802.11 WG Editor’s Meeting (Mar ‘12)

1. 802.11 WG Editor’s Meeting (Mar ‘12) Authors: Date: 2011-03-12 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 2012-03-17 • Roll Call / Contacts / Reflector • Go round table and get brief status report • ANA Status / Process / What is administered • Discussion with IEEE Publications staff • 802.11 Mandatory Draft Coordination before SB • Numbering Alignment process / Spreadsheet • Amendment Ordering / Draft Snapshots • Editor succession REVmc • Style Guide for 802.11 Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

4. Roll Call – 2012-03-13 • 802.11 Editor’s Present • P802.11mb Amendment (REVmb) – Adrian Stephens • P802.11aa Amendment (VTS) – Alex Ashley • P802.11ac Amendment (VHTL6) – Robert Stacey • P802.11ad Amendment (VHT60) – Carlos Cordeiro • P802.11af Amendment (TVWS) – Peter Ecclesine • P802.11ai Amendment (FILS) – Tom Siep • 802.11 Editor’s Not Present • P802.11ae Amendment (QosMan) – Henry Ptasinski • P802.11ah Amendment (S1G) – Minyoung Park • Also present: • Al Petrick • IEEE Staff present and always welcome! • Kim Breitfelder – manager publishing, k.breitfelder@ieee.org • Michelle Turner – staff editor for 802, m.turner@ieee.org • Francisco Drago – staff editor, drago.f@ieee.org • Tricia Gerdon – our staff liaison, p.gerdon@ieee.org • IEEE Staff not present and always welcome! • Note: editors request that an IEEE staff member should be present at least during Plenary meetings Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

5. Volunteer Editor Contacts • TGmb – Adrian Stephens – adrian.p.stephens@intel.com • TGaa – Alex Ashley – alex.ashley@hotmail.co.uk • TGac – Robert Stacey – rjstacey@gmail.com • TGad – Carlos Cordeiro– carlos.cordeiro@intel.com • TGae – Henry Ptasinski – henry@logout.com • TGaf – Peter Ecclesine – pecclesi@cisco.com • TGah – Minyoung Park – minyoung.park@intel.com • TGai – Tom Siep – tom.siep@csr.com • Editors Emeritus: • TGk – Joe Kwak– joekwak@sbcglobal.net • TGp – Wayne Fisher – • TGr – Bill Marshall – wtm@research.att.com • TGs – Kazuyuki Sakoda – KazuyukiA.Sakoda@jp.sony.com • TGu – NecatiCanpolat – necati.canpolat@intel.com • TGv – Emily Qi – emily.h.qi@intel.com • TGw – Nancy Cam-Winget – ncamwing@cisco.com • TGz – MenzoWentink – mwentink@qualcomm.com Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

6. Round table status report • REVmb – • 11aa – • 11ac – • 11ad – • 11ae – • 11af – • 11ah – • 11ai – Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

7. 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 Reflector Updates Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

8. IEEE Publication Status • Publications completed for 802.11k, 802.11n, 802.11p, 802.11r, 802.11u, 802.11v, 802.11w , 802.11y and 802.11z • 11k now available with Get802 • 11n now available with Get802 • 11p now available with Get802 • 11r now available with Get802 • 11u now available with Get802 • 11v now available with Get802 • 11w now available with Get802 • 11y now available with Get802 • 11z now available with Get802 • Publication of 11s announced September 10, 2011 Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

9. Numbering Alignment Process • Update from all published standards. Posted as 11-11/1149r14 (2012 January 17) • REVmbD12 is numbering baseline. 11ae is the first, then 11aa, 11ad, 11af, 11ac, 11ah, 11ai. • TG editor will be responsible for ensuring their column represents their latest draft • WG editor will update any “changes pending” columns and summarize status to editors • Robert to return the lock this week Slide 9 Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

10. 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 11/1149: • Succeeding amendments to do their respective updates • Must match the official timeline after plenaries Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

11. REVmb publication is under way • ~130 issues identified (look at SS) • Look at copyedit to see scope of changes made thus far • Completion expected end march Discussion with IEEE Publications staff Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

12. MDR Status • 802.11 Working Group MDR 11-11/615r4 documents the process MDR now in the 802.11 Operating Manual 11-09/0002r8 • P802.11aa D5.0 went through Working Group Mandatory Editorial Coordination before July 2011 • P802.11ad D4.0 went through Working Group Mandatory Editorial Coordination before July 2011 • P802.11ae D4.0 went through Working Group Mandatory Editorial Coordination before July 2011 Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

13. http://www.ieee802.org/11/editor_resources.html Comments or changes? Volunteers sought to improve this state. Editors page Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

14. 802.11 Style Guide • See 11-09-1034-03-0000-wg11-style-guide.doc • Editor’s responsibility includes checking the 2009 IEEE Standards Style Manual when creating or updating drafts. • Submissions with draft text should conform to both the WG11 Style Guide and IEEE Standards Style Manual • Note that the Style Guide evolves with our practice Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

15. Amendment numbering is editorial! No need to make ballot comments on these dynamic numbers! Editor Amendment Ordering • Data as of Mar 2012 • See http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/11/Reports/802.11_Timelines.htm Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

16. 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)

17. Draft Development Snapshot Mar 2012 Most current doc shaded green. Changes from last report shown in red. Slide 17 Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

18. 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, 11af MIB style, Visio and Frame practices Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

19. Conference Calls • Are they of any value? • Next Meeting: May 13-18, Atlanta, GA • Any need for conference calls? Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

20. 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. Two Technical Editors Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

21. Reference MaterialPetere: Action to ensure concepts in these reference materials are present in 11-10/1034 802.11 Style Guide Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

22. Editorial Streamlining • Focus is on consistency across all TGs: • Completed • Streamlined ANA processes – 07/0827r0 and 11/270r7 • 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)

23. 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. Numbering of Annexes and Clauses Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

24. 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)

25. 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)

26. 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. Publication Work PlanNote: to be included in the editor’s operations manual Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

27. 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)

28. 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 28 Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

29. 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 29 Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

30. 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 Pre-RevCom IEEE-SA Review Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)