1. TGT Process Document Date: 2005-09-20 Authors: September 2005
doc.: IEEE /912r0
September 2005
TGT Process Document
Date:
Authors:
Notice: This document has been prepared to assist IEEE 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 grants a free, irrevocable license to the IEEE to incorporate material contained in this contribution, and any modifications thereof, in the creation of an IEEE Standards publication; to copyright in the IEEE’s name any IEEE Standards publication even though it may include portions of this contribution; and at the IEEE’s sole discretion to permit others to reproduce in whole or in part the resulting IEEE Standards publication. The contributor also acknowledges and accepts that this contribution may be made public by IEEE
Patent Policy and Procedures: The contributor is familiar with the IEEE 802 Patent Policy and Procedures < ieee802.org/guides/bylaws/sb-bylaws.pdf>, including the statement "IEEE standards may include the known use of patent(s), including 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." Early disclosure to the Working Group of patent information that might be relevant to the standard is essential to reduce the possibility for delays in the development process and increase the likelihood that the draft publication will be approved for publication. Please notify the Chair as early as possible, in written or electronic form, if patented technology (or technology under patent application) might be incorporated into a draft standard being developed within the IEEE Working Group. If you have questions, contact the IEEE Patent Committee Administrator at
C. Wright, Azimuth Systems
C. Wright, Azimuth Systems

2. September 2005
doc.: IEEE /912r0
September 2005
Abstract
This presentation is based on discussions during the 8 Sep 05 telecon. In that telecon, we contemplated how to move forward given the comments received for Draft This is a first draft meant for review, update and approval during the September TGT meetings.
C. Wright, Azimuth Systems
C. Wright, Azimuth Systems

3. TGT Process toward Letter Ballot
September 2005
doc.: IEEE /912r0
September 2005
TGT Process toward Letter Ballot
Focus on filling out the draft
New proposals for subjects viewed as missing
Fixes that resolve problems from the issues list
When draft is substantially complete, switch to TG internal review/comment resolution mode
Focus on making draft technically complete
New proposals more rare at this point but not disallowed
When draft is technically complete, “switch” to Letter Ballot mode
Takes 75% vote of TG, then 75% vote of WG
C. Wright, Azimuth Systems
C. Wright, Azimuth Systems

4. TGT Process in Flowchart Form
September 2005
TGT Process in Flowchart Form
New
Proposals
Draft is Mostly Complete
Draft is Technically Complete
2) Internal Review & Comment Resolution
1) Focus on Filling Out the Draft
3) Letter Ballot & Comment Resolution
Recirc or SB
Resolutions
Fixes
Fixes
Issues
List
Formal TG Comments
Offical LB Comments
C. Wright, Azimuth Systems

5. Step 1. Filling out the Draft
September 2005
Step 1. Filling out the Draft
Bring in contributions and proposals [1]
Maintain a running issues list, but don’t try to formally resolve them
Start with current comment spreadsheet [2]
Serious issues on existing text is dealt with via ad-hocs and contributions
C. Wright, Azimuth Systems

6. September 2005
Issues List
Issues list would be used to alert TG members to known issues and proposed remedies
Purpose: members do not have to constantly revisit the same issue over and over…
Serves as a focal point for sparking contributions on current serious issues in the draft
Don’t know what work needs to be done? Look at the issues list
Nothing preventing any subset of TG members from picking up an issue and starting a discussion on it, or bringing in a contribution
Not limited to original contributors and commenters!
Want to avoid at this point diving into laborious item-by-item resolution of the issues list before we have a reasonably complete draft
Will roll the issues list into the intial comments when we start the internal review process
C. Wright, Azimuth Systems

7. Step 2. TG Internal Review and Comment Resolution
September 2005
Step 2. TG Internal Review and Comment Resolution
Starts when draft is “mostly complete”
Invite contributions to complete the draft
Issues list rolled over into a comment resolution spreadsheet
TG starts formally resolving outstanding comments
First eliminate comments obsoleted by previous updates to draft
TG work looks more like comment resolution than voting in major proposals
C. Wright, Azimuth Systems

8. What does “Mostly Complete” mean?
September 2005
What does “Mostly Complete” mean?
It means:
We have accepted proposals related to the framework document for the three different use cases
We have accepted other proposals that are deemed necessary for the draft to be complete
See later slide for a list of metrics created in July meeting
All major disagreements should be resolved to call the draft “mostly complete”
Resolving them during the Internal Review phase could be harder
C. Wright, Azimuth Systems

9. Step 3. “Transition” to LB Mode
September 2005
Step 3. “Transition” to LB Mode
TG considers draft to be technically complete
Assume that the draft will be accepted completely
Draft must be ready to go right to Sponsor Balloting
P&P [3], Section 2.9 describes the process
TG votes to submit draft for a WG letter ballot
Once in WG letter ballot mode, the process thereafter is very well defined and can be found in WG documents
C. Wright, Azimuth Systems

10. When to vote on going forward to Letter Ballot?
September 2005
When to vote on going forward to Letter Ballot?
Answer: TG believes the draft to be technically complete
The motion to do a LB assumes that the ballot will pass
‘Authorize a 40-day LB to conclude no later than [date] asking the question “Should the attached x draft x.x draft be forwarded to SB?”’
That is, if everyone votes yes, the process moves to the Sponsor Ballot step
Hence, the draft must be technically complete before LB
C. Wright, Azimuth Systems

11. List of expected proposals for achieving “Mostly Complete”
September 2005
List of expected proposals for achieving “Mostly Complete”
List from July meeting: things that we need in our draft that people are volunteering to work on:
Total Radiated Power, Total Isotropic Sensitivity: M. Foegelle
Equivalent cabled test for power, sensitivity: M. Foegelle
Voice test suite, pkt loss, delay, jitter and context for using these (e.g., ITU e-model): F. Mlinarsky, roaming metric, C. Wright
ACI update, M. Kobayashi
C. Wright, Azimuth Systems

12. September 2005
References
11-04/1553r2, “Guidelines for TGT Formal Metric and Methodology Proposals”
11-05/868r0, “Combined list of D0.3 comments”
11-05/456r0, “Policies and Procedures of IEEE Project 802 Working Group , Wireless LANs”
C. Wright, Azimuth Systems