Since you plan to submit it to be part of the conference proceedings, the editor(s) of those proceedings are likely the best people to ask. I would go to them for critical information such as length, intended audience, level of detail.
Off the cuff, here is what I would expect from a survey paper, disregarding length:
1) Introductory and Motivating Example(s)
2) History of Development, including key players and papers
3) List of major philosophies, subareas, divisions, ways of tackling subject.
4) For each item in 3), a good summary article indicating methods and applications,
perhaps mini histories or variations on the motivating example.
Tie-ins or anticipations to the other sections should be clearly marked.
5) Relations of the general area to outside area of study, and other connections
6) Hopes and Dreams for future development of the subject
7) Apologia for whatever was left out
8) Extensive bibliography, ideally organized with major key being list, minor key
being author-date or date-author.
Of course, length limitations can be accounted for by expanding 7).
These are the do's. Since whatever you writeup can eventually be used in a handbook
or wikipedia or other places, the only don't I can think of is don't limit your options:
someone can retool your work for other domains if you don't have the time and energy to
retool it yourself.
Gerhard "Ask Me About Systemic Writing" Paseman, 2014.07.09