TGmb Editor Report – March 2011

802.11 TGmb Editor Report – March 2011
May 2006 doc.: IEEE /0528r0 March 2011 TGmb Editor Report – March 2011 Date: Authors: Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

May 2006 doc.: IEEE /0528r0 March 2011 Abstract This document summarises editorial activities on the TGmb Draft since the last meeting Status of Draft Status of comments E-Motions This document is cumulative, newer data at the front – i.e., it will be revised per meeting to show updated status. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

March 2011 March 2011 May 2006 doc.: IEEE 802.11-06/0528r0
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

Balloting Status March 2011 Group Draft Opened Closed Days Ballot Type
Pool Approve Disapprove Abstain Return #Cmnt 802.11 D7.00 03/02/2011 18/02/2011 15 Recirculation 186 132 90% 14 comments 9% 9 6% 155 83% w/o D6.00 21/09/2010 05/11/2010 45 Technical 122 87% 18 12% 149 80% 454 1 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

March 2011 Numbering Keeping all comments from WG and Sponsor ballots in the same spreadsheet. The initial sponsor ballot is shown as LB 1000 Comments from onwards The first recirc is LB1001 Comments from onwards Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

Comment Status (2011-03-10) EDITOR 45 GEN 62 MAC 124 1 178 44 1** 53 2
March 2011 Comment Status ( ) Count state LB Owning Ad-hoc Unassigned Assigned Resolved Approved Discuss Grand Total 1001 EDITOR 44 1** 45 GEN 53 2 7 62 MAC 71 1001 Total 124 1 178 ** This was the comment to which two comments were attached. As a placeholder, it doesn’t need approval of TGmb as the comments attached appear separately in the database. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

REVmb Draft Numbering History (part)
May 2006 doc.: IEEE /0528r0 March 2011 REVmb Draft Numbering History (part) D1.0, – balloted as LB149 D2.0, – completion of LB149 edits. Balloted version. D3.0 – balloted as LB162 D3.02 – editing of LB162 technical D4.0 – for ballot D4.01 – Speculative editing of LB163 editorials D5.0 – for ballot D6.0 – first sponsor ballot, includes MEC change D7.0 – Sponsor recirc #1 D7.01 – v roll-in D7.02 – Speculative editing of LB1001 editorials D7.03 – u roll-in D7.04 – Editing of remaining approved comment resolutions + Defects from D7.01, D7.02 & D7.03 D 7.05?? – defect resolution from D7.04 D8.0 – Sponsor Recirc #2 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

Documents REVmb DRAFT (members’ area of 802.11 website)
May 2006 doc.: IEEE /0528r0 March 2011 Documents REVmb DRAFT (members’ area of website) Draft P802.11REVmb_D7.03.pdf Draft P802.11REVmb_D7.03 Redline*.pdf Composite comments (all ad-hocs) m-revmb-sponsor-ballot-comments.xls Comments assigned to / held by editor For: resolution, editing or other action m-revmb-sponsor-ballot-editor-comments.xls Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

802.11v Roll-in Status D7.01 contains .11v
March 2011 802.11v Roll-in Status D7.01 contains .11v D7.01 has completed review by volunteers from former TGv (71 defects were reported) Defects will be resolved in a revision prior to D8.0 There are a significant number of Editor’s Notes highlighting issues that need to be addressed. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

March 2011 802.11u Roll-in Status Our current Plan of Record shows rolling in u in March. However, .11v roll-in went quicker than expected, and IEEE-SA publication editing for .11u completed earlier than expected D7.03 contains .11u. D7.03 is currently in review by volunteers from former TGu. There are a number of Editor’s Notes highlighting issues that need to be addressed. Editorial Defects will be resolved in a revision prior to D8.0 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

Planning As indicated earlier, 802.11v and 802.11u will be in D8.
March 2011 Planning As indicated earlier, v and u will be in D8. Experience from .11v suggests 2 weeks roll-in duration (not including review) is reasonable for.11s. An adjusted plan of record has been produced taking this into account – see later Shows completing comment resolution In Oct Dependent on .11s being available for editing at the start of June Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

March 2011 Planning – D8.0 release The plan discussed on the last telecon (and reproduced in the next slide) shows a 2-week period of editing & review before D8.0 is ready to ballot. There’s a lot of new material in D8.0, and I think we need to allow as much time as possible for ballot and comment resolution prep before the next meeting. I propose to try and accelerate the availability of D8.0 to Thursday 24th March. Mon & Tue – Edit Wed – Review Thu – Final edits, Chair requests IEEE-SA to open ballot Fri – Ballot opens So I need volunteers who will commit to deliver an on-time review over a period of 24 hours Wed next week. I’m anticipating 2 hours work per reviewer. Please volunteer now & Jon please record and send list to Adrian. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

March 2011 Planning – Detail Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

