January 2004 doc IEEE 802 11 04xxxr 0

January 2004 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/xxxr 0 A Postmodern Critique of the Comparison Criteria or We’re in Deep Trouble if We Don’t Change Our Ways John M. Kowalski Sharp Labs Submission 1 John M Kowalski, Sharp Labs

January 2004 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/xxxr 0 The Problem • There may be some misunderstanding about what the CC really are, and how we will really use them eventually. • Hence this presentation. • Full Disclosure: My axes to grind: – While I’m here as an individual, of course, as an individual, I support my company’s business interests in 802. 11. That means: • Early time to market • No heavy IPR encumbrances • Useful for a wide variety of consumer markets. Submission 2 John M Kowalski, Sharp Labs

January 2004 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/xxxr 0 Some Facts about 802. 11 and Deconstructing the CC • Historically, the solution that works well enough – NOT the perfect one- will win. This probably has to do with many individuals having somewhat similar interests to mine. • There are unstated “comparison criteria” for many individuals that won’t make its way into the CC, but WILL influence or determine their selection of a proposal: – – – Submission Is it good for my company? Will it waste millions of dollars/euros/yen we’ve already invested? Can I get this from my vendors/Can I sell this early? Does this affect agreements my company already has in place? Will accepting this proposal speed up or delay the standard? 3 John M Kowalski, Sharp Labs

January 2004 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/xxxr 0 More Facts about 802. 11 and Deconstructing the CC • Naturally, these are not objective criteria but, in the end these are probably MUCH more important than anything we’re going to put into the document. • The CC, at the end of the day only deal with specific technical items in the proposal- BUT these only have a MARGINAL effect on the REAL selection. The business aspects of the technical solution are what is PRIVILGED here. • Even technical “objective” results can always be disputed, deconstructed, critiqued, and ignored. • The CC do not force any voter to vote any way at all. No matter what’s in them. • The standardization process is not a research project. It’s for people to create standards so companies can make money. Submission 4 John M Kowalski, Sharp Labs

January 2004 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/xxxr 0 Suggestions (as in “I suggest you use a parachute if you jump out a plane. ”) • CC should ONLY be present if they can be expected to exhibit a particular, important behavior between 2 or more proposals that IS NOT covered elsewhere. If it can be inferred – even roughly – elsewhere it’s not needed. • We still need to cut out particular criteria. • When in doubt, throw it out. • If we don’t do this we WILL create another religious war. Submission 5 John M Kowalski, Sharp Labs