doc.: IEEE /0525r0 Submission May 2008 Mark Grodzinsky, WilocitySlide 1 Recommendation for 60GHz PAR to be an Amendment to the Standard Date: Authors:

doc.: IEEE /0525r0 Submission May 2008 Mark Grodzinsky, WilocitySlide 2 To be considered when deciding Amendment vs. Standard Market acceptance of a new standard versus amendment to legacy standard –Many millions spent each year on market education –Market has been trained how to decipher the abgn code…don’t confuse the market with a new code Precedent in the IEEE –How have other groups made similar decisions? –Did those decisions result in a successful specification for the IEEE?

doc.: IEEE /0525r0 Submission May 2008 Mark Grodzinsky, WilocitySlide 3 What not to consider when deciding Amendment vs. Standard Length and complexity of current standard –It is not the charter of VHT to simplify or “clean up” the standard Whether another group within VHT is also recommending their PAR to be an amendment –By deciding to split the PAR within VHT by an overwhelming majority, the group saw fit to create two parallel submissions –Decisions made in one PAR should not influence the actions of the other PAR…especially, if neither has been accepted yet

doc.: IEEE /0525r0 Submission May 2008 Mark Grodzinsky, WilocitySlide 4 Rule #1: Don’t Confuse a 1 BILLION Unit/Year Market By 2012, ABI Research estimates Wi-Fi will ship 1B Units / Year Companies have spent millions educating the market what bgn, abgn, bg mean, why change and confuse? Incremental new numbers have traditionally meant completely different standards, without connections – is 60GHz PHY for WPAN, while is Zigbee –Re-educating the enterprise customers that is simply a speed increase with full backwards compatibility to all deployed enterprise features will be costly, confusing, and unnecessarily delay product deployment –Re-educating the consumer market, the analysts and the press will take longer Overall market cost of getting this wrong vastly outweighs the meager administrative benefits

doc.: IEEE /0525r0 Submission May 2008 Mark Grodzinsky, WilocitySlide 5 IEEE Precedent The transition from 1Gbps (802.3ab) to 10Gbps (802.3ae) could be characterized as a MAC change of the same magnitude as we are proposing in 60GHz VHT 802.3ab defines both half-duplex links connected through hubs and full-duplex links connected through switches, while 802.3ae abandons half duplex links and repeaters (and the CSMA/CD that goes with them) in favor of a system of purely full duplex links connected by switches. The abandonment of the CSMA/CD based MAC (802.3ab) in favor of a purely full duplex switched MAC, parallels the situation we have in VHT, where we have a the potential for a CSMA MAC being abandoned in favor of a TDM MAC. Why did the group make this change an amendment vs. a new standard? The market benefit of continuing a very successful, market accepted tradition of 802.3xx standards outweighed the administrative benefits of creating a new standard

doc.: IEEE /0525r0 Submission May 2008 Mark Grodzinsky, WilocitySlide 6 Recommendation Based on the reasons outlined in this document, the recommendation is to maintain the current PAR proposal doc# IEEE /223r1, that this be an amendment to , not a new standard

doc.: IEEE /0525r0 Submission May 2008 Mark Grodzinsky, WilocitySlide 7 Straw Polls Do you agree that future market acceptance should weigh in the decision as whether to make this VHT PAR an amendment or a new standard? Do you agree that the market benefit of continuing a very successful, market accepted tradition of xx standards outweigh the administrative benefits of creating a new standard? Do you agree that the 60GHz PAR should be an Amendment to the standard?