110 likes | 112 Views
This document provides an overview of the process followed by the Mesh Networking Task Group, including the adoption of PAR and 5 criteria, technical presentations and discussions, the selection and combination of proposals, and the refinement of drafts.
E N D
Mesh NetworkingTask Group Process Donald E. Eastlake 3rd <Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com> <dee3@torque.pothole.com> +1-508-786-7554 ESS MESH FREE IEEE 802.11 the APs Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola
Generic Process of Getting toLetter Ballot • Adoption of PAR and 5 Criteria • Technical Presentations and Discussions • Specify Any Additional Requirements and Comparison Criteria • Call For Proposals • Select/Combine from Submitted Complete/Partial Proposals to Produce a Draft • Refine Draft • Letter Ballot Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola
802.11 Example Project Histories (Figure above by Bruce Kramer.) 11s 24-Jun-04 May/July 05 Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola
Goals for July 2004 MeetingAdopted By ESS Mesh SG in May • July (Portland, Oregon) • Adopt Initial Definitions document • Usage Cases and Functional Requirements discussion • Architecture Presentations • Other ad-hoc subgroup results and Presentations • Joint Meeting with 802.11r, etc. Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola
Future Schedule as Discussedat May 2004 Meeting • September 2004 (Berlin, German) • Adopt Functional Requirements / Evaluation Criteria document • Approve Skeleton “Draft” 0.0 • Other ad-hoc subgroup results • Call for Proposals issued immediately after meeting with deadline for submission of two weeks before the November meeting. • November 2004 (San Antonio, Texas) • Presentation of Proposals • January 2005 (Monterey, California) • Condensation of Proposals -> Draft 0.1 • March 2005 (Atlanta, Georgia) • Refinement of Draft • (May 2005 (Sydney, Australia) • Letter Ballot Authorized?) Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola
Ad Hoc Subgroups andInternal TGs Actions • Ad Hoc Subgroups • Have no special status unless TGs votes on them or their output. • Any group of 802.11 members can get together and make submissions. • Within the P&Ps (RRONR, notice for meetings and Teleconferences), we can do what we want internally: • “Adopted” internal TGs motions/documents can be amended by majority with notice (i.e., if change is on agenda) or 2/3 vote without notice. • We can issue a call for proposals • With no requirements other than the PAR & 5 Criteria • With some guidelines • With detailed requirements • We can have “Functional Requirements Document” that is a general or specific as we like. Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola
Ad Hoc Subgroups • Informal ad-hoc subgroups: • Usage Cases – coordinator Steve Conner <w.steven.conner@intel.com> • “Usage Models”, 11-04/764r1 and 11-04/662r7 • Definitions – coordinator Tricci So <tricciso@tadiantzone.com> • “Draft Terms and Definitions for 802.11s”, 11-04/730r1 • Informants re Other 802.11 standards/drafts/study groups • 802.1ae, 802.1af /Security – coordinator Bob Moskowitz <rgm@trusecure.com> • “802.11s Security Proposal”, 11-04/777r0 • 802.11k, 802.11h /Radio Resources/Metrics – coordinator • WNM, CAPWAP /Management – coordinator Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola
Ad Hoc Subgroups • Informal ad-hoc subgroups (cont.): • Routing – coordinator Tyan-Shu Jou <tsjou@janusysnetworks.com> • “802.11s Routing Sub-Group Discussion on May 04”, 11-04/765r0 • Quality of Service – coordinator Lily Yang • Security – coordinator Jasmeet Chhabra <jasmeet.chhabra@intel.com> • The above groups may be using the following wiki page: • http://ieee.comnets.rwth-aachen.de/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?/AdHocGroups Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola
Ad Hoc Subgroups • Some Possible Dispositions of Subgroup Output Documents (as amended if desired) • No action • Include in a TGs adopted “Recommended Reading List” • Adopt as an internal working paper • Adopt as mandatory for proposal conformance Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola
Calling for Proposals in September? • If a call for proposals is to be issued shortly after the September meeting, we should issue a warning at this meeting that we plan to do that. • Proposals obviously must conform to the PAR and 5 Criteria. • Will we have a Functional Requirements or Evaluation Criteria Document? • What other documents, if any, should be referenced by the Call for Proposals? Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola
Possibilities to Accelerate TGs • Possibilities for TGs Between July and September Meetings to accelerate action on, for example, a Functional Requirements document: • Nothing • One Teleconference • Ad-hoc face to face meeting (requires 30 days notice) • Multiple Teleconferences (requires 10 days notice) Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola