Inputs for a VHT Selection Procedure

1. Inputs for a VHT Selection Procedure Authors: Date: 2008-11-10 De Vegt (Qualcomm)

2. Inputs for a VHT Selection ProcedureSubmission for the November 2008 IEEE Joint 802.11 VHT Group Meeting in Dallas, TX De Vegt (Qualcomm)

3. Abstract This submission provides an overview of the Selection Procedure followed by Taskgroup 802.11n A strawmodel for a Selection Procedure based on an alternative, ‘Organic’ proposal development process is presented De Vegt (Qualcomm)

4. Topics • Context and Introduction • Overview 802.11n Selection Procedure • Recap Alterative Proposal Development Process • Implications for Selection Procedure • Proposed Next Steps De Vegt (Qualcomm)

5. Context and Introduction • The 802.11 VHT Taskgroups will have to develop a Selection Procedure for their respective proposals • The Selection Process followed for 802.11n was the cause of significant delays • Purpose of this document is: • Provide a recap of the 802.11n selection process • Provide a recap of an alternative Proposal Development Process • Highlight the implications for an 802.11VHT Selection Procedure and present a strawmodel of a Selection Procedure for VHT Taskgroups • Propose a set of next steps De Vegt (Qualcomm)

6. Topics • Context and Introduction • Overview 802.11n Selection Procedure • Recap Alterative Proposal Development Process • Implications for Selection Procedure • Proposed Next Steps De Vegt (Qualcomm)

7. Recap .11n Selection Procedure • In the case of .11n Multiple Documents were created in preparation for the call for proposals and downselect process: • Usage Models (IEEE802.11-03/0802r23) • Functional Requirements (IEEE802.11-03/0813r13) • Channel Models (IEEE802.11-03/0940r4) • Comparison Criteria (IEEE802.11-03/814r31) • Selection Procedure (IEEE802.11-03/665r8) De Vegt (Qualcomm)

8. Example Functional Requirements Name Requirement De Vegt (Qualcomm)

9. Example Comparison Criteria Simulation Scenario /Impairement Mand /Optional Name Definition Status Notes Disclosure De Vegt (Qualcomm)

10. .11n Selection Procedure Channel Models Usage Models Functional Requirements ComparisonCriteria Call for Proposals Step 2 Next Slide De Vegt (Qualcomm)

11. .11n Selection Procedure 75%? De Vegt (Qualcomm)

12. Topics • Context and Introduction • Overview 802.11n Selection Procedure • Recap Alterative Proposal Development Process • Implications for Selection Procedure • Proposed Next Steps De Vegt (Qualcomm)

13. Outline of an Alternative Process* • Taskgroup develops consensus around a framework for spec elements • Aim is to achieve consensus, potentially using simple majority voting when needed • See next slides for examples from .11n • Taskgroup votes to approve a document that describes all spec elements, with the intent that this solidifies the scope of the new specification • Participants create proposals for one or more spec elements • Could in theory cover all Spec Elements (i.e. ‘Complete Proposal’) but not necessarily • Once the Taskgroup has a coherent enough solution for all spec elements, a vote takes place to send the draft spec out for Letterballot * Proposal Outlined in document 08/0579r1 De Vegt (Qualcomm)

14. Example of Framework for Spec Elements (.11n PHY) Illustrative Encoder Puncturer Parser Interleaver QAM Mapper Antenna Mapper iFFT Window & GI RF Pilot Preamble Agreed upon Under discussion De Vegt (Qualcomm)

15. Example of Framework for Spec Elements (.11n MAC) Illustrative De Vegt (Qualcomm)

16. Key Benefits of Proposed Approach • Emphasis on consensus building • Technology selection based on technical merits • Fair and balanced consideration of which elements to include in the spec • Equal access for all participants to contribute technically sound elements to the specification • Decision process favors a single solution for a problem over multiple alternative solutions De Vegt (Qualcomm)

17. Topics • Context and Introduction • Overview 802.11n Selection Procedure • Recap Alterative Proposal Development Process • Implications for Selection Procedure • Proposed Next Steps De Vegt (Qualcomm)

18. Impacts of ‘Organic Proposal Development Process on Selection Procedure’ • Emphasis on developing and creating consensus around a Spec Framework • Functional Requirements document still a necessary and important step to solidify the requirements for the new specification • Compared to the process followed for .11n, less emphasis needed on Use Case Generation, Simulation Scenarios and Comparison Criteria* * Propose to add system level performance targets and simulation instructions to the Functional Requirements document De Vegt (Qualcomm)

19. Strawmodel VHT TG Selection Procedure Channel Models Usage Models Functional Requirements* SpecificationFramework Draft SpecComplete andCoherent Enoughfor Letter Ballot?75%?) Contributions and DecisionMaking on Spec Element(s) SufficientSupport forFramework?(50%? or 75%?) 75% Y Y Letter Ballot N N * Functional requirement document to include System Level Performance Targets and Simulation Instructions Note: This proposal does not foresee any changes to the subsequent steps in the IEEE procedure (Letter Ballots, Sponsor Ballots) De Vegt (Qualcomm)

20. Topics • Context and Introduction • Overview 802.11n Selection Procedure • Recap Alterative Proposal Development Process • Implications for Selection Procedure • Proposed Next Steps De Vegt (Qualcomm)

21. Proposed Next Steps • Strawpoll on support for proposed process in principle • Determine whether both VHT groups want to follow the same (new) Selection procedure • Create first draft of a VHT Selection Procedure • Begin construction of an initial Specification Framework? De Vegt (Qualcomm)

22. Strawpoll • Do you support the concept of creating a Selection Procedure for VHT along the lines outlined in slide 19? De Vegt (Qualcomm)