1. TGn Opening Report Portland, Oregon, US July 2004 04/658
doc.: IEEE /0658r0
July 2004
TGn Opening Report Portland, Oregon, US July /658
Bruce Kraemer, Chair
Garth Hillman, Secretary
July 12, 2004
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD
Bruce Kraemer, Conexant

2. Plans for July Opening remarks Status of Call for Proposals
Meeting time allocation reduced to 16 hours for July
There are no major technical voting issues pending.
Many people want to work on proposals
Opening remarks
Agenda
May minutes
Other information items
Status of Call for Proposals
Technical Presentations
Overall TGn timeline
.19 liaison planning (joint meeting)
Regulatory issues discussion with .18
.21 liaison planning (joint meeting)
TGn organization/officer planning
Planning for September Berlin
Correction to CC
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

3. IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards
July 2004
doc.: IEEE /0658r0
July 2004 1.
IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards
Approved by IEEE-SA Standards Board – May 2004
6. Patents
IEEE standards may include the known use of essential patents and patent applications, provided the IEEE receives assurance from the patent holder or applicant with respect to patents essential for compliance with both mandatory and optional portions of the standard. This assurance shall be provided without coercion and prior to approval of the standard (or reaffirmation when a patent becomes known after initial approval of the standard). This assurance shall be a letter that is in the form of either:
a) A general disclaimer to the effect that the patentee will not enforce any of its present or future patent(s) whose use would be required to implement the proposed IEEE standard against any person or entity using the patent(s) to comply with the standard or
b) A statement that a license will be made available without compensation or under reasonable rates, with reasonable terms and conditions that are demonstrably free of any unfair discrimination
This assurance shall apply, at a minimum, from the date of the standard's approval to the date of the standard's withdrawal and is irrevocable during that period.
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD
Bruce Kraemer, Conexant

4. Inappropriate Topics for IEEE WG Meetings
July 2004 1.
Inappropriate Topics for IEEE WG Meetings
Approved by IEEE-SA Standards Board – March 2003
Don’t discuss licensing terms or conditions
Don’t discuss product pricing, territorial restrictions or market share
Don’t discuss ongoing litigation or threatened litigation
Don’t be silent if inappropriate topics are discussed… do formally object.
If you have questions,
contact the IEEE-SA Standards Board Patent Committee Administrator at
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

5. Attendance & Voting Status
July 2004 1.
Attendance & Voting Status
Use 802wirelessworld to register attendance
If you encounter Attendance Issues during the session send an to Harry Worstell –
Questions on Voting status – see Al Petrick
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

6. May Plans & Accomplishments
July 2004 1.
May Plans & Accomplishments
Complete and adopt CCs
Complete and adopt Usage Models
Establish firm dates for
Posting letter of intent
Posting technical proposals to server
Start presentations
Complete Call for Proposals letter
Review project time line
Prepare for election of Tech Ed & V. Chair
Receive technical presentations
Disbanded FRCC subcommittee
Released Call for Proposals Monday May 17
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

7. May to July Activities There were no conference calls.
doc.: IEEE /0658r0
July 2004 1.
May to July Activities
There were no conference calls.
Call for proposals closed on June 18
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD
Bruce Kraemer, Conexant

8. TGn Document Summary –July 121.
TGn Document Summary –July 12
Primary Documents
Functional Requirements r12
Comparison Criteria r30
Usage Models r23
Channel Models r04
Call for Proposals Letter r06
Other helpful documents:
Selection Procedure r09
FRCC Cumulative minutes r14
FRCC Comments resolution spreadsheet r11
TGn Schedule r02
Selection Procedure Minutes r02
May Minutes r00
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

9. July 2004 1.
TGn - July Schedule
All sessions will be held in Hilton Grand Ballroom I
Time
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
8:00-10:00 P
10:30-12:30
1:30-3:30
4:00-6:00
7:30-9:30
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

10. July 2004 1.
TGn - July Schedule
All sessions will be held in Hilton Grand Ballroom I
Time
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
8:00-10:00
Presentations
Joint .21
Elections
10:30-12:30
Prep for .18, .19, .21
TGn timeline
Plans for Berlin
1:30-3:30
Joint .19
Joint .18
4:00-6:00
Opening remarks
Nominations
7:30-9:30
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

11. July Planned Technical Presentations3.
July Planned Technical Presentations
Monday
LDPC vs CC over 11n channels Huaning Niu r0 Samsung
Performance comparison of antenna selection and DSTBC Henry Horng r0 Samsung
Physical Layer Approach for n Mustafa Eroz r0 Hughes NS
MAC Overview John Ketchum r0 Qualcomm
MAC Performance Results John Ketchum r0 Qualcomm
Tuesday
PHY Design for Spatial Multiplexing MIMO John Ketchum r0 Qualcomm
Link Level Sim results for Spatial Multiplexing MIMO John Ketchum r0 Qualcomm
Synchronization Reqts for n John Kowalski r0 Sharp
40/20/10 MHz Channelization John Sadowsky r0 Intel
Wednesday 4pm
40MHz/20MHz Interoperability Jeff Gilbert r0 Atheros
Antenna selection for MIMO systems Andy Molisch r1 Mitsubishi
TX processing: a viable scheme for MIMO OFDM Bart van Poucke r0 IMEC
Preambles for MIMO channel estimation Bart van Poucke r0 IMEC
Co-channel Interference in n Networks Aon Mujtaba r0 Agere
Withdrawn
LDPC coding for MIMO systems Jianxuan Du r0 Mitsubishi
IEEE n MAC Design Considerations Daqing Gu, J Tao r0 Mitsubishi
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

12. July 2004
Agenda Detail 1.
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

13. Approval of Agenda Motion to approve agenda Move: Second: 1. July 2004
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

14. May Minutes from 04-496r0 1. Abstract
July 2004 1.
May Minutes from r0
Abstract
Cumulative minutes of the High Throughput Task Group meetings held during the IEEE /15 Interim meeting in Anaheim from May 10 through 14, 2004.
Executive Summary (see closing report doc r1):
Completed all selection criteria steps required to issue a Call for Proposal (CFP) were completed as follows:
Functional Requirement doc r12 was adopted in March
Channel Model doc r4 was adopted
Comparison Criteria doc r30 was adopted
Usage Model doc r23 was adopted
FRCC special committee was disbanded
Key dates (GMT-5) in CFP timeline were agreed to as follows:
Issue CFP – May 17
Deadline for Letters of Intent – June 18
Proposal documents submitted – August 13
First Proposal presented – September 13
CFP document, r7, was agreed to by the TG and presented to the WG on Friday
Received 9 technical proposals (not related to FRCC)
Plan for July meeting was generated and agreed to by the TG
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

15. Approval of May Minutes
July 2004 1.
Approval of May Minutes
Motion to approve minutes as contained in r0
Move: Garth Hillman
Second:
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

16. Press & Articles Glad to arrange them, but
July 2004 1.
Press & Articles
Glad to arrange them, but
None independent - only with WG chair
Coordinated via Publicity chair
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

17. TGn Committee Report – Posted to Web
July 2004 1.
TGn Committee Report – Posted to Web
The following report is based on TGn closing report which is contained in the slides above.
TGn (High Throughput) achieved a significant milestone by completing the generation of its 4 selection criteria documents for Usage Models, Functional Requirements, Comparison Criteria and Channel Models. In compliance with TGn’s Selection Procedure, completion of these 4 documents allows the Task Group to release a Call for Proposals. The Call for Proposals will be issued on Monday May 17.
Specified within the CFP are three key dates
The posting of Letters of Intent (Friday, June 18)
Posting of Proposals and related documentation (Friday, August 13)
Presentation of Proposals (Monday, September 13)
9 Technical presentations covering various suggestions for High Throughput MAC an PHY improvements were heard as well.
Activities planned for July include
Status of Call for Proposals
Technical Presentations
Overall TGn timeline
.19 liaison planning (joint meeting)
.21 liaison planning (joint meeting)
regulatory issues discussion with .18
TGn organization/officer planning
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

18. IEEE P802.11 - TGn Backgrounder
July 2004 1.
IEEE P TGn Backgrounder
TGn will define the next generation standard for high speed wireless LANs.
The group's basic goal is to develop a standard capable of providing at least 100Mbps throughput at the MAC service access point. This is expected to provide roughly three times the throughput of current standards g and a.
TGn has defined comprehensive Functional Requirements, Comparison Criteria, Usage Scenarios, and Simulation Environments which must be addressed by the proposals in order to be considered for the final standard.
Complete proposals must address all of the requirements. Partial proposals, will most likely address various aspects of the MAC or Physical layer, but do not need to fulfill all the requirements indicated in the complete complement of reporting documents listed above.
A call for proposals was issued on May 17 and closed on June 18.
Following the close date of a formal call for proposals, the chair of Task Group n (TGn), Bruce Kraemer, has compiled and issued the list of individuals who have indicated that they will present a proposal.
The list of respondents includes 21indicating they will make complete proposals and 41 who wish to make partial proposals.
Proposals must be posted for membership review no later than August 13.
At the upcoming IEEE meeting in July TGn will plan for proposal presentations which will begin at the meeting in September.
Past experience with previous calls for proposals would indicate that due to consolidation and mergers the total number of presentations will be less than 61.
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

19. Countries Represented
July 2004 2.
Letters of Intent
62 Letters of Intent
21 Complete
41 Partial
Countries Represented
Canada
Finland
France
Germany
Ireland
Japan
Korea
Netherlands
Singapore
Sweden
Taiwan US
Update from initial announcement which stated
61 total: 22 complete, 39 partial
One was initially lost.
One proposal was listed as complete – should have been partial
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

20. Call – Notification Process
July 2004 2.
Call – Notification Process
Announcement of results via letter to reflector (1812 members)
Created mailing list of primary presenters
and mailing list of secondary
Next critical date : posting August 13
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

21. Letters of Intent - Complete
July 2004 2.
Letters of Intent - Complete
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

22. Letters of Intent - Partial
July 2004 2.
Letters of Intent - Partial
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

23. July Planned Technical Presentations3.
July Planned Technical Presentations
Monday
LDPC vs CC over 11n channels Huaning Niu r0 Samsung
Performance comparison of antenna selection and DSTBC Henry Horng r0 Samsung
Physical Layer Approach for n Mustafa Eroz r0 Hughes NS
MAC Overview John Ketchum r0 Qualcomm
MAC Performance Results John Ketchum r0 Qualcomm
Tuesday
PHY Design for Spatial Multiplexing MIMO John Ketchum r0 Qualcomm
Link Level Sim results for Spatial Multiplexing MIMO John Ketchum r0 Qualcomm
Synchronization Reqts for n John Kowalski r0 Sharp
40/20/10 MHz Channelization John Sadowsky r0 Intel
Wednesday 4pm
Antenna selection for MIMO systems Andy Molisch r0 Mitsubishi
LDPC coding for MIMO systems Jianxuan Du r0 Mitsubishi
TX processing: a viable scheme for MIMO OFDM Bart van Poucke r0 IMEC
Preambles for MIMO channel estimation Bart van Poucke r0 IMEC
40MHz/20MHz Interoperability Jeff Gilbert xxx-r0 Atheros
Withdrawn
IEEE n MAC Design Considerations Daqing Gu, J Tao r0 Mitsubishi
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

24. No later than midnight GMT -5 No later than midnight GMT -5
July 2004 4.
Time line
You are here
Monday
May 17, 2004
IEEE 802
Sessions Open
Monday
Sep 13
No later than midnight GMT -5
Friday June 18
No later than midnight GMT -5
Friday Aug 13
80 days
30 days
50 days
30 days
Event #3
Documents posted on IEEE server
Technical Proposal
CC Compliance Report
FR Compliance Report
Event #1
Issue call for proposals
Event #2
Intent to present
Full or
Partial proposal
notification submitted
Event #4
“All?” Proposals
Presented in TGn Session
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

25. Project Time line reviewed July 2003 (03-488r0) Schedule Highlights
doc.: IEEE /0658r0
July 2004 4.
Time line - History
Project Time line reviewed July 2003 (03-488r0)
Schedule Highlights
Issue First Letter Ballot on Draft July 2004
Issue First Sponsor Ballot Jan 2005
Complete Sponsor ballot – accepted by ExCom July 2005
Publish Oct 2005
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD
Bruce Kraemer, Conexant

26. July 2004
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

27. July 2004
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

28. July 2004
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

29. 802.11 Example Project History
July 2004
Example Project History
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

30. Time line - Proposed Schedule Highlights
July 2004
doc.: IEEE /0658r0
July 2004 4.
Time line - Proposed
Schedule Highlights
Issue First Letter Ballot on Draft July 2005
3 sessions to review edit (Sep, Nov, Jan, Mar)
Issue First Sponsor Ballot Mar 2006
3 sessions to review & edit ( May, July, Sept)
Complete Sponsor ballot – accepted by ExCom Nov 2006
Publish Mar 2007
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD
Bruce Kraemer, Conexant

31. .19 Joint meeting Logistics and Topics
July 2004 5.
.19 Joint meeting Logistics and Topics
Wednesday 1:30 – 2:30 pm in Hilton Grand Ballroom I.
The proposed 802 P&P changes to address coexistence
How those rules could be interpreted for n
What is a Coexistence Assurance Document?
r0 LMSC presentation
r4 Proposed Rules Change
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

32. July 2004
TAG 19 –part r4
Overview
The introduction of a new or amended wireless standard creates the possibility of interference between the new standard and present standards. The purpose of these proposed changes to the LMSC policies and procedures is to establish a process in IEEE 802 to assure that the proposed standard and existing standards will coexist.
A Coexistence Assurance (CA) document is used as a tool for the WG and LMSC executive committee to assess coexistence with other users of the medium.
Coexistence is in the domain of MAC/PHY interactions between dissimilar systems. The criteria for a system resiliency to interference is ultimately dependent on the expected application of the proposed standard or amendment.
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

33. July 2004
TAG 19 –part r4
The role of TAG in this process is to act in the following ways:
Establish and maintain a set of methodologies giving guidance to the WGs on how to develop a CA document to characterize effects on users of the common medium, including the new standard or amendment.
Act as a resource to WG to help them decide which methodology is appropriate for their standard or amendment.
Assist the WGs in evaluating the results of their CA analysis when requested.
Evaluate the validity of the CA analysis WGs have completed in preparation for forwarding standards and amendments to sponsor ballot. This evaluation does not address if the proposed standard will adequately coexist. It does evaluate if the methodology was appropriate, executed, and reported correctly. LMSC makes the final determination on the level of coexistence necessary for the standard or amendment.
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

34. July 2004
TAG 19 –part r4
The process establishes what a wireless working group shall do at two steps in the standards development process:
At the PAR approval (or PAR corrigendum) phase a wireless working group (WG) shall indicate that it intends to submit a CA document or explain why it is not needed.
If the WG committed to create a CA document, the WG must submit it to the TAG prior to requesting that the SEC forward the draft to sponsor ballot. The TAG will offer its technical comments to the wireless WG and the LMSC.
When a wireless working group has a draft standard and has developed a coexistence assurance document, the wireless working group may submit the coexistence assurance document to the TAG for preliminary review.
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

35. July 2004
TAG 19 – part r4
Proposed addition to PAR process (procedure 2):
6.6 Coexistence
For a wireless project to be authorized, the WG is required to produce a Coexistence Assurance (CA) document to be submitted with their draft unless there is a compelling reason to omit this step.
Working Group will submit a CA document with the draft
Working Group will not submit a CA document
If no CA document, state reason: _________________________
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

36. TAG 19 – part 5 Proposed addition to LMSC standard procedures:
July 2004
TAG 19 – part 5
Proposed addition to LMSC standard procedures:
Procedure 11
PROCEDURE FOR APPROVAL TO FORWARD A DRAFT WIRELESS STANDARD
In the process of preparing for Sponsor Ballot, the WG shall provide the coexistence assurance (CA) document to the TAG no less than 60 days prior to requesting that the LMSC SEC send the draft to sponsor ballot. The LMSC recommends that the WG provide the CA document to prior to WG letter ballot.
The TAG shall give its technical comments on the CA document within 45 days after receipt.
The TAG will evaluate if the CA methodology was applied appropriately and reported correctly. The LMSC shall make the final determination on whether the coexistence necessary for the standard or amendment, as defined by the WG, has been met.
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

37. .18 Joint meeting Logistics and Topics
July 2004 6.
.18 Joint meeting Logistics and Topics
Wednesday 2:30 to 3:30 pm in Hilton Grand Ballroom I
TGn question: Regulatory views on acceptability of MIMO and extended channels and xxx
Two prong approach:
What do current regulations allow?
How to promote changes if needed?
Proposal to invite experts via .18
Julius Knapp to November meeting (San Antonio) (approved by ExCom)
Andy Gowan of UK Office of Communications (Ofcom)
Other suggestions
Need to prepare topics for discussion
– send to guests ahead of time
Recommend sub-committee to prepare topics for review
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

38. .21 Joint meeting Joint meeting plan: 10 minute presentations
July 2004 7.
.21 Joint meeting
Thursday 8 am to 9 am in Hilton Grand Ballroom I.
 Questions from perspective, I would be interested in understanding the following:
1. Time frame for the development/publishing of the standard, which would help us determine by when certain inputs have to be ready in either direction.
2. An understanding of: Is it an amendment to the existing MAC/PHY defined by .11a/b/g or is it a completely new MAC/PHY. In case of former, what can/cannot be changed.
3. What input would TGn like from such that TGn is enabled for handover across heterogeneous networks.
Joint meeting plan: 10 minute presentations
TGn overview
.21 overview
Q & A between members
Plans going forward for September, November, …
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

39. .21 Overview PAR and 5 Criteria are on the IEEE website
July 2004
.21 Overview
PAR and 5 Criteria are on the IEEE website
IEEE is developing standards to enable handover and interoperability between heterogeneous network types including both 802 and non 802 networks.
PAR: The purpose is to improve the user experience of mobile devices by facilitating handover between 802 networks whether or not they are of different media types, including both wired and wireless, where handover is not otherwise defined and to make it possible for mobile devices to perform seamless handover where the network environment supports it. These mechanisms may also be useable for handovers between 802 networks and non 802 networks.
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

40. July 2004
.21 - More Par Detail
We define handover as the maintenance of sessions and/or service flows while connectivity is moved from one point of attachment to another.
The scope and purpose are derived from the need to address the following three problems that were identified during the study group phase:
– #1 Detection of a useable attachment to a network is impacted by the ambiguous indicators of network attachment in certain 802 MACs. Thus there is a need to develop a standard that allows a mobile terminal to optimize detection of a useable attachment to a network above the LLC.
– #2 The information necessary to make effective handover decisions is lacking in part because the 802 networks provide insufficient information to the upper layers. Thus there is a need to develop a standard that permits information exchange between mobile terminals and/or networks to enable mobile terminals and/or networks to make more effective handover decisions.
– #3 There is no standardized mechanism in 802 for information exchange between mobile terminals and network attachment points. This impacts the ability to make informed decisions to select between disparate network attachment points or to initiate handover between heterogeneous network types or between administrative domains within a single network type. Thus there is a need to develop a standard that permits mobile terminals and network attachment points to access information on which to base effective handover decisions.
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

41. Officers Call for nominations opened for Technical editor Vice chair
July 2004 8.
Officers
Call for nominations opened for
Technical editor
election planned Thursday morning July 15
Vice chair
election planned Monday November session
Procedure:
5 minute speech by each candidate
Single elimination voting rounds to obtain final candidate
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

42. Strawpoll When do you want to hold officer elections? July 19 Later 39
Conclusion:
No elections during July
No elections during September
Reconsider in November
Use WG Chair and VC to assist in Berlin
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

43. Correction to CC67 Editorial error discovered
July 2004
10.
Correction to CC67
Editorial error discovered
Adrian Stephens will provide additional detail
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

44. July 2004
Plans going forward
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

45. Why do we have any of these rules?
July 2004
Why do we have any of these rules?
Expedite development of a quality technical standard
Provide equitable framework and environment for preparation, presentation and discussion
Complete and easily comparable technical presentations
Selection based upon technical merit
Elimination is not intended to be based upon rule infractions
Procedures to encourage partial proposals and mergers
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

46. Procedure Questions (04-817)
July 2004
Procedure Questions (04-817)
Up to and During September
What can change in material on the server after 13 Aug?
Can you present material new on the server after 13 Aug?
What precisely has to be on the server at 13 Aug (doc and/or presentation and/or results?)
How many hours before the start of the session can anything be modified?
If the number of proposals drops significantly, would you entertain modifying the rules to allow >1 hour presentation time?
Are partial and full presentations to be given the same time?
Can you yield your time?
Can you yield your time to someone else?
Any limitations on time on individual presenters that have multiple registered proposals?
After or during September
Review logistics of voting rounds?
Are there any limitations to the changes that can occur between rounds of voting?
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

47. TGn - September Schedule
July 2004 1.
TGn - September Schedule
All sessions will be held in xx
Time
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
8:00-10:00 X 10 20 26
10:30-12:30 2 12 28
1:30-3:30 4 14 22 30
4:00-6:00 6 16 24 32
7:30-9:30 8 18 34
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

48. Berlin – Logistics r1 – one page version
July 2004 9.
Berlin – Logistics r1 – one page version
September Philosophy
All proposal presentations will be treated equitably and equally
All proposal presentations will be heard in September
Maximum available TG meeting time will be available (34 hours). Available speaking time will be slightly less to allow for administrative topics at the beginning and close of the TGn session.
Presenter speaking time
Presentations will each be allocated an equal amount of time by the formulas:
Total available speaking time = Total TGn session time – time for administrative matters, opening and closing remarks
Speaking + discussion time = Total available speaking time / number of presentations
And: An initial time allocation calculation will be made and communicated to the presenters immediately after close of proposal postings (Aug 13). If speakers withdraw, their time will be returned to the time pool and added to each of the remaining speakers in equal increments of time. Any presenter requiring less than the allocated time should notify the chair, any un-needed time to the speaking time pool and distributed among all other speakers.
Adjustments to time allocation on Monday morning Sept 13 may be necessary based upon last minute mergers or withdrawals. Time increments will not be adjusted after presentations begin on the morning of Sept 13.
Speaking Sequence
Partial and Complete presentations will be treated as a single group. Within each of the two groups, speaking order will be established on Monday Sept 6 by means of drawing numbers from a hat. This procedure is to be carried out by the WG chair.
Information procedure
Speaking sequence and preliminary speaking time assignments numbers info will be sent to all presenters via so that the speaking time slots are known sufficiently before meetings begin on Sept 13. This, and other relevant information, will be contained in a submission to the 802wirelessworld document server (TGn Berlin Proposal Presentation Information ). Updates will be distributed as necessary.
Revisions
What about changes to proposals after Aug 13 posting deadline?
It is recognized that some corrections may be appropriate. Minor revisions to presentations used during September session must be frozen on the 802wirelessworld server by 6am local Berlin time on the morning of Sept 13.
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

49. Berlin – Logistics r1 -part 1
July 2004
Berlin – Logistics r1 -part 1
September Philosophy
All proposal presentations will be treated equitably and equally
All proposal presentations will be heard in September
Maximum available TG meeting time will be available (34 hours). Available speaking time will be slightly less to allow for administrative topics at the beginning and close of the TGn session.
Presenter speaking time
Presentations will each be allocated an equal amount of time by the formulas:
Total available speaking time = Total TGn session time – time for administrative matters, opening and closing remarks
Speaking + discussion time = Total available speaking time / number of presentations
And: An initial time allocation calculation will be made and communicated to the presenters immediately after close of proposal postings (Aug 13). If speakers withdraw, their time will be returned to the time pool and added to each of the remaining speakers in equal increments of time. Any presenter requiring less than the allocated time should notify the chair, any un-needed time to the speaking time pool and distributed among all other speakers.
Adjustments to time allocation on Monday morning Sept 13 may be necessary based upon last minute mergers or withdrawals. Time increments will not be adjusted after presentations begin on the morning of Sept 13.
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

50. Berlin – Logistics r1 – part 2
July 2004
Berlin – Logistics r1 – part 2
Speaking Sequence
Partial and Complete presentations will be treated as a single group. Within each of the two groups, speaking order will be established on Monday Sept 6 by means of drawing numbers from a hat. This procedure is to be carried out by the WG chair.
Information procedure
Speaking sequence and preliminary speaking time assignments numbers info will be sent to all presenters via so that the speaking time slots are known sufficiently before meetings begin on Sept 13. This, and other relevant information, will be contained in a submission to the 802wirelessworld document server (TGn Berlin Proposal Presentation Information ). Updates will be distributed as necessary.
Revisions
What about changes to proposals after Aug 13 posting deadline?
It is recognized that some corrections may be appropriate. Minor revisions to presentations used during September session must be frozen on the 802wirelessworld server by 6am local Berlin time on the morning of Sept 13.
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

51. Procedure Questions Up to and During September
July 2004
Procedure Questions
Up to and During September
What can change in material on the server after 13 Aug?
Can you present material new on the server after 13 Aug?
What precisely has to be on the server at 13 Aug (doc and/or presentation and/or results?)
How many hours before the start of the session can anything be modified?
If the number of proposals drops significantly, would you entertain modifying the rules to allow >1 hour presentation time?
Are partial and full presentations to be given the same time?
Can you yield your time?
Can you yield your time to someone else?
Any limitations on time on individual presenters that have multiple registered proposals?
After September
Review logistics of voting rounds? Are there any limitations to the changes that can occur between rounds of voting?
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

52. 03-665-r9 extract Definitions:
July 2004
r9 extract
Definitions:
Complete Proposal – A proposal that does not violate the PAR, meets all of the Functional Requirements and addresses all of the mandatory requirements of the Comparison Criteria. A complete proposal shall include a document in Microsoft Word format that contains a technical specification of the proposal in sufficient detail so that Draft 1.0 can be created from this specification without adding technical features. All complete proposals shall disclose how the Functional Requirements and mandatory requirements of the Comparison Criteria are met in the format required in the respective documents.
Partial Proposal – A proposal that does not violate the PAR but is not complete. All partial proposals should disclose which Functional Requirements and Comparison Criteria they meet and how they meet them. This disclosure shall be done using the format required in the Functional Requirements and Comparison Criteria documents.
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

53. July 2004
r9 extract
Complete and partial proposals shall be given up to 60 minutes presentation time including discussion.
All proposal documents and related material (Presentation Material, Functional Requirements Declaration, Comparison Criteria Declaration and Technical Specification) emerging from the TGn call for proposals shall be available to the voting members 30 days prior to the session at which they will be presented.
Any mergers resulting from the initial proposals shall be made available to the voting members at least 10 days prior to the session at which they will be presented. Merged proposals shall also include documents and related material.
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

54. July 2004
r9 extract
Immediately after the proposals are heard a Panel Discussion with all the presenters shall be held. Questions to the Panel shall be taken from the floor.
Partial proposals will be given the opportunity to solicit mergers that result in complete proposals. In the event of a merger, presenters of mergers shall be allowed to request additional time to generate the merged proposal and present to the Task Group. The Task Group will approve and/or determine the amount of time allowed prior to presentation of the merged proposals, and the time for presentation shall be fixed in the agenda.
How do we interpret “Immediately”? How do we encourage mergers? How do we allow time for merged presentations to be prepared , posted and heard?
Suggestion:
No voting in Berlin. Re-presentation of complete/merged proposals only in November allowing ~2 hours each followed by panel discussion and voting.
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

55. July 2004
r9 extract
Presenters of each complete proposal shall be given the opportunity to make a final 5 minute statement to the group advocating their proposals just before the down selection voting starts. An elimination vote shall then be taken to remove proposals having little support within the task group. Each voting member shall cast a single ballot and vote to further consider or not to consider each individual proposal. The task group shall eliminate from consideration all proposals that do not obtain at least 25% support of the ballots cast.
In the sample ballot shown below, a single registered voter has voted for Proposals A, B, and C to continue to be under consideration and Proposals D and E to no longer be under consideration.
Note: One vote per column per voter is required for a valid ballot
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

56. What to post? Functional requirements 03-0813-r12
July 2004
What to post?
Functional requirements r12
Comparison Criteria r30
Simulation results
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

57. What to post for FR 03-0813-r12? Functional Requirements 03-813 r12
July 2004
What to post for FR r12?
Functional Requirements r12
1.2 Form of Disclosure
A proposal shall declare its compliance with these functional requirements using the template defined below in clause 3.
3.0 Template for Complete Submissions
The results for a complete submission shall include a statement of coverage of the functional requirements and results for simulation scenarios following the outline presented here.
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

58. July 2004
FR Table 3.1
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

59. What to post for CC 03-814-r30? 1.2 Form of Disclosure
July 2004
What to post for CC r30?
1.1 Purpose of document
A proposal submitted for consideration under the TGn selection process [1], and declared to be complete is required to meet the functional requirements defined in [2] and to disclose results according to the comparison criteria defined in this document.
1.2 Form of Disclosure
A proposal shall disclose its results as required by section 3 and as required by the Disclosure column of the comparison criteria table in section 4.
1.3 Relationship to Functional Requirements
The main purpose of the comparison criteria is to define metrics to enable comparison of TGn proposals
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

60. What to post for CC 03-814-r30? 3.0 Additional Disclosures (page 5)
July 2004
What to post for CC r30?
3.0 Additional Disclosures (page 5)
4.0 Comparison Criteria #2-80 (Pages 6-16)
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD

61. July 2004
End
Opening Report
Kraemer, Conexant; Hillman, AMD