November 2006 doc IEEE 802 22 060241 r

November 2006 doc. : IEEE 802. 22 -06/0241 r 0 Moving Forward at Dallas Plenary Meeting IEEE P 802. 22 Wireless RANs Date: 2006 -11 -10 Authors: Notice: This document has been prepared to assist IEEE 802. 22. 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 802. 22. Patent Policy and Procedures: The contributor is familiar with the IEEE 802 Patent Policy and Procedures http: //standards. ieee. 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 Carl R. Stevenson 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 802. 22 Working Group. If you have questions, contact the IEEE Patent Committee Administrator at patcom@iee. org. > Submission 1 Carl R. Stevenson, WK 3 C Wireless LLC

November 2006 doc. : IEEE 802. 22 -06/0241 r 0 Discussion Items • Project timeline reminder • Proposal to restructure the v 0. 1 working document to promote efficiency in commenting and to allow parallelism in the comment resolution process • Proposal to parallelize the comment resolution process • Proposal to prioritize the manner in which comments are to be resolved • Proposed procedure for resolving comments • Motions on how to proceed Submission 2 Carl R. Stevenson, WK 3 C Wireless LLC

November 2006 doc. : IEEE 802. 22 -06/0241 r 0 Project Timeline Reminder/Realities • Goal was to go to WG Ballot in January 2007 and Sponsor Ballot in July 2007 (See “Project Timeline” March 2006, document 22 -06 -0021 r 1) • WG Ballot likely to slip to March 2007, but could still hold the schedule to be ready for Sponsor Ballot by July 2007 – IF everyone works diligently and cooperatively. – Due to regulatory timelines/realities, the group should be prepared to go to WG Ballot, Sponsor Ballot, and publishing of the 1 st generation of the 802. 22 Standard as a basic standard that meets the essential requirements but lacks a full complement of “bells and whistles” features with the intent of adding such optional features later through one or more amendments Submission 3 Carl R. Stevenson, WK 3 C Wireless LLC

November 2006 doc. : IEEE 802. 22 -06/0241 r 0 Proposal to Restructure Document • • Propose to restructure document 22 -06 -0067 r 1 (v 0. 1) to create a v 0. 2 working document to promote efficiency in commenting and editing and to allow parallelism in the comment resolution process Structure of the document to be revised to include clauses in the following order (not counting IEEE required clauses) as follows: – – – – • General (1. x Overview; 2. x Normative References; 3. x General Definitions; 4. x Abbreviations and Acronyms; 5. x Parameter Definitions MAC (6. x mandatory features) Security (7. x mandatory features) PHY (8. x mandatory features) Sensing (9. x mandatory features) Geolocation/Database (10. x mandatory features) Normative Annexes (e. g A-Z as required, optional features) Informative Annexes (e. g. AA-ZZ as required) The key work here is to move non-mandatory features (see document 22 -06 -0200 r 1) to the Normative Annexes so that comment resolution and editorial work can focus on the mandatory features first (and also to make the document more readable) Submission 4 Carl R. Stevenson, WK 3 C Wireless LLC

November 2006 doc. : IEEE 802. 22 -06/0241 r 0 Proposal to add Parallelism to the Comment Resolution process • In order to execute and expedite the comment resolution process defined in document #22 -06 -0041 r 0, the following “ad-hoc” groups should be tasked to prepare suggested comment resolutions and batch these resolutions into motions, so that the WG can approve the resolutions and so the WG editor can implement the resolutions: – – – Submission PHY MAC Sensing Geolocation/Database General (i. e. either none of the above or a multiplicity of the above, plus CA document, etc. ) 5 Carl R. Stevenson, WK 3 C Wireless LLC

November 2006 doc. : IEEE 802. 22 -06/0241 r 0 Proposal to Prioritize the Comments to be Resolved • In order to further expedite comment resolution process, the “ad-hoc” groups shall first prioritize the comments and then schedule the work on the resolutions to the comments in the following order of priority: – Editorial • 0. Assigned to WG editor who, if he agrees the comment is editorial, is empowered to implement the suggested resolution (otherwise he will transfer it to one of the technical ad hocs for resolution). – Technical • 1. “Holes in the Draft” (i. e. comments which address a deficiency in the draft specified by the Functional Requirements Document) • 2. Mandatory features of a Single-Channel System (i. e. allows for “staging” the standard, e. g. 802. 16 d followed by 802. 16 e; or 802. 11 b followed by 802. 11 g and 802. 11 n) • 3. “Green and red” topics from document 22 -06 -0200 -01 -0000 • 4. Optional Features in the Annexes according to the ”yellow, salmon, and grey” topics from document 22 -06 -0200 -01 -0000 • 5. Other Technical Features not in the Draft (Comments should cite posted submissions with normative text as well as any other posted supporting material. ) Submission 6 Carl R. Stevenson, WK 3 C Wireless LLC

November 2006 doc. : IEEE 802. 22 -06/0241 r 0 Proposed Procedure for Resolving a Comment (p 1 of 2) • “Ad-hoc” groups provide “Resolutions” and record them in the comment database. By majority, the “Ad-hoc” chooses one of the following resolution types: – Accept the commenter’s “Suggested Resolution” as the ad-hoc’s “Resolution” in the spreadsheet. – Reject the “Comment” and “Suggested Resolution”, and record the reason in the “Resolution” field. – AP (Accept in Principle) and provide “actionable text” for the editor to resolve the Comment in the “Resolution” field. – Defer the Comment for a future (assigned) submission, or future discussion, or for a vote by the WG body. – Transfer the Comment to one of the other “ad-hoc”s – X Duplicate of another Comment Submission 7 Carl R. Stevenson, WK 3 C Wireless LLC

November 2006 doc. : IEEE 802. 22 -06/0241 r 0 Proposed Procedure for Resolving a Comment (p 2 of 2) • “Ad-hoc” groups record the vote of the Resolution in the comment database: – Unanimous (100%): Typically, unanimous comment resolutions are “batched” together by the “ad-hoc” into a single motion and approved by the WG. – Strong Majority (>=75%): Typically, these comments resolutions are “batched” together by the “ad-hoc” into another motion and approved by the WG. Since these resolutions are not unanimous, there is an opportunity at the WG level for the dissenters to have the objectional resolution voted upon separately from the rest of the motion. – Majority (>=50%) Because the “ad-hoc” does not reach a strong majority, these resolutions are typically voted upon separately at the WG-level. • “Ad-hoc” group can work on comment resolutions in weekly teleconferences, or in face-to-face “ad-hoc meetings”, or in “premeetings”, or in break-out sessions during the 802. 22 meetings. Submission 8 Carl R. Stevenson, WK 3 C Wireless LLC

November 2006 doc. : IEEE 802. 22 -06/0241 r 0 Motion #1: • Motion: Move to reaffirm the process of document 22 -06 -0041 r 0 “Process Advancing the work of the WG” 1 as the guidelines for modifying the WG document P 802 -22 -0067 r. X. doc with the expectation that the document will be ready to go to formal WG Ballot by the end of the March 2007 session. Moved: Seconded: – Yes – No – Abstain 1 Posted Submission in the ieee 802. org/22 “Meeting Documents” area for March 2006 9 Carl R. Stevenson, WK 3 C Wireless LLC

November 2006 doc. : IEEE 802. 22 -06/0241 r 0 Motion #2: • Motion: Move to adopt the proposed document restructuring and comment resolution procedure described in Slides 4 to 8: Moved: Seconded: • Yes • No • Abstain Submission 10 Carl R. Stevenson, WK 3 C Wireless LLC

November 2006 doc. : IEEE 802. 22 -06/0241 r 0 Detailed Project Timeline Reminder • November 2006 – Restructure Document to v 0. 2 – Start informal comment cycle • January 2007 – Comment resolution – Recirculation(s) • March 2007 – Final comment resolution – V 1. 0 to formal WG Ballot • May – Resolve comments – Recirulation(s) • July 2007 – Finish comment resolution – Seek permission to go to Sponsor Ballot Submission 11 Carl R. Stevenson, WK 3 C Wireless LLC