1 / 21

802.11 TGn Editor Report July 2008

802.11 TGn Editor Report July 2008. Authors:. Date: 2008-07-14. Abstract. This document summarises editorial activities on the TGn Draft since the May 2008 meeting Status of Draft Status of ad-hocs and assignments Plan for this meeting Editorial motions How do we close out the ballot?.

tobias-fulton
Download Presentation

802.11 TGn Editor Report July 2008

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 TGn Editor Report July 2008 Authors: Date: 2008-07-14 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  2. Abstract • This document summarises editorial activities on the TGn Draft since the May 2008 meeting • Status of Draft • Status of ad-hocs and assignments • Plan for this meeting • Editorial motions • How do we close out the ballot? Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  3. Acknowledgements • Speculative draft D5.01 and D5.02 review: • Eldad Perahia, • Tomoko Adachi, • Douglas Chan, • George Vlantis, • John Ketchum Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  4. LB129 comments Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  5. Comments by ballot Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  6. Status by ad-hoc – July 14th Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  7. LB129 Documents • TGn DRAFT and redlines (members’ area of 802.11 website) • Draft P802.11n_D5.02.pdf • Includes speculative edits of comments assigned to editor • LB124 comments assigned to editor • 11-08-0714-01-000n-tgn-lb129-editor-comments.xls • Includes tentative resolutions matching speculative edits to D4.01 • LB115 composite comments (all ad-hocs) • 11-08-0713-01-000n-tgn-lb129-composite-comments.xls Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  8. Draft Numbering History (D2.0+) • D2.0, February 2007 - TGn and WG approved draft for balloting • D2.01-D2.02, April-May 2007 - D2.02 approved by TGn • D2.03, D2.04, D2.05 June-July 2007 - D 2.05 approved by TGn • D2.06, Aug 2007 - Draft for editorial panel review • D2.07, Sept 2007 • D3.0, Sept 2007 - Draft for Letter Ballot 115 • D3.01, Nov 2007 - Draft containing speculative editorial resolutions matching 11-07/2688r0. • D3.02, Dec 2008 – Draft incorporating Nov 2007 resolutions • D3.03, Feb 2008 – Draft incorporating Jan 2008 resolutions • D4.00, March 2008 – Draft for LB124 • D4.01, May 2008 – Speculative editing of comments assigned to the editor • D5.00, May 2008 – Draft for LB 129 • D5.01 (June 2008), D5.02 (July 2008) – Speculative editing of comments assigned to the editor. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  9. Process for Draft D5.02 • Tentative resolutions proposed • 11-08-0714-00-000n-tgn-lb129-editor-comments.xls • D 5.01 produced • Contains speculative edits of the editorial comments • Review • Working version of D5.02 produced • The defects were addressed by editing the TGn draft and updating the comment resolutions/edit notes • Speculative Draft 4.01 was released at the start of May • Review • D5.02 published • Addresses defects reported on D5.01 • Addresses defects reported on the working copy of D5.02 • Includes speculative edits of minor technicals (new in D5.02) as well as editorials (previously seen in D5.01) Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  10. Editorial Motion #1 • Move to accept the comment resolutions in document 11-08-0714-01-000n-tgn-lb129-editor-comments.xls on the “Editorial Comments” tab. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  11. Editorial Motion #2 • Move to accept the comment resolutions in document 11-08-0714-01-000n-tgn-lb129-editor-comments.xls on the“Minor Technical from MAC” tab. • Excluding resolution for CID 7214 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  12. Editorial Motion #3 • Move to accept the comment resolutions in document 11-08-0714-01-000n-tgn-lb129-editor-comments.xls on the“Minor Technical from COEX” tab. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  13. Editorial Motion #4 • Move to accept the comment resolutions in document 11-08-0714-01-000n-tgn-lb129-editor-comments.xls on the“Minor Technical from BEAM” tab. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  14. Editorial Motion #5 • Move to approve IEEE P802.11n_D5.02 as the TGn draft • Yes • No • Abstain Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  15. Editorial Motion #6 • Whereas ad-hoc groups can, at their option, identify some comments as duplicates of others, and pass them to the editor and • Whereas the editor has identified those comments that are a character-by-character duplicate of some other comment • Direct the editor to copy the “Resolution” and “Resn Status” fields from “original” LB129 comments to their duplicates, identified by having a non-empty “Duplicate of CID” value that identifies the original comment. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  16. How to we close out this Letter Ballot? • At some stage we need to close out the ballot – we currently have 92% approval – which is close to the magic “95%” that may be necessary to gain EC approval • With each balloting cycle, we are still getting comments, and will probably continue to get them, no matter how many ballots we have • LMSC P&P 7.2.4.1.2: “The WG Chair determines if and how negative votes in an otherwise affirmative letter ballot are to be resolved. Normally, the WG meets to resolve the negatives or assigns the task to a ballot resolution group.” (my emphasis) • At some stage we need to reject (or not address) all the comments received in one recirculation ballot and then recirculate the comment rejections with an unchanged ballot Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  17. Requirements for EC Approval • Even if we choose not to resolve some comments, we still have to explain why... • Report created which details: • Ballot results • Copies of unsatisfied comments in the format produced by MyBallot • LMSC 7.2.4.1.2: “Submission of a draft standard or a revised standard to the EC must be accompanied by any outstanding negative votes and a statement of why these unresolved negative votes could not be resolved.” Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  18. Procedure for conditional approval • LMSC P&P Clause 19. • “This procedure is to be used when approval to forward a draft standard to LMSC letter ballot or to RevCom is conditional on successful completion of a WG or LMSC recirculation ballot, respectively. • Seeking conditional approval is only appropriate when ballot resolution efforts have been substantially completed and the approval ratio is sufficient. ” Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  19. Conditions required to gain conditional approval a) Recirculation ballot is completed. Generally, the recirculation ballot and resolution should occur in accordance with the schedule presented at the time of conditional approval. b) After resolution of the recirculation ballot is completed, the approval percentage is at least 75% and there are no new [valid] DISAPPROVE votes. Adrian: inserted [valid] because a new no vote must be supported by a comment that is in order.What is in order is a matter of interpretation by the WG chair. c) No technical changes, as determined by the WG Chair, were made as a result of the recirculation ballot. d) No new valid DISAPPROVE comments on new issues that are not resolved to the satisfaction of the submitter from existing DISAPPROVE voters. e) If the WG Chair determines that there is a new invalid DISAPPROVE comment or vote, the WG Chair shall promptly provide details to the EC. f) The WG Chair shall immediately report the results of the ballot to the EC including: the date the ballot closed, vote tally and comments associated with any remainingdisapproves (valid and invalid), the WG responses and the rationale for ruling any vote invalid. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  20. Editorial Motion – 17 July 2008 • Resolution of comment 7713 was deferred • Change ‘sub-element’ -> ‘subelement’ • The requested change is consistent with the published 802.11k • The declared baseline of P802.11n is currently 802.11k D13. • Changing baseline versions requires a careful survey of any differences to quoted baseline text, otherwise an amendment can introduce unwanted changes to the baseline • The P802.11n baseline will be changed to P802.11k as an editorial action in due course • Guidance from the Technical Editor is to change a declared baseline when convenient to the draft. • Motion: resolve CID 7713 as follows: • “Reject - The declared baseline of P802.11n is currently TGk D13. The cited text is consistent with this baseline.” Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  21. Status of TGn drafts • D5.00 – last balloted draft • D5.01 – editorial • D5.02 – minor technical • D5.03 – some of the approved technical contents • D5.04 – all the approved changes • D6.0 – Same as D5.04, with comment tracking tags removed and cross-reference style switched to IEEE standard Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

More Related