Editorial comment resolutions
March 2011 Editorial comment resolutions Comment resolutions are proposed in document 11-10/1455r5. Count Resn Status Owning Ad-hoc Comment Group (blank) A P D U S Grand Total EDITOR Editorials 22 14 2 1 41 Terminology 4 EDITOR Total 24 45 The Editor requests TGmb to review CID 11211, which has related comments: (Gen) and (MAC). Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

March 2011 CID 11211 Comment: In SB1 it was pointed out that parameter names before this point ( ) are lower case, while after this are in initial caps. The CRC response was that changing was too much work without benefit. However, this standard depends heavily on capitalization: "priority" is the name of the concept, while "Priority" is the name of a field. So inconsistency in capitalization provides a serious detriment to the utility of this standard. Proposed Change: If no one else has time to work on this, it appears that I will not have a job after March 31, so I will have the time to buy a copy of FrameMaker, learn how to use it, and make the changes sometime in April. P.S., the implementer of this standard doesn't care about how hard it is to integrate amendments that had been erroneously approved by the WG. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

March 2011 CID (discussion) I see some benefit in doing what the commenter requests, but I also see costs. The proposed changes open up the standard to further comments on changed text, because names of many items in clause 6 (in this comment) and clause 8 (in other comments) would change. The proposed “let me edit the document” resolution provides discretion above and beyond that exercised thus far by your technical editor. The practicalities of making this work (i.e., new person editing, not particularly familiar with WG style, scheduling/planning) have not been determined and introduce schedule risk. If this group disagrees with my resolution (next slide), I would suggest the best practical alternative is to request the commenter to provide a “mapping table” of old to new names that the editor would action. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

March 2011 CID (resolution) Proposed Resolution: DISAGREE (EDITOR: :39:51Z) - There is no particular rule observable in the draft about whether these parameters should be lower case, InitialCaps, UPPER_CASE_WITH_UNDERSCORES, or something else. The IEEE-SA has no such rule, and the material cited has been through multiple rounds of IEEE-SA professional editing, from which we may determine that they do not regard such consistency to be necessary. While it is the commenter's preference to strive for consistency, the material cited is not incorrect and transgresses no IEEE-SA rule of style. Further, the substantial number of changes to be made would open up much of Clause 6 to further comment. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

March 2011 E-motion 1 Approve comment resolutions in m-revmb-sponsor-ballot-editor-comments on the “Editorials & Terminology” tabs. 24 Agree, 14 Principle, 4 Disagree, 2 Scope, 1 Unresolvable Moved: Seconded: Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

March 2011 E-motion 2 (To be brought at a not inappropriate and suitably non-stationary juncture) Having approved comment resolutions for all of the comments received from the initial Sponsor Ballot on P802.11REVmb D7.0, Instruct the editor to prepare Draft 8.0 incorporating these resolutions and, Approve a 15 day Sponsor Recirculation Ballot asking the question “Should P802.11REVmb D8.0 be forwarded to RevCom?” Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

February 2011 For TGmb Telecon on 25 Feb 2011
May 2006 doc.: IEEE /0528r0 March 2011 February 2011 For TGmb Telecon on 25 Feb 2011 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

Balloting Status March 2011 Group Draft Opened Closed Days Ballot Type
Pool Approve Disapprove Abstain Return #Cmnt 802.11 D7.00 03/02/2011 18/02/2011 15 Recirculation 186 132 90% 14 comments 9% 9 6% 155 83% w/o D6.00 21/09/2010 05/11/2010 45 Technical 122 87% 18 12% 149 80% 454 1 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

March 2011 Numbering Keeping all comments from WG and Sponsor ballots in the same spreadsheet. The initial sponsor ballot is shown as LB 1000 Comments from onwards The first recirc is LB1001 Comments from onwards Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

March 2011 Comment Status ( ) Count state LB Owning Ad-hoc Unassigned Resolved Approved Grand Total 1001 EDITOR 1 43 1 ** 45 GEN 62 MAC 69 1001 Total 132 176 ** This was the comment to which two comments were attached. As a placeholder, it doesn’t need approval of TGmb as the comments attached appear separately in the database. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

Comments by Commenter March 2011 Count of Commenter Part of No Vote N
N N Total Y Y Total Grand Total Commenter E G T Malinen, Jouni 4 5 9 7 18 25 34 Hunter, David 1 2 3 21 30 33 Stephens, Adrian 22 27 Ecclesine, Peter 11 12 23 Ptasinski, Henry 13 Hamilton, Mark 8 Fischer, Matthew Kraemer, Bruce Struik, Rene Vlantis, George Montemurro, Michael Kim, Youhan 43 31 84 133 176 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

