doc.: IEEE /0792r0 Submission July 2008 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide TGn Editor Report July 2008 Date: Authors:

doc.: IEEE /0792r0 Submission July 2008 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 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?

doc.: IEEE /0792r0 Submission July 2008 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 3 Acknowledgements Speculative draft D5.01 and D5.02 review: –Eldad Perahia, –Tomoko Adachi, –Douglas Chan, –George Vlantis, –John Ketchum

doc.: IEEE /0792r0 Submission July 2008 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 4 LB129 comments

doc.: IEEE /0792r0 Submission July 2008 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 5 Comments by ballot

doc.: IEEE /0792r0 Submission July 2008 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 6 Status by ad-hoc

doc.: IEEE /0792r0 Submission July 2008 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 7 LB129 Documents TGn DRAFT and redlines (members’ area of website) –Draft P802.11n_D5.02.pdfDraft P802.11n_D5.02.pdf Includes speculative edits of comments assigned to editor LB124 comments assigned to editor – n-tgn-lb129-editor-comments.xls Includes tentative resolutions matching speculative edits to D4.01 LB115 composite comments (all ad-hocs) – n-tgn-lb129-composite-comments.xls

doc.: IEEE /0792r0 Submission July 2008 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 8 Draft Numbering History (D2.0+) D2.0, February TGn and WG approved draft for balloting D2.01-D2.02, April-May D2.02 approved by TGn D2.03, D2.04, D2.05 June-July D 2.05 approved by TGn D2.06, Aug Draft for editorial panel review D2.07, Sept 2007 D3.0, Sept Draft for Letter Ballot 115 D3.01, Nov 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.

doc.: IEEE /0792r0 Submission July 2008 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 9 Process for Draft D5.02 Tentative resolutions proposed – n-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)

doc.: IEEE /0792r0 Submission July 2008 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 10 Editorial Motion #1 Move to accept the comment resolutions in document n-tgn-lb129-editor-comments.xls on the “Editorial Comments” tab.

doc.: IEEE /0792r0 Submission July 2008 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 11 Editorial Motion #2 Move to accept the comment resolutions in document n-tgn-lb129-editor-comments.xls on the“Minor Technical from MAC” tab.

doc.: IEEE /0792r0 Submission July 2008 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 12 Editorial Motion #3 Move to accept the comment resolutions in document n-tgn-lb129-editor-comments.xls on the“Minor Technical from COEX” tab.

doc.: IEEE /0792r0 Submission July 2008 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 13 Editorial Motion #4 Move to accept the comment resolutions in document n-tgn-lb129-editor-comments.xls on the“Minor Technical from BEAM” tab.

doc.: IEEE /0792r0 Submission July 2008 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 14 Editorial Motion #5 Move to approve IEEE P802.11n_D5.01 as the TGn draft –Yes –No –Abstain

doc.: IEEE /0792r0 Submission July 2008 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 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.

doc.: IEEE /0792r0 Submission July 2008 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 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 : “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

doc.: IEEE /0792r0 Submission July 2008 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 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 : “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.”

doc.: IEEE /0792r0 Submission July 2008 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 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. ”

doc.: IEEE /0792r0 Submission July 2008 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 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 remaining disapproves (valid and invalid), the WG responses and the rationale for ruling any vote invalid.