100 likes | 256 Views
Summary of 802.16m Development Process. Authors:. Date: 2008-11-12. Abstract. This presentation summarizes the documents and process used in the IEEE 802.16m development. Outline. Motivation/Background 802.16m Documents under development Latest 802.16m Timelines
E N D
Summary of 802.16m Development Process Authors: Date: 2008-11-12 Jose Puthenkulam (Intel)
Abstract This presentation summarizes the documents and process used in the IEEE 802.16m development Jose Puthenkulam (Intel)
Outline • Motivation/Background • 802.16m Documents under development • Latest 802.16m Timelines • 802.16m Development Process Jose Puthenkulam (Intel)
Motivation/Background • Early on in 802.16m, there was strong desire for having a predictable standard development schedule as per the PAR period (<=4 years) • Targeting IMT-Advanced Project required us to have a plan that helped us get us started without waiting for ITU-R IMT-Adv. requirements/supporting document completion • Plan was to make sure we review ITU-R IMT-Advanced documents when they were ready and adapt any 802.16m documents if needed. Jose Puthenkulam (Intel)
802.16m Documents • P802.16m PAR and Five Criteria Statement • Project Authorization: Scope, Purpose, deadline, etc. • Project 802.16m Work Plan • Timeline • Project 802.16m System Requirements Document (SRD) • High-level system requirements for 802.16m project (“Stage 1”) • Project 802.16m System Description Document (SDD) • System level description based on the SRD (“Stage 2”) • Architectural Stage of development. All major functional components and features are identified • Project 802.16m Evaluation Methodology Document (EMD) • Link-level and System-level simulation models and parameters • Draft 802.16m standard • “Stage 3” • Development started in November 2008 Jose Puthenkulam (Intel)
IMT Advanced Proposal Circular Letter IMT.EVAL IMT.TECH System Requirements System Description 802.16m AmendmentŦ Evaluation Methodology Q1 Q1 Q1 Q2 Q2 Q2 Q3 Q3 Q3 Q4 Q4 Q4 May Apr Mar Feb Oct Dec Dec Nov Sep Aug Jun May Apr Mar Feb Jan Dec Oct Jul Jun Jul Aug Sep Jul Jun Jan Feb May Jun Jul Sep May Dec Oct Nov Jan Nov Oct Apr Mar Apr Sep Initial P. Jun May Jun Jul Feb Sep Aug Nov May Apr Apr Apr Feb Jan May Dec Mar Jan Oct Jun Jul Oct Apr May Dec Jan Jun Sep Sep Oct Mar Dec Nov Aug Oct Sep Aug Mar Dec Nov Jul Feb Aug Aug Aug Nov Jul Nov Final Proposal Develop Recommendation Letter Ballot Sponsor Ballot Proposal Submission Refinements Working Doc Proposal Evaluation & Consensus Building Call for SDD details issued in Jul ’08 IMT.RADIO 2007 2010 2008 2009 First Call for Proposals for SDD issued in Sept ‘07 Q2 Q3 Q4 ITU-R IMT Advanced IEEE 802.16 Sep ’07* IEEE 802.16m Jan’08* Nov ’07 Nov 08* ITU based Updates Jan ’09 Sept ’09* Nov ’08 Mar ’09 Sep ’09 Mar ’10 Jun ’08 Finalized Jun ’08 ITU based Updates Oct ’08 Jan’09 Oct ’09 Jun ’10 ITU-R WP5D 3 *System Requirements and Evaluation Methodology, System Description, IMT-Advanced Proposal Documents may be further updated based on ITU output (shown by dotted lines). Ŧ 802.16m amendment is dependent on the 802.16Rev2 Project completion Latest 802.16m Timelines (From 802.16m-08/001r2) Jose Puthenkulam (Intel)
802.16m Development Process (1/3) Meeting X Meeting X+1 Meeting X+2 Meeting X+3 • Call for Contributions for Select Topics of Document under development • Contributions Assigned to Topic based RGs • RG/Adhoc Chairs Appointed • RG/Adhoc discusses contributions • Consensus RG/Adhoc text proposed to TGm for adoption • RG/Adhoc meets to finalize text for sections. • RG/Adhoc Proposes final text to TGm for adoption. • Call for comments issued • Comments are categorized • Comments are resolved • RG/Adhoc continues Harmonization by Email between meetings • Email reflector and also Documents Areas provided for this purpose This process repeats till the document or section is considered complete RG – Rapporteur Groups TGm Chair and RG Co-ordinator provide additional process guidance as needed Jose Puthenkulam (Intel)
802.16m Development Process (2/3) • RG Chairs are technical experts who consider all the input contributions and make specific technical text to TGm for adoption • At the outset, the RG based on the topic may set some design requirements and evaluation criteria for facilitating decisions • All evaluations have to be compliant with the EMD baseline, but additional simulation criteria maybe defined for evaluating the proposals • RG will try to down select a proposal based on the performance • In the RGs the consensus text requires 75% for adoption • If the RG fails to agree, they present the few options to select from and down selection happens in TGm Jose Puthenkulam (Intel)
802.16m Development Process (3/3) • In the Document commenting process, if the document is not under change control, one requires only simple majority (ie > 50%) to change the document • Once document is under change control, 75% is required to modify text. Change request type comments are required for this purpose • Change Requests are only approved in TGm plenaries • No balloting planned for Task Group internal documents (SRD, EMD, SDD) except for the Draft Standard Jose Puthenkulam (Intel)
Closing Thoughts • Having a clear work plan with milestones will be very helpful • Clear design requirements and evaluation criteria will facilitate easier proposal selection Jose Puthenkulam (Intel)