| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
I am forwarding this note that I sent to the 802.11
reflector because I believe that as a group we (802.20) should come to agreement
as to how we will be using our requirements document and when we should consider
it complete. I invite further discussion and hope that this minor
contribution will assist our process.
Best regards,
Robert D. Love
President, LAN Connect Consultants 7105 Leveret Circle Raleigh, NC 27615 Phone: 919 848-6773 Mobile: 919 810-7816 email: rdlove@ieee.org Fax: 208 978-1187 ----- Original Message -----
From: Robert D. Love
To: 802.11
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 8:30 AM
Subject: 802.11 TGr - Use of the Requirements Document This note is a follow-up to our conference call
this morning. I presented my thoughts on how we should be using the
requirements document and was asked to write that out and post it. Here it
is. Others within and outside of TGr are invited to respond with their
affirmations or contradictions. I believe that it is important that as a
group, we have a clear understanding and consensus of how we will be using the
requirements document we generate.
The requirements document for 802.11 TGr has two
primary purposes: (1) Aid in the elimination and selection of technologies
that we will choose, and (2) Be used as a benchmark against which we will
measure the draft we develop to assure its fulfillment of those
requirements. The document will consist of those sections and requirements
that we reach consensus on (75% or more of those voting approve or
disapprove). Therefore, it may be missing requirements that many people
believe should be contained in the document. Hopefully these additional
requirements, not stated in the document, will be addressed by at least some of
the proposals we receive, and may be heavily weighed by some in casting their
vote on a technology choice. Unless the document specifically excludes
some capability as "out of scope", there is no inference that other capabilities
may not be or should not be contained in the proposals. However, these
additional capabilities are no substitute for the requirements contained in the
document, which must be met.
With this understanding in mind, we should be
looking to issue our "call for proposals" when the requirements document is
sufficiently complete. It will likely never be complete in everyone's
view. By sufficiently complete I mean that we have as a Task Group had the
opportunity to air and discuss the issues and parameters that many believe are
important, and have made a good faith effort to come to consensus on the
strongest requirements we are able to agree on.
Best regards,
Robert D. Love
President, LAN Connect Consultants 7105 Leveret Circle Raleigh, NC 27615 Phone: 919 848-6773 Mobile: 919 810-7816 email: rdlove@ieee.org Fax: 208 978-1187 |