contain the initial attempt at ‘normative’ text so that voters know what they have actually voted on b. Editor’s job is to integrate the normative contributions into a complete, coherent and consistent draft c. There should only be a single document to be voted on as the baseline document d. Replace ‘Draft 1.0’ in note of clause 7 of 03/665r1 with simply ‘it’ since Draft 1.0 will be reserved for the proposal which survives the selection process with a 75% support rate 17. Action Item – Chairperson will issue 03/665r2 today to reflect the specific items agreed upon in this call 18. Action Item – Adrian Stephens agreed to update the selection procedure flow diagram in Annex A before the Singapore meeting 19. Action Item – Adrian Stephens and the Chairperson agreed to clarify the definition/content of a proposal (see item 16 above) and add it along with the new flow diagram to 03/665r2 to form 03/665r3 in time for it to be the baseline selection procedure document to be discussed early in our TGn meetings in Singapore 20. The conference call was adjourned at 11 AM CDT and the selection procedure discussion will resume at item #7 in Singapore

Tentative Minutes of TGn Conference Calls page 4 Garth Hillman, AMD