802.11 TGn Editor Report Sept 2008 Date: 2008-09-02 Authors: May 2006 doc.: IEEE 802.11-06/0528r0 September 2008 802.11 TGn Editor Report Sept 2008 Date: 2008-09-02 Authors: Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

May 2006 doc.: IEEE 802.11-06/0528r0 September 2008 Abstract This document summarises editorial activities on the TGn Draft since the July 2008 meeting Status of Draft Status of ad-hocs and assignments Plan for this meeting Editorial motions Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

Acknowledgements Speculative draft D6.01: Krishna Pillai, May 2006 doc.: IEEE 802.11-06/0528r0 September 2008 Acknowledgements Speculative draft D6.01: Krishna Pillai, Eldad Perahia, Douglas Chan, John Ketchum Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

September 2008 LB134 comments Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

September 2008 Comments by ballot Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

Status by ad-hoc – Sept 01 September 2008 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

May 2006 doc.: IEEE 802.11-06/0528r0 September 2008 LB134 Documents TGn DRAFT and redlines (members’ area of 802.11 website) Draft P802.11n_D6.01.pdf Includes speculative edits of comments assigned to editor LB134 composite comments (all ad-hocs) 11-08-0958-00-000n-tgn-lb134-composite-comments.xls LB134 comments assigned to editor 11-08-0959-00-000n-tgn-lb134-editor-comments.xls Includes tentative resolutions matching speculative edits to D6.01 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

Draft P802.11n_D6.0 Mandatory Editorial Coordination (MEC) September 2008 Draft P802.11n_D6.0 Mandatory Editorial Coordination (MEC) MEC is an inspection of the draft by IEEE-SA staff which must be completed prior to sponsor ballot, and a second time during sponsor ballot. MEC was performed on Draft P802.11n_D6.0 by the 802.11 Program Manger, Michelle Turner. The initial MEC comments and the TGn Editor response are contained in document 11-08-1045-00-000n-tgn-D6.0-MEC.doc A small number of changes resulting from this MEC are included in Draft P802.11n_D6.01.pdf These are flagged with (Ed:MEC) Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

Draft Numbering History (D2.0+) May 2006 doc.: IEEE 802.11-06/0528r0 September 2008 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) to D5.04 (July 2008) – Speculative edits D6.00, July 2008 – Draft for LB134 D6.01, Aug 2008 – Speculative edits (editorials, minor technical) Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

May 2006 doc.: IEEE 802.11-06/0528r0 September 2008 Editorial Motion #1 Move to accept the comment resolutions in document 11-08-0959-00-000n-tgn-lb134-editor-comments.xls on the “Editorial Comments” tab. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

May 2006 doc.: IEEE 802.11-06/0528r0 September 2008 Editorial Motion #2 Move to accept the comment resolutions in document 11-08-0959-00-000n-tgn-lb134-editor-comments.xls on the“Minor Technical from MAC” tab. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

May 2006 doc.: IEEE 802.11-06/0528r0 September 2008 Editorial Motion #3 Move to approve IEEE P802.11n_D6.01 as the TGn draft Yes No Abstain Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

How do we close out this Letter Ballot? September 2008 How do we close out this Letter Ballot? At some stage we need to close out the ballot – we currently have ~91% 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 At some stage we need to reject all the comments received in one recirculation ballot and then recirculate the comment rejections with an unchanged ballot Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

Requirements for EC Approval September 2008 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

Procedure for conditional approval September 2008 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. ” Conditions: not yet had final recirculation resolution efforts are “substantially completed” approval ratio is “sufficient” Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

Conditions required to gain conditional approval September 2008 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. 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 remaining disapproves (valid and invalid), the WG responses and the rationale for ruling any vote invalid. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

Plan to close out the letter ballot September 2008 Plan to close out the letter ballot TBD – add project plan here Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation