1. P802.11n report to EC on request for approval to proceed to RevCom
June 2009
doc.: IEEE /0674r0
July 2009
P802.11n report to EC on request for approval to proceed to RevCom
Date:
Authors:
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel

2. June 2009
doc.: IEEE /0674r0
July 2009
Introduction
Revision 1 of this document, reflects the status as of after the fifth recirculation ballot. Any greyed-out sections will be filled in the final version of this document.
This document contains the report to the IEEE 802 Executive Committee in support of a request for approval to send IEEE P802.11n to RevCom.
Document (11-09/0674r<tbd>) was approved during the closing plenary session of the working group on <date>.
Passed in the Task Group <result>
Passed in the Working Group <result>
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel

3. IEEE 802 Sponsor Ballot Results – P802.11n
June 2009
doc.: IEEE /0674r0
July 2009
IEEE 802 Sponsor Ballot Results – P802.11n
QTY %
QTY %
QTY %
QTY %
** Note, one voter changed from “disapprove” to “approve” following the closure of the 5th recirculation. This is included in the figures above.
Key:
“with” = “with comments”
“w/o” = “without comments”
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel

4. Comments by Ballot July 2009 June 2009 doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0674r0
Key: SB0 = Initial sponsor ballot. SB1 = 1st recirculation ballot, etc.
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.
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel

5. Mandatory coordination
June 2009
doc.: IEEE /0674r0
July 2009
Mandatory coordination
Coordination Entity
Draft
Date
Status
IEEE-SA Editorial (MEC)
D9.0 D10.0 D11.0
March 09 May 09 June 09
“Meets all editorial requirements. “
Quantities, Units and Letter Symbols
(SCC14)
D8.0
February 09
“OK”
Terms and Definitions (SCC10)
No response
Registration Authority Committee (RAC)
Not required
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel

6. Updated resolution of the 20/40 MHz in 2.4 GHz comments
June 2009
doc.: IEEE /0674r0
July 2009
Updated resolution of the 20/40 MHz in 2.4 GHz comments
Prior to completion of comment resolutions in the May session (Montreal, Canada), many of the comments relating to the 20/40MHz in 2.4 GHz topic were rejected by the comment resolution committee.
During the May session, a compromise was worked out, including active participation from the comment resolution committee and those voting “no” on this topic. Significant changes were incorporated into D10.0
As a result, resolutions of 81 comments from the initial ballot and 16 comments from the first recirculation ballot were re-written (replacing a “disagree” with an “accept in principle”).
The updated resolutions form the basis of the analysis in the rest of this document.
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel

7. June 2009
doc.: IEEE /0674r0
July 2009
Note
In subsequent slides, “Unsatisfied comments” includes both “Known Unsatisfied” and “Assumed Unsatisfied” comments.
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel

8. Unsatisfied Comments July 2009 June 2009 doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0674r0
The table shows the count of unsatisfied editorial comments and technical comments separately. The comments are then classified into:
A – Accepted. The comment was accepted and the change indicated by the commenter was approved.
P – Accepted in Principle. The comment was accepted in principle, but a different change to the one indicated by the commenter was approved.
D – Disagree. The comment was declined and no change to address the comment was approved.
U – Unresolvable.
S – Out of Scope.
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel

9. Unsatisfied comments by commenter
June 2009
doc.: IEEE /0674r0
July 2009
Unsatisfied comments by commenter
The list of 18 voters includes all “disapprove” voters with unsatisfied comments indicated as “Must be satisfied”.
Note, one voter (Harry Bims) counted as a “disapprove with comments” by MyBallot did not have any “Must be satisfied” comments.
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel

10. Unsatisfied Comments by Topic
June 2009
doc.: IEEE /0674r0
July 2009
Unsatisfied Comments by Topic
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel

11. June 2009
doc.: IEEE /0674r0
July 2009
Unsatisfied comments
The composite of all unsatisfied comments and the resolutions approved by the comment resolution committee received during P802.11n sponsor ballot is attached.
Double click on the icon to the right to open this.
A copy of this same data presented using MyBallot access database report format is attached.
Double click on the embedded .pdf to the right to open this.
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel

12. June 2009
doc.: IEEE /0674r0
July 2009
Note
Having filled in the blanks, the following slide will be brought to motion in the July EC meeting.
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel

13. 802.11 EC Motion – Approval to send P802.11n to RevCom
June 2009
doc.: IEEE /0674r0
July 2009
EC Motion – Approval to send P802.11n to RevCom
Grant approval, to forward P802.11n Draft 11.0 to RevCom.
P802.11n had a 91% approval on the last Recirculation Sponsor Ballot. There are 18 disapprove voters representing 80 unsatisfied comments.
Moved: Bruce Kraemer nd: James Gilb
Yes No Abstain
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel