doc.: IEEE r0 Submission September 2004 James D. Allen, Appairent Technologies Slide 1 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [TGn to WG15 Liaison Report] Date Submitted: [16 September 2004] Source: [James D. Allen] Company [Appairent Technologies] Address [Add address Street, City, PC, Province/State, Country] Voice:[Add telephone number], FAX: [Add FAX number], [Add address] Re: [Excerpted from TGn Chair’s closing report, document xxx n] Abstract:[Summary of September 2004 Berlin meeting status] Purpose:[Inform the WG] Notice:This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE P It is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein. Release:The contributor acknowledges and accepts that this contribution becomes the property of IEEE and may be made publicly available by P

doc.: IEEE r0 Submission September 2004 James D. Allen, Appairent Technologies Slide 2 These notes courtesy of Bruce Kraemer, Chair TGn with my editorial comments Partially From Document n

doc.: IEEE r0 Submission September 2004 James D. Allen, Appairent Technologies Slide 3 September Summary Good news 32 presentations completed Because the presentations did not fill every available meeting minute there was adequate time to caucus and, at least tentatively, explore possible mergers which would result in new completes or revised completes. Bad News Complete presentations did not have adequate time to present or answer audience questions. Not enough time to conduct panel discussion or additional selection steps. Not known how many completes will exist in November

doc.: IEEE r0 Submission September 2004 James D. Allen, Appairent Technologies Slide 4

doc.: IEEE r0 Submission September 2004 James D. Allen, Appairent Technologies Slide 5 November Agenda Challenge Panel Discussion Possible inclusion of one or more additional complete proposal Extended presentation and Q&A time for completes Additional technical presentations anticipated Need to refresh audience memory

doc.: IEEE r0 Submission September 2004 James D. Allen, Appairent Technologies Slide 6 Elimination vote. Eliminate proposal with least support. A Procedure End Any new mergers? Recess to allow merger granted at option of TG. Presentation of merged proposals. Discard un- merged partial proposals. Final 5 minute statement. 25% low-bar Elimination vote 75% for ? Any Mergers take place? Presentation of all remaining proposals More than 1 proposal left? Panel Discussion at option of the chair N N Y Y Y Roll-call confirmation vote Statements from no voters of why they voted no. Response by proposers. Roll-call confirmation vote 75% for ? N N Bring back last three proposals N Adopt proposal as initial technical specification Editor prepares Draft 1.0. Vote that it is technically consistent with technical spec. 75% for ? Forward Draft 1.0 to WG for Letter Ballot N Y Y Y Y Step 9 Step 10 Step minute presentation of remaining proposals including Q & A Step 16 Step 17 Step 18 Step 19 Step 20 Step 21 Drawing by Adrian Stephens September 16, 2003 Initial 60 Minutes presentation for all proposals. Panel discussion. Step 7 Step 8 Mergers may take place. The TG may decide time required for consideration of new mergers Step 11 Step 14 More than 1 proposal left? N Step 15 The remaining proposals may undergo technical changes without requiring a merge. Step 13 The remaining proposals may undergo technical changes without requiring a merge. Step 13 The remaining proposals may undergo technical changes without requiring a merge. Step 13 Step 11 Mergers may take place. The TG may decide time required for consideration of new mergers Mergers may take place. The TG may decide time required for consideration of new mergers Step 11 Selection Process 665r9 You Are here

doc.: IEEE r0 Submission September 2004 James D. Allen, Appairent Technologies Slide 7 A N Y Step 9 Step 10 Step 12 Step 7 Step 8 Step 11 Step 13 Selection Process 665r9 Recess to allow merger granted at option of TG. Presentation of merged proposals. Mergers may take place. The TG may decide time required for consideration of new mergers. The remaining proposals may undergo technical changes without requiring a merge. Initial 60 minutes presentation for all proposals. Panel discussion. Discard unmerged partial proposals. Final 5 minute statement. 25% low-bar Elimination vote. Any new mergers? 60 minute presentation of remaining proposals.. Note this By Nov 4th

doc.: IEEE r0 Submission September 2004 James D. Allen, Appairent Technologies Slide 8 My Comments: Interesting points: Well run Partial proposals are ~ irrelevant – 2 ½ camps was presented by Allen as an independent proposal Many techniques included data aggregation Many techniques included increasing band to 40 MHz. Working with.11,.15 and.19 leadership to make sure.15 has some say as to how channels are bonded and how coexistence is optimized – more later. Heard that up to 680 Mbps was proposed