May 2006 doc.: IEEE /0528r0 March 2011 REVmb Draft Numbering History (part) D1.0, – balloted as LB149 D2.0, – completion of LB149 edits. Balloted version. D3.0 – balloted as LB162 D3.02 – editing of LB162 technical D4.0 – for ballot D4.01 – Speculative editing of LB163 editorials D5.0 – for ballot D6.0 – first sponsor ballot, includes MEC change D7.0 – Sponsor recirc #1 D7.01 – v roll-in D7.02 – Speculative editing of LB1001 editorials D7.03 – u roll-in D7.04 – Editing of remaining approved comment resolutions D 7.05?? – defect resolution from D7.04 D8.0 – Sponsor Recirc #2 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

802.11v Roll-in Status D7.01 contains .11v
March 2011 802.11v Roll-in Status D7.01 contains .11v D7.01 is currently in review by volunteers from former TGv Defects will be resolved in a revision prior to D8.0 There are a significant number of Editor’s Notes highlighting issues that need to be addressed. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

March 2011 802.11u Roll-in Status Our current Plan of Record shows rolling in u in March. However, .11v roll-in went quicker than expected, and IEEE-SA publication editing for .11u completed earlier than expected Work on the u roll-in has just started D7.03 will contain .11v – expected during March session. Editorial Defects will be resolved in a revision prior to D8.0 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

Planning As indicated earlier, 802.11v and 802.11u will be in D8.
March 2011 Planning As indicated earlier, v and u will be in D8. Experience from .11v suggests 2 weeks roll-in duration (not including review) is reasonable for .11u and .11s. An adjusted plan of record has been produced taking this into account – see next page for detail. Shows completing comment resolution In Oct Dependent on .11s being available for editing at the start of June Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

March 2011 Planning – Detail Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

January 2011 March 2011 May 2006 doc.: IEEE 802.11-06/0528r0

Balloting Status March 2011 Draft Opened Closed Days Ballot Type Pool
Approve Disapprove Abstain Return #Cmnt D6.00 21/09/2010 05/11/2010 45 Technical 186 122 87% 18 comments 10% 9 6% 149 80% 454 1 w/o comments Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

March 2011 Numbering Keeping all comments from WG and Sponsor ballots in the same spreadsheet. The initial sponsor ballot is shown as LB 1000 the first recirc will be 1001 The sponsor ballot comments are numbered from onwards The next set will be onwards Review comments from .11p roll-in are numbered LB=0, Draft=6.01, CID=10500 onwards Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

Comment Status (2011-01-13) March 2011 Count state LB Owning Ad-hoc
state LB Owning Ad-hoc Unassigned Assigned Discuss Resolved Ready for Motion Approved Grand Total EDITOR (.11p Roll-in) 92 0 Total 1000 3 272 33 308 GEN 82 1 19 102 MAC 26 13 45 1000 Total 108 4 275 32 455 125 547 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

May 2006 doc.: IEEE /0528r0 March 2011 REVmb Draft Numbering History (part) D1.0, – balloted as LB149 D2.0, – completion of LB149 edits. Balloted version. D3.0 – balloted as LB162 D3.01 – speculative editing of LB162 editorials D3.02 – editing of LB162 technical D4.0 – for ballot D4.01 – Speculative editing of LB163 editorials D5.0 – for ballot D6.0 – first sponsor ballot, includes MEC change D6.01 – includes TGp roll-in. Reviewed in the TG. D6.02 – includes TGz roll-in D6.03 – Speculative resolution of editorial + defects resolved from D6.02 review D6.04 – implementation of LB1000 technicals D6.05 – implementation of approved D6.01 roll-in resolutions + defects resolved from D6.03 & D6.04 review. (future) D6.06 – Implementation of remaining LB1000 comment resolutions for editorial panel review D7.0 – Sponsor recirc #1 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

802.11p Roll-in Status D6.01 contains .11p
March 2011 802.11p Roll-in Status D6.01 contains .11p D6.01 was reviewed by this TG and former TGp members, and 91 comments were generated. Comment resolutions were approved at the TGmb CRC telecon on 7th January D6.05 contained the edited resolutions was prepared and should be available before the Jan 2011 session starts. Edit status: 32 implemented, 4 modified, 55 nothing to do. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

802.11z Roll-in Status D6.02 contains .11z rolled-in.
March 2011 802.11z Roll-in Status D6.02 contains .11z rolled-in. Review highlighted 14 defects, which were fixed in D6.03. Scope of review could not address technical issues highlighted in Editor’s Notes. In particular, power-saving terminology (Use of “BU”) was highlighted as a technical issue by reviewers. Menzo Wentink is preparing a submission showing changes necessary. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

March 2011 Editor’s Notes These are emplaced to highlight issues discovered during roll-in of an amendment or implementation of an approved comment resolution. .11z: 31 .11p: 2 (These are informational and can be removed) Comment resolutions: 11 (mainly 10.3-related) Suggestion: Group to review these notes and decide: 1) to address them prior to ballot 2) to leave them in place for ballot 3) to remove them without addressing them prior to ballot Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

Editorial Resolutions needing Discussion
March 2011 Editorial Resolutions needing Discussion Count state Draft LB Owning Ad-hoc Comment Group Resolved Discuss Approved Grand Total 6.00 1000 Editor Editorials 68 1 69 Terminology 204 2 206 CID Includes 3 “will” to “shall” changes. Dissent from one reviewer to the editor’s proposal is recorded in the Edit Notes. CID A resolution is proposed by the editor. However one review proposed an alternate resolution shown in the Ad-hoc Notes. CID A resolution is proposed that declines to make any editorial fix-ups in Annex H (SDL). However, TGmb should decide whether “is not maintained” at the top of Annex H applies to editorial as well as technical changes. The editor sees no benefit in performing editorial maintenance but not technical maintenance, and feels disinclined to spend any effort on an Annex that, it has been rumoured, has no practical use. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

Approved Resolutions needing attention
March 2011 Approved Resolutions needing attention Editor requests that the resolution of CID is reviewed. Comment: 3.1 says that "A bufferable management frame is a unicast management frame of the following subtypes: Action, Disassociation, Deauthentication, or Probe Response (when sent in an IBSS in response to a unicast probe request)".However, this statement in a subsection of section Power management in an infrastructure network so the IBSS caveat is outside its scope. The IBSS stuff is described in section Power management in an IBSS. Resolution: Change to read ".. , or a Probe Response frame that is sent in an IBSS in response to a unicast Probe Request frame." Editor’s Notes: I am unclear whether the resolution intended also to delete "; or a group addressed management frame of the following subtypes: Action, Disassociation, or Deauthentication" by showing a period at the end of the replacement text. (Also, FWIW, note that one reviewer claims the resolution is non-responsive, and, FWIW2, I agree.) Please confirm whether the change edited in D6.05 is correct or not. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

Planning TGv and TGu approval will not take place until Feb 2011.
March 2011 Planning TGv and TGu approval will not take place until Feb 2011. I have spoken with IEEE-SA editorial staff and they will try to bring TGv publication editing forward. We are hoping to see a first version of the copyedits shortly. Need to start editing TGv at start of Feb. This enables us to keep publication of REVmb in 2011. The other variable is whether TGs should be included in REVmb or not – see next slide. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

Planning – Impact of TGs
March 2011 Planning – Impact of TGs Estimate 4 weeks of roll-in effort. Estimate 4 weeks of additional comment resolution. Separate recirc: days ballot + 2 weeks editing/review TGs plan indicates EC approval in July and Standards Board approval in Sept It would create a new precedent if the professionally edited sources were available before SB approval. No New Recirc 1 extra recirc Delay to REVmb plan ~ 2 months ~ 3.5 months Latest date TGs sources must be available Early June 2011 Early Aug 2011 Notes No TGmb during July because letter ballot active then Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

Planning – Impact of TGs
March 2011 Planning – Impact of TGs Based on the previous analysis, we should anticipate an extra recirc: TGs is unlikely to be ready to incorporate by early July TGmb is unlikely to want to “wash” the July session Any additional delay in availability of the sources of TGs to the editor beyond early Aug introduces a day/day slip. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

Planning – Spreadsheet
March 2011 Planning – Spreadsheet Open the SS to see more rows Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

March 2011 E-motion 1 Approve comment resolutions in m-revmb-sponsor-ballot-editor-comments on the “Editorials” tab. 40 Accept, 17 Principal, 11 Disagree, 1 Unresolvable <Call out any changes made in resolution of “discuss” comments> Moved: Seconded: Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

March 2011 E-motion 2 Approve comment resolutions in m-revmb-sponsor-ballot-editor-comments on the “Terminology” tab. 140 Accept, 60 Principal, 6 Disagree <Call out any changes made in resolution of “discuss” comments> Moved: Seconded: Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

March 2011 E-motion 3 Having approved comment resolutions for all of the comments received from the initial Sponsor Ballot on P802.11REVmb D6.0, Instruct the editor to prepare Draft 7.0 incorporating these resolutions and, Approve a 15 day Sponsor Recirculation Ballot asking the question “Should P802.11REVmb D7.0 be forwarded to RevCom?” Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

November 2010 March 2011 May 2006 doc.: IEEE 802.11-06/0528r0

Balloting Status March 2011 Draft Opened Closed Days Ballot Type Pool
Approve Disapprove Abstain Return #Cmnt D6.00 21/09/2010 05/11/2010 45 Technical 186 122 87% 18 comments 10% 9 6% 149 80% 454 1 w/o comments Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

March 2011 Numbering Keeping all comments from WG and Sponsor ballots in the same spreadsheet. The initial sponsor ballot is shown as LB 1000 the first recirc will be 1001 The sponsor ballot comments are numbered from onwards The next set will be onwards Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

March 2011 LB1000 Comments Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

March 2011 LB1000 Commenters Note, David Hunters comments were supplied in a separate spreadsheet due to difficulty uploading to the MyBallot tool. There is one generic comment related to these, which is the only one that the MyBallot tool will track. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

Comment Status (2010-11-08) March 2011
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

May 2006 doc.: IEEE /0528r0 March 2011 REVmb Draft Numbering History (part) D1.0, – balloted as LB149 D2.0, – completion of LB149 edits. Balloted version. D3.0 – balloted as LB162 D3.01 – speculative editing of LB162 editorials D3.02 – editing of LB162 technical D4.0 – for ballot D4.01 – Speculative editing of LB163 editorials D5.0 – for ballot D6.0 – first sponsor ballot, includes MEC change Planned D6.01 – includes TGp roll-in D6.02 – includes TGz roll-in D6.03 – Speculative resolution of editorial D6.04 – implementation of LB1000 technicals D7.0 – Sponsor recirc #1 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

May 2006 doc.: IEEE /0528r0 March 2011 Documents REVmb DRAFT (members’ area of website) Draft P802.11REVmb_D6.0.pdf Draft P802.11REVmb_D6.0 Redline.pdf Composite comments (all ad-hocs) m-revmb-sponsor-ballot-comments.xls (not yet) Comments assigned to / held by editor For: resolution, editing or other action xx-000m-revmb-wg-ballot-editor-comments.xls Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

March 2011 Rolling in p I have rolled in p into D6.0, resulting in a D6.01 (unpublished). Some of the issues resulting from this roll-in were discussed in September. And a number of action items were identified. So far I have not received this input. Should I publish D6.01 as it is now with editor’s notes calling out the pending actions? Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

Planning TGv and TGu approval is going to slip until early Feb.
March 2011 Planning TGv and TGu approval is going to slip until early Feb. I have spoken with IEEE-SA editorial staff and they will try to bring TGv publication editing forward. This early editing allows us to meet our previous project plan dates. If it doesn’t work, we will slip 2 months into 2012 publication. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

E-motions None this session. Your editor is completely un-e-motional.
March 2011 E-motions None this session. Your editor is completely un-e-motional. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

Sept 2010 March 2011 May 2006 doc.: IEEE 802.11-06/0528r0

March 2011 Balloting Status show evotes results formatted BallotID Approve Disapprove Abstain Return %Return %Abstain %Approve 149 155 23 29 207 84.15 14.01 87.08 160 166 20 25 211 85.77 11.85 89.25 162 167 212 86.18 11.79 89.3 163 164 28 13.21 89.13 172 15 91.98 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

March 2011 LB167 Comments Note, one of the “part of a no vote=Y” comments was from a yes voter. He later submitted an exact duplicate of this comment marked editorial, “part of a no vote=N”. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

LB167 Status (as of 2010-09-10) March 2011
The 7 Unresolvable comments were withdrawn by the commenters. The 9 Principle comments were given the response “AGREE IN PRINCIPLE (EDITOR: :35:14Z) - This comment is deemed editorial and delegated to the document editor for consideration in developing future drafts. Please note that the IEEE standards are edited professionally prior to publication.” Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

May 2006 doc.: IEEE /0528r0 March 2011 REVmb Draft Numbering History (part) D1.0, – balloted as LB149 D2.0, – completion of LB149 edits. Balloted version. D2.01, – roll-up of n D2.02, – speculative editing of LB160 editorial comments D2.03, – Comment resolutions from Jan 2010 D2.04 – Defect resolution from D2.01-D speculative editing of MIB changes in 11-10/0216r2 D3.0 – balloted as LB162 D3.01 – speculative editing of LB162 editorials D3.02 – editing of LB162 technical D4.0 – for ballot D4.01 – Speculative editing of LB163 editorials D5.0 – for ballot D6.0 – for sponsor ballot, includes MEC change Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

LB167 Documents REVmb DRAFT (members’ area of 802.11 website)
May 2006 doc.: IEEE /0528r0 March 2011 LB167 Documents REVmb DRAFT (members’ area of website) Draft P802.11REVmb_D6.0.pdf Draft P802.11REVmb_D6.0 Redline.pdf Composite comments (all ad-hocs) m-revmb-wg-ballot-comments.xls Comments assigned to / held by editor For: resolution, editing or other action m-revmb-wg-ballot-editor-comments.xls Relevant tabs: “Ready for motion Sept 2010” and “Withdrawn” Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

March 2011 MEC Draft 5.0 was reviewed by IEEE-SA editorial staff as a mandatory editorial coordination (MEC) See document 11-10/1070r0 for full text of their report The outcome is that we have to change the draft’s scope and purpose statements to match those of the P PAR before starting sponsor ballot. D6.0 contains these changes, and is on the server. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

March 2011 Rolling in p I rolled in p into D5.0, resulting in a D5.01 (unpublished). This was reviewed by the editorial panel, and was in a fit state to post. However, it was not posted because of the ongoing MEC. The changes for MEC and the changes for .11p will need to be merged to produce a D6.01. There is no time urgency on posting this document, and it should not be posted before the end of initial sponsor ballot to avoid confusing the voters. The merge should be an easy matter because changes for the MEC were confined to clause 1. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

Meeting the terms of our conditional approval
March 2011 Meeting the terms of our conditional approval See document 11-10/0801r3 We have met the terms of our conditional approval No new disapprove comments No new disapprove votes We are not required to recirculate D5.0, because we have no disapprove comments, after withdrawal of the 7 disapprove comments. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

Sponsor Ballot prep D6.0 will be the version balloted
March 2011 Sponsor Ballot prep D6.0 will be the version balloted Have checked with IEEE-SA editorial staff that the changes we made meet their approval The CAC discussed at length whether D6.0 should be recirculated (because of the changes to purpose), and concluded it did not (Straw poll in CAC “are changes editorial?” result: 15,0) Sponsor ballot pool for P finishes on 14th September 2010. There are currently 184 people in the pool Academic 16 8.7% General Interest 56 30.4% Government/Military 7 3.8% Producer 71 38.6% User 34 18.5% 184 100.0% Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

E-Motions March 2011 May 2006 doc.: IEEE 802.11-06/0528r0

March 2011 Motion - LB167 comments Approve comment resolutions in 11-09/0956r9 on the “Ready for motion Sept 2010” tab Stephens/ Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

July 2010 March 2011 May 2006 doc.: IEEE 802.11-06/0528r0

May 2006 doc.: IEEE /0528r0 March 2011 REVmb Draft Numbering History (part) D1.0, – balloted as LB149 D2.0, – completion of LB149 edits. Balloted version. D2.01, – roll-up of n D2.02, – speculative editing of LB160 editorial comments D2.03, – Comment resolutions from Jan 2010 D2.04 – Defect resolution from D2.01-D speculative editing of MIB changes in 11-10/0216r2 D3.0 – balloted as LB162 D3.01 – speculative editing of LB162 editorials D3.02 – editing of LB162 technical D4.0 – for ballot D4.01 – Speculative editing of LB163 editorials Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

March 2011 Balloting Status Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

May 2006 doc.: IEEE /0528r0 March 2011 Process for D4.01 D4.01 speculative editing of 40 editorial comments from LB163 D4.01 is currently pending review by Peter and Mark. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

May 2006 doc.: IEEE /0528r0 March 2011 LB163 Documents REVmb DRAFT (members’ area of website) Draft P802.11REVmb_D4.0.pdf Draft P802.11REVmb_D4.0 Redline.pdf Composite comments (all ad-hocs) m-revmb-wg-ballot-comments.xls Comments assigned to / held by editor For: resolution, editing or other action m-revmb-wg-ballot-editor-comments.xls Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

Historic Page Statistics of REVmb
March 2011 Historic Page Statistics of REVmb Note, drafts balloted (i.e. Dn.0) have editorial comments hidden. As of D2.0, this implies ~18 pages of hidden comment text. Resulting unreliable deltas are highlighted yellow. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

March 2011 Motion - LB163 Editorials Approve comment resolutions in 11-09/0956r8 on the “Editorials” tab Stephens/ Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

May 2006 doc.: IEEE /0528r0 March 2011 “Go to ballot” Motion Having approved comment resolutions for all of the comments received from the first working group ballot on P802.11REVmb D4.0, Instruct the editor to prepare Draft 5.0 incorporating these resolutions and, Approve a 15 day Working Group Recirculation Ballot asking the question “Should P802.11REVmb D5.0 be forwarded to Sponsor Ballot?” Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

May 2010 March 2011 May 2006 doc.: IEEE 802.11-06/0528r0

May 2006 doc.: IEEE /0528r0 March 2011 REVmb Draft Numbering History (part) D1.0, – balloted as LB149 D2.0, – completion of LB149 edits. Balloted version. D2.01, – roll-up of n D2.02, – speculative editing of LB160 editorial comments D2.03, – Comment resolutions from Jan 2010 D2.04 – Defect resolution from D2.01-D speculative editing of MIB changes in 11-10/0216r2 D3.0 – balloted as LB162 D3.01 – speculative editing of LB162 editorials Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

March 2011 Balloting Status show evotes results formatted TG/WG BallotID Ballot Close Date Title BallotType Pool Approve Disapprove Abstain Return %Return %Abstain %Approve TGmb 149 27 June 2009 IEEE REVmb Draft 1.0 Technical Letter Ballot Technical 246 155 23 29 207 84.15 14.01 87.08 160 08 January 2010 IEEE mb Draft 2.0 First Recirculation Letter Ballot Recirculation 166 20 25 211 85.77 11.85 89.25 162 25 April 2010 IEEE REVmb Draft 3.0 Second Recirculation Letter Ballot 167 212 86.18 11.79 89.3 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

May 2006 doc.: IEEE /0528r0 March 2011 Process for D3.01 D3.01 speculative editing of 19 editorial comments from LB162 One of these comments (CID 3084) was subsequently transferred to GEN as it actually resolves some technical ambiguities in D3.0. However these speculative edits are present in D3.01, tagged with this CID. One of the 20 editorial comments (CID 3124) was not resolved, and was transferred to MAC. Having made this transfer, I have prepared a resolution to this comment in one of my submissions. D3.01 is currently pending review by Bill, Peter and Mark. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

May 2006 doc.: IEEE /0528r0 March 2011 LB162 Documents REVmb DRAFT (members’ area of website) Draft P802.11REVmb_D3.0.pdf Draft P802.11REVmb_D3.0 Redline.pdf Composite comments (all ad-hocs) m-revmb-wg-ballot-comments.xls Comments assigned to / held by editor For: resolution, editing or other action m-revmb-wg-ballot-editor-comments.xls Editorials (18) – from LB162 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

March 2011 Motion - LB162 Editorials Approve comment resolutions in 11-09/0956r6 on the “Editorials” tab Stephens/ Count of Commenter Part of No Vote Resn Status N Y Grand Total A 8 D 3 6 P 2 4 13 5 18 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

March 2010 March 2011 May 2006 doc.: IEEE 802.11-06/0528r0

May 2006 doc.: IEEE /0528r0 March 2011 REVmb Draft Numbering History (part) D1.0, – balloted as LB149 D2.0, – completion of LB149 edits. Balloted version. D2.01, – roll-up of n D2.02, – speculative editing of LB160 editorial comments D2.03, – Comment resolutions from Jan 2010 D2.04, pending – Defect resolution from D2.01-D speculative editing of MIB changes in 11-10/0216r2 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

Process for D2.04 D2.01 contains the roll-up of .11n
May 2006 doc.: IEEE /0528r0 March 2011 Process for D2.04 D2.01 contains the roll-up of .11n D2.02 contains editing of ~50 editorial comments from LB160 D2.03 contains editing of 126 technical comments approved in Jan 2010 D2.01-D2.03 were reviewed 171 defects were reports (mostly from D2.01) Thank you to my reviewers: Stephen McCann, Jon Rosdahl, Kaberi Banerjee, Sudheer Grandhi, Mark Hamilton, Amit Bansal, Yuichi Morioka, Eldad Perahia, George Vlantis, John Ketchum, Gary Anwyl, Michael Montemurro, Matthew Gast. D2.04 is pending review by Peter Ecclesine Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

May 2006 doc.: IEEE /0528r0 March 2011 LB160 Documents REVmb DRAFT (members’ area of website) Draft P802.11REVmb_D2.03.pdf + Redlines between D2, D2.01, D2.02 Composite comments (all ad-hocs) m-revmb-wg-ballot-comments.xls Comments assigned to / held by editor For: resolution, editing or other action m-revmb-wg-ballot-editor-comments.xls Recycled comments for review (11) MIB (2) LB160 Editorials (50) Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

Recycled comments for review
March 2011 Recycled comments for review 6 implemented as specified CIDs 2220, 2181, 2006, 2007, 2023, 2010 2220: conflict with .11n 2181: response incomplete 2006 & 2007: dot11PHYdot11TempType 2023: MIB description conflict 2010: missing deprecation reason 3 implemented in modified form CIDs 2030, 2076, 2075 2030: conflict with .11n 2076 & 2075: response non-responsive and ambiguous 2 not implemented at all CIDs 2011, 2061 regarding dot11TempType Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

WG Ballot 160 Comments March 2011 May 2006 doc.: IEEE 802.11-06/0528r0

Status by ad-hoc – 2010-03-05 (summary)
May 2006 doc.: IEEE /0528r0 March 2011 Status by ad-hoc – (summary) Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

March 2011 Motion - LB160 Editorials Approve comment resolutions in 11-09/0956r4 on the “LB160 Editorials” tab Stephens/ Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

March 2011 Motion – MIB Approve resolutions for comments 2214 and 2039 as shown in 11-10/0216r2 Notes: CID 2039 was previously resolved (Jan 2010). This submission proposes an alternative resolution. Draft D2.04 was speculatively edited on the assumption that this motion passes. Stephens/ Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

Historic Data Slides from previous revisions of this document for
March 2011 Historic Data Slides from previous revisions of this document for Jan 2010 Nov 2009 Sept 2009 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

January 2010 March 2011 May 2006 doc.: IEEE 802.11-06/0528r0

REVmb Draft Numbering History (>D1)
May 2006 doc.: IEEE /0528r0 March 2011 REVmb Draft Numbering History (>D1) D1.0, – balloted as LB149 D1.01, – speculative resolution of editorials D1.02, – speculative resolution of minor technical comments D1.03, – editing of approved resolutions D1.04, – editing of approved resolutions D1.05, – roll-up of w D1.06, – defect resolution D2.0, – completion of LB149 edits. Balloted version. D2.01, – roll-up of n Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

May 2006 doc.: IEEE /0528r0 March 2011 Process for D2.0 D2.0 contains the editing of the 264 comments approved in Nov 2009. We needed to get the edits out as quickly as possible to give maximum time to the ballot itself over the holiday period. So we used an abbreviated review process. Bill Marshall and Adrian Stephens shared the editing and cross-checked each others’ work Matthew Gast also reviewed the edits. Thankyou to Bill and Matthew Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

May 2006 doc.: IEEE /0528r0 March 2011 LB160 Documents REVmb DRAFT (members’ area of website) Draft P802.11REVmb_D2.0.pdf Draft P802.11REVmb_D2.0 Redline.pdf Composite comments (all ad-hocs) m-revmb-wg-ballot-comments.xls Comments assigned to / held by editor For: resolution, editing or other action TBD: xx-000m-revmb-wg-ballot-editor-comments.xls not yet updated to LB160 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

Draft 2.01 Draft 2.01 includes STD IEEE 802.11n-2009
March 2011 Draft 2.01 Draft 2.01 includes STD IEEE n-2009 It has not been reviewed An editorial review is planned starting after the session Any defects will be addressed in D2.02 or D2.03 Call for volunteers: if you’ve not already volunteered to help review D2.01 edits, and you want to join the party, contact Adrian by asap. So far about 11 volunteers Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

November 2009 March 2011 May 2006 doc.: IEEE 802.11-06/0528r0

REVmb Draft Numbering History (>D1)
May 2006 doc.: IEEE /0528r0 March 2011 REVmb Draft Numbering History (>D1) D1.0, – balloted as LB149 D1.01, – speculative resolution of editorials D1.02, – speculative resolution of minor technical comments D1.03, – editing of approved resolutions D1.04, – editing of approved resolutions D1.05, – roll-up of w D1.06, – defect resolution Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

May 2006 doc.: IEEE /0528r0 March 2011 Process for D1.04-D1.06 D1.04 contains speculative editing of ~200 non-editorial comment resolutions approved in Sept 2009 D1.04 was reviewed and 62 defects were reported D1.05 was prepared containing a roll-up of STD w-2009 D1.05 was reviewed and 19 defects were reported D1.06 was prepared containing bugfixes for the D1.04 and D1.05 defects. Thankyou to the reviewers: Michael Montemurro, Peter Ecclesine, Matthew Gast, Kaberi Banerjee Jouni Malinen, Jesse Walker, Matthew Gast, Kapil Sood Thankyou to Bill Marshall for D1.05 editing Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

May 2006 doc.: IEEE /0528r0 March 2011 LB149 Documents REVmb DRAFT (members’ area of website) Draft P802.11REVmb_D1.06.pdf + Incremental redlines D1.04->D1.05 etc Composite comments (all ad-hocs) m-revmb-wg-ballot-comments.xls Comments assigned to / held by editor For: resolution, editing or other action m-revmb-wg-ballot-editor-comments.xls Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

Sept 2009 March 2011 May 2006 doc.: IEEE 802.11-06/0528r0

May 2006 doc.: IEEE /0528r0 March 2011 Process for D1.01-D1.03 D1.01 contains speculative editing of editorial comment resolutions (~770 pages modified) D1.01 was reviewed (~100 defects reported) D1.02 contains speculative editing of minor technical comment resolutions, and resolution of the D1.01 defects (~410 pages modifed) D1.02 was reviewed (~20 defects reported) D1.03 contains editing of comment resolutions approved in July 2009, plus resolution of the D1.02 defects (~12 pages modified) D1.03 was reviewed and no defects were reported Thankyou to the reviewers: Bill, Eldad, Gary, Jon, Kaberi, Mark, Matthew, Michael, Peter, Stephen and Sudheer Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

May 2006 doc.: IEEE /0528r0 March 2011 LB149 Documents REVmb DRAFT (members’ area of website) Draft P802.11REVmb_D1.03.pdf + D1.02, D1.01, D1.0 + Incremental redlines D1.02->D1.03 etc Composite comments (all ad-hocs) m-revmb-wg-ballot-comments.xls Comments assigned to / held by editor For: resolution, editing or other action m-revmb-wg-ballot-editor-comments.xls Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

TGmb Editor Report – March 2011

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "TGmb Editor Report – March 2011"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

TGmb Editor Report – March 2011

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "TGmb Editor Report – March 2011"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback