1. Proposed PAR and 5 Criteria for High Throughput Task Group
Month 2002
doc.: IEEE /xxxr0
November 2002
Proposed PAR and 5 Criteria for High Throughput Task Group
Adrian P Stephens, Intel Corporation
Tel: (mobile)
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation
John Doe, His Company

2. Draft PAR and 5C submission (11-02-654r0)
November 2002
Draft PAR and 5C submission ( r0)
Intended to become a working document owned by the group
Needs additional marketing input
Needs additional technical input
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

3. Month 2002
doc.: IEEE /xxxr0
November 2002
Proposed Process
Move to accept submission r0 as a draft PAR and 5C
Move to solicit market information (usage models) and add to the PAR & 5C.
Move to solicit technical information on what rates are feasible and add to the PAR and 5C.
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation
John Doe, His Company

4. Why solicit marketing information ?
November 2002
Why solicit marketing information ?
Coexistence/Compatibility with legacy equipment will add complexity to the protocol and cost to implementations.
This information (in the form of breakdown by usage model/market segment) should resolve what is actually required to go into the PAR.
If we don’t do this, the assumption will be made that we will support the operation of a mixed BSS of legacy and HT devices.
This is complex and will add to the duration of the task group.
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

5. Why solicit technical feasibility information?
November 2002
Why solicit technical feasibility information?
We don’t want to set the bar too low (not enough Pizzaz) or too high (too much cost).
Indefinite language in the PAR & 5C risks delay in its sponsor ballot process.
i.e. it is better to have the delay discussing something useful rather than mired down in the balloting process.
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

6. Review of the document Document:
November 2002
Review of the document
Document:
r0-HT-Proposed_PAR_and_5_Criteria_for_802.11_High_Throughput_Task_Group.doc
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

7. November 2002
Motion 1
Move that this group adopt r0 as its draft PAR and 5C response.
Moved: Adrian Stephens, second: Boyd Bangerter. Fails 17/34/24
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

8. Motion 2 Move that: Moved: Adrian Stephens, Second: Boyd Bangerter
November 2002
Motion 2
Move that:
this group solicit Marketing Information submissions containing usage scenarios / market segments size for high throughput
the group determine the requirements for compatibility/coexistence based on this information and add these requirements into its draft PAR & 5C
the PAR and 5C will not be submitted to ballot until these requirements are added
Moved: Adrian Stephens, Second: Boyd Bangerter
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

9. Motion 3 Move that: Moved: Adrian Stephens, Second: Eric Jacobson
November 2002
Motion 3
Move that:
this group solicit technical submissions indicating what data throughput rates should be feasible along with an architectural (high level) description of the technology to achieve it
the group determine a suitable performance requirement for its PAR and 5C that is shown to be technically feasible.
the PAR and 5C will not be submitted to ballot until this requirement is added
Moved: Adrian Stephens, Second: Eric Jacobson
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation