1. Comment Resolution Plan
January 2009
doc.: IEEE /0053r0
January 2009
Comment Resolution Plan
Date:
Authors:
Guenael Strutt, Motorola (et al.)
Guenael Strutt, Motorola (et al.)

2. January 2009
doc.: IEEE /0053r0
January 2009
Abstract
A plan to accelerate comment resolution and complete the standard within a reasonable time frame
Guenael Strutt, Motorola (et al.)
Guenael Strutt, Motorola (et al.)

3. Current situation Decent progress on comment resolution
January 2009
doc.: IEEE /0053r0
January 2009
Current situation
Decent progress on comment resolution
About 300 comments per meeting!
General goodwill
CID 288 is the only “vitriolic” comment
CID 1772 is a compliment from the WFA Chair!
Available implementations
PLM & HWMP: open80211s
SAE & AbbrHS: sourceforge
Most contentious issue remains security
Progress may not be enough to maintain level of interest
Guenael Strutt, Motorola (et al.)
Guenael Strutt, Motorola (et al.)

4. Projected timeline The first LB resolution lasted more than a year
January 2009
doc.: IEEE /0053r0
January 2009
Projected timeline
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Draft D0.x
Draft D1.x
Draft D2.x
Approval
Informal comments
Letter Ballot
Sponsor Ballot
Sponsor Ballot
Letter Ballot
Letter Ballot
Letter Ballot
RevCom
The first LB resolution lasted more than a year
The second LB received numerous value-add comments
Recirculations are expected
Guenael Strutt, Motorola (et al.)
Guenael Strutt, Motorola (et al.)

5. Has anything changed since we started?
January 2009
doc.: IEEE /0053r0
January 2009
Has anything changed since we started?
Large-scale, public access usage scenarios aren’t as prevalent as small-scale, “consumer electronics” usage scenarios
The market focus has changed since 2006
We realize there is a hierarchy of mesh nodes (those collocated with an AP, the portals, the lightweight versions etc.)
The only meaningful usage distinctions we can make are
Home, small-office = not centrally managed
Enterprise, campus = centrally managed
and
Support for AP/simple STA association
“Pure” mesh link creation (no “association”)
We must limit the scope of TGs
Guenael Strutt, Motorola (et al.)
Guenael Strutt, Motorola (et al.)

6. M M M M M M M M M M M January 2009 ISP 2. 3. STA STA 1. January 2009
doc.: IEEE /0053r0
January 2009
Limited mesh (peer-to-peer security)
World
ISP
Corporate network
World
Advanced mesh 2.
Home gateway
Corporate gateway 3. M M M
Plain old BSS
Home mesh M
Corporate mesh M M
Can of worms
STA M
STA
Simple corporate mesh 1. M M
Peer-to-peer “island”
This MSTA could be the same device!
(with some vendor specific add-ons to join a corporate mesh) M M
Guenael Strutt, Motorola (et al.)
Guenael Strutt, Motorola (et al.)

7. What we can do Address outstanding contentious problems
January 2009
doc.: IEEE /0053r0
January 2009
What we can do
Address outstanding contentious problems
We probably cannot afford to develop “new” solutions
Address high-level objections from the Working Group
Terminology is now more in line with the base standard
Accelerate comment resolution
Stick to a manageable plan
If progress is not forthcoming, consider removal of feature
Focus on simplification, not addition
Prioritize meeting agenda
“[It seems that] perfection is achieved not when there is nothing left to add but when there is nothing left to take away” Terre des hommes  Antoine de Saint Exupéry
Guenael Strutt, Motorola (et al.)
Guenael Strutt, Motorola (et al.)

8. Target timeline Produce a “consensus” draft in March 2009
January 2009
doc.: IEEE /0053r0
January 2009
Target timeline
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Draft D0.x
Draft D1.x
Draft D2.x
RevCom
Sponsor Ballot
Informal comments
Sponsor Ballot
Letter Ballot
Letter Ballot
Letter Ballot
Approval
Produce a “consensus” draft in March 2009
Expect limited adjustments thereafter
Push for full comment resolution by end of 2009
Guenael Strutt, Motorola (et al.)
Guenael Strutt, Motorola (et al.)

9. Questions? January 2009 January 2009 doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0053r0
Guenael Strutt, Motorola (et al.)
Guenael Strutt, Motorola (et al.)