1. Task Group N Schedule March 15, 2004
Month 1998
doc.: IEEE /xxx
Task Group N Schedule March 15, 2004
Bruce Kraemer
IEEE Task Group N
Bruce Kraemer, Conexant
John Doe, His Company

2. Optimist’s Calendar
2004
2005
Bruce Kraemer, Conexant

3. Pessimist’s Calendar (cont)
2006
2007
Bruce Kraemer, Conexant

4. Extract from Selection Procedure 03-665 r9
Bruce Kraemer, Conexant

5. Extract from Selection Procedure 03-665 r9
Steps of the Procedure
TGn shall adopt :
Usage Models for the IEEE n amendment.
Channel Models that may be used for evaluation of proposals.
Functional Requirements that must be met by all complete proposals.
Comparison Criteria that must be addressed by all proposals.
Bruce Kraemer, Conexant

6. Extract from Selection Procedure 03-665 r9
The task group reserves the right to change the selection process and selection criteria as required with a 75% approval.
Presenters shall classify their proposals as partial or complete.
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) shall be available to the voting members 30 days prior to the session at which they will be presented.
Bruce Kraemer, Conexant

7. Tabular Sequence of Events
#1 Call for Proposals
#2 Notice of Intent
#3 Submission
#4 Presentation
Bruce Kraemer, Conexant

8. Generic Time line of Events
Dates
Generic Time line of Events
xx days
yy days
At least 30 days
Event #2
Intent to present
Full or
Partial proposal
notification submitted
Event #3
Documents posted on IEEE server
Technical Proposal
CC Compliance Report
FR Compliance Report
Event #1
Issue call for proposals
Event #4
“All?” Proposals
Presented in TGn Session
Events
Bruce Kraemer, Conexant

9. Assumption used for following slides
All required documents will be completed in the May session.
Bruce Kraemer, Conexant

10. Time line – Opt 1 Bias toward start of presentations in July
Dates
Time line – Opt 1 Bias toward start of presentations in July
Monday
May 17, 2004
Monday
July 12
No later than midnight GMT -5
Monday May 24
No later than midnight GMT -5
Friday June 11
xx days
yy days
At least 30 days
Guidance
Actual
7 days
18 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
Events
Bruce Kraemer, Conexant

11. Time line – Opt 2 Bias toward time to review
Dates
Time line – Opt 2 Bias toward time to review
Monday
May 17, 2004
Monday
Sep 10
No later than midnight GMT -5
Friday June 18
No later than midnight GMT -5
Monday July 19
xx days
yy days
At least 30 days
Guidance
Actual
30 days
30 days
50 days
Event #2
Intent to present
Full or
Partial proposal
notification submitted
Event #3
Documents posted on IEEE server
Technical Proposal
CC Compliance Report
FR Compliance Report
Event #1
Issue call for proposals
Event #4
“All?” Proposals
Presented in TGn Session
Events
Bruce Kraemer, Conexant

12. Time line – Opt 3 Bias toward time for presenter preparation
Dates
Time line – Opt 3 Bias toward time for presenter preparation
Monday
May 17, 2004
Monday
Sep 10
No later than midnight GMT -5
Friday June 18
No later than midnight GMT -5
Friday Aug 20
xx days
yy days
At least 30 days
Guidance
Actual
30 days
50 days
30 days
Event #2
Intent to present
Full or
Partial proposal
notification submitted
Event #3
Documents posted on IEEE server
Technical Proposal
CC Compliance Report
FR Compliance Report
Event #1
Issue call for proposals
Event #4
“All?” Proposals
Presented in TGn Session
Events
Bruce Kraemer, Conexant

13. Strawpoll Which time line option is preferred?
Opt 1 – begin presentations in July
Opt 2 – begin presentations in Sept – long review
Opt 3 – begin presentations in Sept – long prep
Bruce Kraemer, Conexant

14. Further Planning- Today to May
This session
No official sessions beyond 3:30 pm could be added (5 activity limit, no slots released)
However, room facilities are available for discussion of CCs, UMs, etc
Ensures continuity, Preferable to conf call, continue with straw poll process
Formal/final Voting in May
Interim WG session may be proposed for April during closing plenary
Poll: Those who would likely participate:
Would try
No way
FRCC continues and will schedule teleconferences as authorized in September ( )
Motion to form a Functional Requirements and Comparison Criteria (FRCC) special committee that is chartered ton draft the n FRCC documents per the n Selection Procedure by Colin Lanzl and seconded by Bjorn Bjerke.
Motion to enable the TGn Channel Model Special Committee and the TGn Functional Requirements and Comparison Criteria Special Committee to hold conference calls after the September 2003 sessions and until their work is completed by Colin Lanzl and seconded by Srini Kandala was adopted by unanimous consent
Bruce Kraemer, Conexant

15. May Plans Complete CCs as necessary Complete Usage Models
Confirm time line up to “Start presentations”
Reset projections to publication
Complete Call for Proposals letter
Receive presentations
Bruce Kraemer, Conexant