1 / 13

Mesh Networking Task Group Process

Learn about the detailed process of the Mesh Networking Task Group in IEEE 802.11 standards development, including PAR approval, proposal selection, and ballot timelines.

pedrojohnson
Download Presentation

Mesh Networking Task Group Process

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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 Laboratories

  2. Generic Process of Getting toLetter Ballot • Adoption of PAR and 5 Criteria • Technical Presentations and Discussions • Specify Any Additional Requirements or Comparison Criteria • Call For Proposals • Select/Combine from Submitted Complete/Partial Proposals to Produce a Draft • Refine Draft • Letter Ballot Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola Laboratories

  3. 802.11 Project Timelines • Time from PAR approval to first Letter Ballot – average of 6.6 meetings / 13 months • TGe-7, TGf-7, TGg-9, TGh-4, TGi-6 • Time from first Letter Ballot to first Sponsor Ballot – average of 9 meetings / 18 months • TGe-12, TGf-9, TGg-6, TGh-8, TGi-10 • Our PAR approval was 24 June 2004 • At the average pace for these Task Groups, our first Letter Ballot would open in July 2005 and our first Sponsor Ballot in January 2007. • Things will happen slower than we aim for. Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola Laboratories

  4. Future Schedule Discussed atJuly Meeting in Portland • September 2004 (Berlin, German) • Discuss Functional Requirements / Evaluation Criteria document • Usage Models and Requirements • Routing • QoS/MAC Enhacements • Security • Definitions • November 2004 (San Antonio, TX) • Call for Proposals issued immediately after meeting with deadline for submission of two weeks before the March meeting • January 2005 (Monterey, CA) Presentations including Proposals • March 2005 (Atlanta, GA) Presentation and Selection from Proposals • May 2005 (Sydney, Australia) Refinement of Draft • July 2005 (San Francisco, CA) Letter Ballot Authorized Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola Laboratories

  5. 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 Policies and Procedures (11-04/510r0), we can do what we want internally: • “Adopted” internal TGs motions/documents can be amended • We can issue a call for proposals • With no requirements other than the PAR & 5 Criteria • With general requirements • With detailed requirements and evaluation criteria • We can have “Functional Requirements” document that is as general or specific as we like. Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola Laboratories

  6. Informal Ad Hoc Subgroups • Definitions – coordinator Tricci So <tso@nortelnetworks.com> • “Draft Terms and Definitions for 802.11s”, 11-04/969r2 • Usage Cases – coordinator Steve Conner <w.steven.conner@intel.com> • “Usage Models”, 11-04/662r10 • Scope – coordinator Tricci So <tso@nortelnetworks.com> • “Proposed 802.11 TGs Scope”, 11-04/970r1 • Quality of Service / 802.11e – coordinator Lily Yang <lily.l.yang@intel.com> • “Issues for Mesh Media Access Coordination Component in 11s (v03)”, 11-04/968r4 Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola Laboratories

  7. Informal Ad Hoc Subgroups (cont.) • Security / 802.11i, 802.1ae, 802.1af – coordinators Jasmeet Chhabra <jasmeet.chhabra@intel.com>, Bob Moskowitz <rgm@trusecure.com> • Routing – coordinator Tyan-Shu Jou <tsjou@janusysnetworks.com> • Other • 802.11k, 802.11h /Radio Resources/Metrics – coordinator • WNM, CAPWAP /Management – coordinator Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola Laboratories

  8. July 2004 Straw Poll onInformal Group Submissions Status • What should be the status of relevant submissions from informal groups if a majority of TGs agrees with the submission? • Strongly included as part of call for proposals – 12 • Adopted as internal working documents – 29 • Included on a TGs recommended reading list – 3 • No special status – 2 Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola Laboratories

  9. Calling for Proposals in November • If a call for proposals is to be issued shortly after the November 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 Laboratories

  10. July 2004 Straw Poll onWhen to call for Proposals • What is the current feeling of TGs as to when we should call for proposals? In favor/against vote on each: • July 2004 – 3-31 • September 2004 – 10-28 • November 2004 – 16-10 • January 2005 – 8-1 • Should the call for proposals require that they be complete? 18-19 (almost a tie) • How long should the window be for submitting proposals? • 2 months – 2 • 4 months – 17 • 6 months – 10 Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola Laboratories

  11. July 2004 Straw Poll onNumber of Proposers • If a TGs call for proposals was issued right after the September meeting with a deadline shortly before the November meeting, how many would submit a proposal? • Reasonably certain – 4 • 50/50 – 10 • Might but probably not – 3 • If call was issued after November meeting with deadline before the January meeting? • Reasonably certain – 13 • 50/50 – 4 • Might but probably not – 4 Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola Laboratories

  12. Possibilities to Accelerate TGs • Possibilities for TGs Activity Between September and November Meetings to accelerate action : • One Teleconference • Ad-hoc face to face meeting (requires 30 days notice (P&P clause 3.6.2)) • Multiple Teleconferences (require 10 days notice, cannot be held more often than weekly (P&P clause 3.6.3)) Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola Laboratories

  13. Future Schedule? • November 2004 (San Antonio, TX) • Polish up Call for Proposals, any Functional Requirements or other documents referenced in the Call for Proposals. • Call for Proposals issued immediately after meeting with deadline for submission of two weeks before the March meeting. • January 2005 (Monterey, CA) Presentations • March 2005 (Atlanta, GA) Presentation of Proposals and some Selection from Proposals • May 2005 (Sydney, Australia) Derivation of a Draft • July 2005 (San Francisco, CA) Further Refinement of Draft, Letter Ballot Authorized by WG? • September 2005 (TBD) Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola Laboratories

More Related