July, 2000

1. July, 2000 Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [TG3 Evaluation Process Flow Chart] Date Submitted: [13 July 2000] Source: [James D. Allen] Company [Eastman Kodak Co.] Address [66 Eastman Ave. Rochester, NY 14650-2015] Voice:[(716) 227-6346], FAX: [(716) 722-9053], E-Mail:[james.d .allen@kodak.com] Re: [Call for Proposal Evaluation.ref 00110r10P802.15] [Proposal Eval Form.ref 00226r2P802.15] [Pugh Selection Process Clarification.ref 00230r0P802.15] Abstract: [Flow chart of how the criteria will be used to evaluate proposals] Purpose: [This document communicates the results of TG3 discussions on how to evaluate the proposal submissions.] Notice: This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE P802.15. 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 acknowledges and accepts that this contribution becomes the property of IEEE and may be made publicly available by P802.15. Slide 1 James D. Allen, Eastman Kodak Co.

2. July, 2000 Process Flow Chart for P802.15.3 Proposals Slide 2 James D. Allen, Eastman Kodak Co.

3. July, 2000 • This process was designed around several concerns expressed by TG participants: • Allow concepts to merge and optimize, • Need to hear all presentations before vote even if materials are available in advance (Q/A sessions) • Need to reduce number of options quickly and fairly • Need to use TG3’s joint expertise efficiently • Need to be able to consider new criteria • Need to have a streamlined process compatible with informed voters, short schedules and conference calls • Need to prevent getting lost in the process rather than focused on the goal Slide 3 James D. Allen, Eastman Kodak Co.

4. July, 2000 Update - Process details - July meeting • Proposal evaluation submission for voters: • Fill in evaluation “scores” in 00226r2P802-15_TG3-Proposal-Eval-Form (in the Excel file). Unknowns = “Same” • Rename the file according to the following convention:00226r2P802-15_TG3-<last name first initial> (no spaces)Example: 00226r2P802-15_TG3-evansn Slide 4 James D. Allen, Eastman Kodak Co.

5. By July 21, midnight EDT, email the file as an attachment to the following addresses:james.d.allen@kodak.com Nick.Evans@motorola.com kinneypw@norand.com • Results will be posted to web and notification will be sent to List Server.

6. File Submission to TG3 Secretary, Copy to Chair Evaluation worksheets are passed out @ July Meeting Submitter Presents at July IEEE Meeting July, 2000 Secretary: Assigns Document Number if missing Verifies Format and Copyright Release Scans for meeting PAR- do not assign number if doc does not meet intent of the Call Scans for Self Rating Section Verify slot in July calendar Notify Alfvin or Gifford for web matrix Forward presentations to Gifford for posting Remind Submitter of presentation date/time and request any missing data Updates Chair on status [All presentations and support documents are available on or before July 7.] Beginning of July Meeting One Pugh matrix per submission is passed out to each voter before each presentation session This evaluation is for “first order” ranking of submissions Voters may evaluate a presentation only if they are present for the session (a session my have >1 presentation) Evaluation sheets are handed in at end of each session (note: Retext has changed) Slide 5 James D. Allen, Eastman Kodak Co.

7. Rank order all Presentations Criteria Changes and Con Call Plans Conference Call Analysis Cycle July, 2000 Voters rate relative (+,same,-) for each criteria during presentation Voters to convert self rating details to general Pugh ratings Weighting is applied in Pugh tool to help separate criteria value Reference value for each criteria item used as reference (all proposals rated relative to this) (These values are from P802.15-00/110r10 or above.) Evaluate any proposals to change Criteria Vote on changes Thursday - has to be during open session Request reassessment of any new criteria proposed by any submitters Publish Con Call discussion schedule (week following July meeting) Vote to enable TG3 to make binding decisions at September interim meeting if quorum exist. End of July Meeting Proposal eval files submitted by July 28, midnight EDT Proposals are put in order of rating; results compiled and reported before Aug 1st conference call Order will determine evaluation order (time to hear, think, discuss is needed prior to a first sort vote) Conference Call discussions of all proposals Focus on filling in matrix, asking questions, Evaluation sequence is in order of ranking vote Pugh “+same-” evaluation will be completed Evaluate Mac and PHY separate- each containing Systems sections and combinations or improvements of proposals to encourage best solution for final proposal - Activated Phy Mac Sys Committees No Mac or PHY exist alone. PHY-only or Mac-only submissions must be paired for final vote in Sept. Evaluate Pugh to combine best MACs and PHY combos. Slide 6 James D. Allen, Eastman Kodak Co.

8. Next level of Sort Reduce to one PHY/Mac Begin Draft Standard July, 2000 Beginning Sept. Meeting Review matrix and analysis results and vote on acceptance of work. Vote on which proposals to pursue: 1- Use master evaluation document which is the matrix from doc: 00110r11-P802.15 as the reference. 2- Each voter rates all proposals in order of preference - each proposal is given a number of their order (first choice is 1, etc) 3- Votes are tallied, results are presented and sanity check done informally 4- Top half stays in, bottom half is excused. 5- Top half has the opportunity to discuss differences to clarify 6- Vote is taken again Establish method for reducing remaining proposals to final drafts for PHY/MAC 1- review criteria and weighting for final selection 2- rate each remaining proposal based on final criteria 3- determine proposal differences and evaluate against PAR, and criteria 4- vote to determine final proposal for PHY/MAC Create baseline PHY/MAC drafts from results Slide 7 James D. Allen, Eastman Kodak Co.