1. November 2008
doc.: IEEE /1437r1
July 2011
P802.11s report to EC on request for unconditional approval to proceed to RevCom
Date:
Authors:
Name
Company
Address
Phone
Dee Denteneer
Philips
HTC 34; 5656AE Eindhoven; The Netherlands
Bruce Kraemer
Marvell
5488 Marvell Lane, Santa Clara, CA 95054
+1 (321)
D. Denteneer (Philips), B.Kraemer (Marvell)
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

2. November 2008
doc.: IEEE /1437r1
July 2011
Introduction
This document contains the report to the IEEE 802 Executive Committee in support of a request for unconditional approval to send IEEE P802.11s to RevCom.
This document (11-11/0990r0) was approved during the closing plenary session of the working group on July 22, 2011.
Passed in the Task Group x-x-x
D. Denteneer (Philips), B.Kraemer (Marvell)
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

3. Meeting the terms of unconditional approval
November 2008
doc.: IEEE /1437r1
July 2011
Meeting the terms of unconditional approval
As per LMSC OM Clause 14:
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.
The Ballot occurred, in accordance with the schedule presented to the EC in document 11-10/0895r6. The fifth recirculation ballot closed June
b) After resolution of the recirculation ballot is completed, the approval percentage is at least 75% and there are no new valid DISAPPROVE votes.
The approval percentage is 97.6%.
There are no new valid disapprove votes.
c) No technical changes, as determined by the WG Chair, were made as a result of the recirculation ballot.
No technical changes 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
There are no new valid DISAPPROVE comments on new issues.
D. Denteneer (Philips), B.Kraemer (Marvell)
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

4. Meeting the terms of unconditional approval
November 2008
doc.: IEEE /1437r1
July 2011
Meeting the terms of unconditional approval
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 Sponsor.
There were no negative votes or comments received.
f) The WG Chair shall immediately report the results of the ballot to the Sponsor including: the date the ballot closed, vote tally and comments associated with any remaining disapproves (valid and invalid), the WG responses and the rationale for ruling any vote invalid.
The last recirculation ballot closed on Dates and tallies for all ballots are on Slide 5.
The comments associated with remaining disapproves and the WG responses are attached to slide 10.
D. Denteneer (Philips), B.Kraemer (Marvell)
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

5. IEEE 802 Sponsor Ballot Results – P802.11s
November 2008
doc.: IEEE /1437r1
July 2011
IEEE 802 Sponsor Ballot Results – P802.11s
Draft
Opened
Closed
Days
Ballot Type
Pool
Approve
Disapprove
Abstain
Return
D7.0 30
Initial
184
123
95% 6 5% 10 7%
139
83%
D8.0 21
Recirc 1
131
96% 4% 11
148
88%
D9.0 15
Recirc 2
134 7 9 6%
150
D10.0
Recirc 3
140
97% 5 3%
154
89%
D11.0
Recirc 4
D12.0
Recirc 5
141* 4
*After the vote, two of the disapprove voters indicated their whish to change their vote form “Disapprove” to “Approve” increasing approval rate to 98.6%
D. Denteneer (Philips), B.Kraemer (Marvell)
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

6. November 2008
doc.: IEEE /1437r1
Comments by Ballot – P802.11s
July 2011
Draft
Ballot
Not Required
Satisfied
Known Unsatisfied
Assumed Unsatisfied
Total
D7.0
Initial
207
305 2
307
D8.0
Recirc 1
257
367
D9.0
Recirc 2
117
291
D10.0
Recirc 3
147
246
D11.0
Recirc 4*
101
119
D12.0
Recirc 5 1
830
1329
1331
*In recirc 4, 117 late comments were received, that were all satisfied
D. Denteneer (Philips), B.Kraemer (Marvell)
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

7. Unsatisfied Comments by Commenter
November 2008
doc.: IEEE /1437r1
July 2011
Unsatisfied Comments by Commenter
Commenter
D7.0
D8.0
D9.0
D10.0
D11.0
D12.0
Total
J. Rosdahl (CRC) 1
M. Benveniste
(En-aerion) 2
D. Denteneer (Philips), B.Kraemer (Marvell)
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

8. Mandatory coordination
June 2009
November 2008
doc.: IEEE /0674r0
doc.: IEEE /1437r1
July 2011
Mandatory coordination
Coordination Entity
Draft
Date
Status
IEEE-SA Editorial (MEC)
D7.0
July 10
“Meets all editorial requirements. “
Quantities, Units and Letter Symbols
(SCC14)
Not required
Terms and Definitions (SCC10)
Registration Authority Committee (RAC)
D. Denteneer (Philips), B.Kraemer (Marvell)
Page 8
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel

9. Unsatisfied Comments – Topics
November 2008
doc.: IEEE /1437r1
July 2011
Unsatisfied Comments – Topics
Topic
#Comments
Definition 1
MAC
Total 2
D. Denteneer (Philips), B.Kraemer (Marvell)
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

10. November 2008
doc.: IEEE /1437r1
July 2011
Unsatisfied comments
The composite of all unsatisfied comments and the resolutions approved by the ballot resolution committee during sponsor ballot is attached.
Double click on the icon to the right to open this.
A copy of the unsatisfied comments presented using MyBallot access database report format is attached.
D. Denteneer (Philips), B.Kraemer (Marvell)
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

11. TGs Timeline RevCom Submission 2011-xx-xx July 2011 July 2011
November 2008
July 2011
doc.: IEEE /0872r1
doc.: IEEE /1437r1
July 2011
July 2011
TGs Timeline
RevCom Submission
2011-xx-xx
Slide 11
D. Denteneer (Philips), B.Kraemer (Marvell)
Page 11
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell
Stephen McCann, RIM

12. 802.11 EC Motion – Conditional Approval to send P802.11s to RevCom
June 2009
November 2008
doc.: IEEE /0674r0
doc.: IEEE /1437r1
July 2011
EC Motion – Conditional Approval to send P802.11s to RevCom
Request the IEEE 802 Executive Committee for unconditional approval to forward P802.11s D12.0 to RevCom.
P802.11s had a 97.2% approval on the last Recirculation Sponsor Ballot, including post ballot vote changes. There are 4 disapprove voters (2 of these disapprove voters have indicated their wish to change their vote to “Approve” raising the approval rate to 98.6%) and 2 unsatisfied comments.
CRC vote on the Motion Passed: y, n, a
Moved: Bruce Kraemer Second: <tbd>
Yes No Abstain
D. Denteneer (Philips), B.Kraemer (Marvell)
Page 12
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel

13. Key July 2011 June 2009 November 2008 doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0674r0
Coordination: comment supplied by a Mandatory coordination entity
Not Required: comment indicated as not required to satisfy voter
Satisfied: comment required to satisfy voter that is indicated as satisfied either by the voter indicating satisfaction with the specific comment, or by voting yes in a subsequent ballot
Known Unsatisfied: a comment that is indicated to be “required” by the voter, and the voter is maintaining a “no” vote, and the voter has indicated they are unsatisfied with the comment resolution.
Assumed Unsatisfied: comment not meeting any of the above criteria – i.e., a comment that is indicated to be “required” by the voter, and the voter is maintaining a “no” vote, and the voter has not responded when asked about their satisfaction with the comment resolution.
D. Denteneer (Philips), B.Kraemer (Marvell)
Page 13
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel