1 / 32

802.11 WG Editor’s Meeting (Mar ‘11)

802.11 WG Editor’s Meeting (Mar ‘11). Authors:. Date: 2011-03-11. Abstract. This document contains agenda/minutes/actions/status as prepared/recorded at the IEEE 802.11 Editors’ Meeting. Agenda for 2011-03-15. Roll Call / Contacts / Reflector Go round table and get brief status report

annice
Download Presentation

802.11 WG Editor’s Meeting (Mar ‘11)

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. 802.11 WG Editor’s Meeting (Mar ‘11) Authors: Date: 2011-03-11 Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

  2. Abstract This document contains agenda/minutes/actions/status as prepared/recorded at the IEEE 802.11 Editors’ Meeting Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

  3. Agenda for 2011-03-15 • Roll Call / Contacts / Reflector • Go round table and get brief status report • ANA Status / Process / What is administered • 802.11 Mandatory Editorial Coordination before SB • Numbering Alignment process / Spreadsheet • Amendment Ordering / Draft Snapshots • MIB style and Frame practices (FrameMaker 9.0) • Scope and Purpose statements • Style Guide for 802.11 Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

  4. Roll Call – 2011-03-15 • 802.11 Editor’s Present • P802.11s Amendment (MESH) –Kazuyuki Sakoda • P802.11aa Amendment (VTS) – Alex Ashley • P802.11ae Amendment (QosMan) – Henry Ptasinski • P802.11af Amendment (TVWS) – Peter Ecclesine • P802.11ah Amendment (S1G) – Wongyu Song • 802.11 Editor’s Not Present • P802.11mb Amendment (REVmb) – Adrian Stephens • P802.11ac Amendment (VHT L6) – Robert Stacey • P802.11ad Amendment (VHT60) – Carlos Cordeiro • P802.11ai Amendment (FILS) – Tom Siep • Also present: • Clint Chaplin • IEEE Staff present and always welcome! • Tricia Gerdon – our staff liaison, p.gerdon@ieee.org • Michelle Turner – staff editor for 802, m.turner@ieee.org • IEEE Staff not present and always welcome! • Kim Breitfelder – manager publishing, k.breitfelder@ieee.org • Note: editors request that an IEEE staff member should be present at least during Plenary meetings Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

  5. Volunteer Editor Contacts • TGs – Kazuyuki Sakoda –KazuyukiA.Sakoda@jp.sony.com • TGmb – Adrian Stephens – adrian.p.stephens@intel.com • TGaa – Alex Ashley – alex.ashley@hotmail.co.uk • TGac – Robert Stacey – Robert.J.Stacey@intel.com • TGad – Carlos Cordeiro – carlos.cordeiro@intel.com • TGae – Henry Ptasinski – henryp@broadcom.com • TGaf – Peter Ecclesine – pecclesi@cisco.com • TGah – Wongyu Song – wongyu.song@lge.com • TGai – Tom Siep – tom.siep@ieee.org • Editors Emeritus: • TGk – Joe Kwak– joekwak@sbcglobal.net • TGp – Wayne Fisher – wfisher@arinc.com • TGr – Bill Marshall – wtm@research.att.com • TGu – Necati Canpolat – necati.canpolat@intel.com • TGv – Emily Qi – emily.h.qi@intel.com • TGw – Nancy Cam-Winget – ncamwing@cisco.com • TGz – Menzo Wentink – mwentink@qualcomm.com Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

  6. Round table status report • REVmb – in Sponsor Ballot comment resolution, hope to recirc in April • 11s – in Sponsor Ballot comment resolution, hope to recirc in Mar • 11aa – in WG Letter Ballot comment resolution, hope to recirc after Mar meeting • 11ac – • 11ad – in WG recirc, • 11ae – in WG Letter Ballot comment resolution, hope to recirc after Mar meeting • 11af – in WG Letter Ballot comment resolution, hope toWG LB after May meeting • 11ah – hope to clarify requirements and selection criteria in Mar • 11ai – Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

  7. Reflector Updates • Each editor is expected to be on the reflector and current. • If you didn’t receive the meeting notice from the reflector, please send email to adrian.p.stephens@intel.com • To be updated: • None Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

  8. IEEE Publication Status • Publications completed for 802.11k, 802.11r and 802.11y, 802.11n and 802.11w • 11k now available with Get802 • 11p now available with Get802 • 11r now available with Get802 • 11y now available with Get802 • 11w now available with Get802 • 11n now available with Get802 • Publication of 11z announced October 21st • Publication of 11v announced February 9th • Publication of 11u announced March 7th Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

  9. ANA Announcements • Current ANA announced to group is 802.11-11-0270r0. (2011 Feb 25) • See https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/11/11-11-0270-00-0000-ana-database.xls • All new requests received by end of meeting will be uploaded and announced via 802.11 WG reflector • Procedure for ANA is contained in 07/0827r0. • See http://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/public/07/11-07-0827-00-0000-assigned-number-authority-ana-mechanisms.ppt • Editorial Guidance • ANA assignments should be done before the time of moving from WG LB to Sponsor ballot. • If a resource number is not in the ANA Database, please use <ANA> in drafts! • Editors to replace any ANA controlled resources numbers with <ANA> upon incorporation of material into drafts. • Editors need to check the ANA database to determine which resources are controlled and ensure that values are requested from the ANA. Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

  10. ANA Report • Recent allocations to TGad (1 item) and TGs (9 items) • Two Behavior Limits released (reserved) by TGmb • Two “temporary” values used by TGmb replaced by allocated values • Reallocation of two values used by TGmb to avoid collision with published .11v Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

  11. Numbering Alignment Process • Update from all published standards. Posted as 11-08/644r20 (2011 Feb 17) By Kazuyuki Sakoda • TGz-2010 started a new update cycle. 11v-2011, 11u-2011, REVmb D7.03 numbering needs to be completed. 11ae is the next, then 11af, 11aa, 11ad, 11ac, 11ah, 11ai • Create a working group MEC that includes numbering and ANA before going to Sponsor Ballot • We use more columns for the two baselines. Slide 11 Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

  12. Amendment & other ordering notes • Editors define publication order independent of working group public timelines: • Since official timeline is volatile and moves around • Publication order helps provide stability in amendment numbering, figures, clauses and other numbering assignments • Editors are committed to maintain a rational publication order • Numbering spreadsheet 08/0644: • Succeeding amendments to do their respective updates • Must match the official timeline after plenaries • We are seeing problems in MIB numbering, and say at end of WG LB, our internal MEC insists that the numbering spreadsheet is correct Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

  13. MEC Status • P802.11mb D5.0 has gone through IEEE-SA Mandatory Editorial Coordination in August 2010 See 11-10-1070-00-000m-revmb MEC comments.doc • P802.11s D7.0 has gone through IEEE-SA Mandatory Editorial Coordination in October 2010 See next slide • 802.11 Working Group MEC We need to document the process Suggest that TG identify what it expects to be the last WG ballot that will make changes. In parallel with ballot, a team of two editors will review the draft and work with the editor to make changes to address: numbering, ANA allocations, adherence to WG802.11 style. Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

  14. Editors page • http://www.ieee802.org/11/editor_resources.html • Comments or changes? • Very out of date and material scattered across many documents. • Volunteers sought to improve this state. Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

  15. 802.11 Style Guide • See 11-09-1034-00-0000-wg11-style-guide.doc • Editor’s responsibility includes checking the 2009 IEEE Standards Style Manual when creating or updating drafts. • Call for interest to update this guide to match REVmb conventions Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

  16. Amendment numbering is editorial! No need to make ballot comments on these dynamic numbers! Editor Amendment Ordering • Data as of March 2011 • See http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/11/Reports/802.11_Timelines.htm Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

  17. Email Your Draft Status Updates • Each editor, please send update for next page via the editor’s reflector no later than Thursday am2 to update table on next page! Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

  18. Draft Development Snapshot Mar 2011 Most current doc shaded green. Changes from last report shown in red. Slide 18 Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

  19. FrameMaker V9 transition • Since January 2011, IEEE-SA uses FrameMaker 9.0 exclusively for drafts submitted in FrameMaker • 802.11 editors want to have Visio version of each figure to go into the rollup if the figures are not drawn in Frame. Will work with non-windows editors on their figures. Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

  20. MIB style, Visio and Frame practices • I’m going to suggest going forward we use a single style with appropriately set tabs,  and use leadingTabs to distinguish the syntax and description parts. (Adrian Stephens Feb 9, 2010) •  Keep embedded figures using visio as long as possible • Near the end of sponsor ballot,  turn these all into .wmf (windows meta file) format files (you can do this from visio using “save as”).   Keep separate files for the .vsd source and the .wmf file that is linked to from frame. • Frame templates for 11aa, 11ac, 11ad, 11af Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

  21. Conference Calls • Are they of any value? • Next Meeting: May 8-13, Palm Springs, CA • Any need for conference calls? Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

  22. Two Technical Editors • Peter Ecclesine will run the face to face meetings • Adrian Stephens will run the publication process • Adrian Stephens is the ANA administrator • All are on the Editor’s email list. Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

  23. Reference Material Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

  24. Editorial Streamlining • Focus is on consistency across all TGs: • Completed • Streamlined ANA processes – 07/0827r0 • Consistent format for REDLINE contributions across TGs – 07/0788r0 • Consistent process for editorial comment resolution across TGs (WG & Sponsor) – 07/2050r0 • Guideline for technical vs. editorial, sample editorial comment responses • Format for comment reporting across TGs (WG & Sponsor) – 07/1990r0 (tool in 07/2116r0) • Stable numbering method (See 07/2810r0) • Consistent naming of redlines (See 07/2810r0) • Draft templates for FRAME (no Word) to help train new editors more rapidly • Under Construction(in priority order) • Revise the editor’s guideline – comments on 09/1034? • Mentoring program – Name a mentor for each new editor • MIB element numbering and compiling – publish a rolled-up MIB of k/r/y • Guideline on non-technical front matter • Guideline describing expected editorial development and maturity of draft through stages in 802.11 for consistency across TGs • Guidelines for primitives – ARC to consider Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

  25. Numbering of Annexes and Clauses • Proposal: TGMb will fix the ordering of annexes • Ample bad precedent set by 11k • Bibliography should be the first or final annex per IEEE Standards Style Guide • Clause numbering has similar issue during rollup • TGn clause 3a, 11r clause 11a, 11y clause 11.9a • REVmb numbering will stay using “Amendment style” numbering until the very last possible moment before going to Sponsor Ballot. Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

  26. Draft naming convention • Drafts and redlines are .pdf files • Syntax: Draft <project>_<draft> [Redline [Compared to <project>_<draft>]].pdf • Examples: • Draft P802.11n_D8.0.pdf • Draft P802.11n_D8.0 Redline.pdf • Draft P802.11n_D7.04 Redline Compared to P802.11n_D7.03.pdf Please use this convention for all drafts posted on the 802.11 website. Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

  27. Lessons Learned from RevCom During Sponsor ballot… (see 09/1058r1) • Minimise cross references (“disagree – see CID 1234”) • Because not all CIDs are included in the “unsatisfied comments” listing, so this may end up a dangling reference. • Copy resolution + add (“same as resoution for CID 1234”) • Provide full URLs for doc references • Because some members of RevCom and the Sponsor Pool may not be familiar with how to get to Mentor • Minimise use of doc references • Cut and paste from reference doc, where-ever possible. This minimises work for sponsor ballot members getting reference documents. • Easier to audit process Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

  28. Publication Work PlanNote: to be included in the editor’s operations manual Here is the workflow we have used for a number of years with IEEE staff on publication of 802.11 publications:  • Editors provide FRAME source and any freestanding graphics (Powerpoint, Visio. TIF) to staff at time of REVCOM submission. • Editors provide a list of requests editorial corrections no later than REVCOM approval date. • Staff prepares a publication draft and highlights changes they have made and questions they need addressed or confirmed. This draft is sent to Task Group Editor and the Working Group Technical Editor (me). This typically occurs about 2-3 weeks after approval for publication, since the preparation work is usually (but not always) begun ahead of approval. This is also typically the draft peer reviewed by IEEE staff. • The Task Group Editor responds to all questions on domain specific questions, with copy to Working Group editor (me). This typically takes about 3-5 days. • The Working Group Technical Editor reviews responses from the Task Group editor, completes any responses, and provides a list of WG officers and voting members valid for the document as of the opening day of the Sponsor ballot. This typically only takes one additional day from the prior step as most of the work is done in parallel by the two editors. • Final draft is submitted by the IEEE staff to Working Group Technical Editor and Task Group Editor for sign-off. Any changes from the responses or IEEE peer review are highlighted and explained. This typically takes only one or two days more after the responses are received from the editors. • Task Group Editor gives final approval. No changes are expected. This usually occurs within 24 hours. • Working Group Technical Editor signs off and provides draft to Working Group Chair. No changes are expected. This usually occurs within 24 hours and in parallel with the previous step. • Working Group Chair sends email to sponsor and IEEE staff letting them know the Working Group has signed off on the publication process. Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

  29. Terry Cole on Changes to MIB elements • You can incrementally add to a MIB element without deprecation at any level. That is, add new values and meaning pairs. • You can change the description of a MIB element without deprecation at any level. That is add new text clarifying or even changing the meaning of the element to keep up with the standard. • I would advise deprecation when changing the definition of some value of a MIB from one thing to another. However, I don't know of any rules requiring this. Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

  30. Publications: lessons learned • When quoting baseline text inaccurately, the baseline text is changed whether or not the changes were marked. The IEEE staff will actually do the appropriate changes as if the task group had actually intended to change the baseline. • Drafts can minimally quote baseline text to minimize such changes • Should revisit the decision to include full context during insertion • Full Annex titles have to be shown in the amendment; more importantly included “normative” vs. “informative” • TGk inadvertently changed Annex A to be fully informative • TGr battled to fix Annex A but caused ripples • TGy 08-1215r1 has brief review of significant things changed for publication • In editor’s operations manual and during balloting, should comment that Annexes should be fully titled with good reason to vote “No” in balloting Slide 30 Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

  31. Publications: lessons learned (cont’d) • Acronym rules are inconsistent • Styleguide doesn’t include definitions • Every document is treated as standalone, thus first acronym reference must be spelled out. Even though, other amendments or baseline may have defined and used the acronym earlier. • Goal should be to have as few changes between the final balloted amendment and final published amendment. • How do we deal with subjective decisions made by the IEEE copy editors as their styles vary? • Booleans should be capitalized: TRUE and FALSE • when “set to” • Booleans should be lower case: is true and is false (raise the issue with Style Guide update) Slide 31 Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

  32. Pre-RevCom IEEE-SA Review • Adrian: not sure we need this slide • Possibly near the end of Working Group Letter Ballot (3rd recirc or 4th recirc) , we will offer the draft to the publications editor for review. This allows ambiguities and errors to be addressed in Sponsor Ballot by comments, rather than discover the ambiguities and errors after RevCom. It appears that during MEC is the least risky time for a publication editor’s review. • TGs Draft 7.0 went to LB166 out of July plenary, and by agreement with ExCom and IEEE SA staff, went for professional editing for ~50 days, after which Draft 8.0 will be available for recirculation Sponsor Ballot. • Our experience with this process led us to have an 802.11 MEC by our 802.11 Technical Editor Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

More Related