1. 802.11 WG Editor’s Meeting (May ‘10)
July 2007
Mar 2010
WG Editor’s Meeting (May ‘10)
Date:
Authors:
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

2. Mar 2010
Abstract
This document contains agenda/minutes/actions/status as prepared/recorded at the IEEE Editors’ Meeting
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

3. Agenda for 2010-05-18 Roll Call / Contacts / Reflector
Mar 2010
July 2007
Agenda for
Roll Call / Contacts / Reflector
Go round table and get brief status report
Review action items from previous meeting
Numbering Alignment process
Amendment Ordering / ANA Status / Draft Snapshots
MIB style and Frame practices
Scope and Purpose statements
Style Guide for
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

4. Roll Call – 2010-05-18 Mar 2010 July 2007 Editor’s Present
P802.11mb Amendment (REVmb) – Adrian Stephens
P802.11s Amendment (MESH) –Kazuyuki Sakoda
P802.11z Amendment (TDLS) – Menzo Wentink
P802.11aa Amendment (VTS) – Hang Liu
Also present:
Clint Chaplin
Editor’s Not Present
P802.11p Amendment (WAVE) – Wayne Fisher
P802.11u Amendment (IW) -- Necati Canpolat
P802.11v Amendment (WNM) – Emily Qi
IEEE Staff not present and always welcome!
Michael Kipness – our staff liaison,
Michelle Turner – staff editor for 802,
Kim Breitfelder – manager publishing,
Note: editors request that an IEEE staff member should be present at least during Plenary meetings
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

5. Volunteer Editor Contacts
Mar 2010
July 2007
Volunteer Editor Contacts
TGp – Wayne Fisher –
TGs – Kazuyuki Sakoda -
TGu – Necati Canpolat –
TGv – Emily Qi –
TGz – Menzo Wentink–
TGmb – Adrian Stephens – (TBC)
TGaa – Hang Liu –
Editor Emeritus:
TGk – Joe Kwak–
TGn – Adrian Stephens –
TGr – Bill Marshall –
TGw – Nancy Cam-Winget –
TGy – Peter Ecclesine –
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

6. Round table status report
REVmb – in LB162 resolution, hope to recirc
11p – Gone to RevCom
11s – LB161 comment resolution, hope to recirc
11u – Recirc Sponsor Ballot comment resolution, hope to recirc
11v – Recirc Sponsor Ballot comment resolution, hope to recirc
11z – Recirc Sponsor Ballot comment resolution, hope to recirc
11aa – D0.05 in internal review, hope for WG Letter Ballot
11af – D0.02 in internal review, hope to have D0.03 in July
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

7. Mar 2010
July 2007
Reflector Updates
Each editor is expected to be on the reflector and current.
If you didn’t receive the meeting notice from the reflector, please send to
To be updated:
None
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

8. IEEE Publication Status
Mar 2010
July 2007
IEEE Publication Status
IEEE published and for free download with Get802
Published in June 2007
Combines all existing amendments and includes maintenance work by TGma
Publications completed for k, r and y, n and w
11k now available with Get802
11r now available with Get802
11y now available with Get802
11w now available with Get802
11n should be available soon with Get802
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

9. Mar 2010
MEC Status
P802.11p D7.0 has gone through Mandatory Editorial Coordination in June 2009
See p-P802-11p D7 Mandatory Editorial Coordination MEC.doc
P802.11u D6.0 has gone through Mandatory Editorial Coordination in July 2009
See u-P802-11u D7 Mandatory Editorial Coordination MEC.doc
P802.11v D6.0 has gone through Mandatory Editorial Coordination in July 2009
See u-P802-11v D6 Mandatory Editorial Coordination MEC.doc
P802.11z D5.0 has gone through Mandatory Editorial Coordination in July 2009
See u-P802-11z D5 Mandatory Editorial Coordination MEC.doc
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

10. Numbering Alignment Process
Mar 2010
Numbering Alignment Process
Update from all published standards. Posted as 11-08/644r11 By Adrian Stephens
TGz will start a new update cycle.
Slide 10
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

11. Amendment & other ordering notes
Mar 2010
Amendment & other ordering notes
Editors define publication order independent of working group public timelines:
Since official timeline is volatile and moves around
Publication order helps provide stability in amendment numbering, figures, clauses and other numbering assignments
Editors are committed to maintain a rational publication order
Numbering spreadsheet 08/0644:
Succeeding amendments to do their respective updates
Must match the official timeline after plenaries
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

12. Mar 2010
July 2007
ANA Announcements
Current ANA announced to group is r10. (5/12/2010)
See
All new requests received by end of meeting will be uploaded and announced via WG reflector
Procedure for ANA is contained in 07/0827r0.
See
Editorial Guidance
ANA assignments should be done before the time of moving from WG LB to Sponsor ballot.
If a resource number is not in the ANA Database, please use <ANA> in drafts!
Editors to replace any ANA controlled resources numbers with <ANA> upon incorporation of material into drafts.
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

13. Editor Amendment Ordering
July 2007
Mar 2010
Amendment numbering is editorial! No need to make ballot comments on these dynamic numbers!
Editor Amendment Ordering
Data as of May 2010
See
Amendment Number
Task Group
REVCOM Date
Amendment 6
TGp
June 2010
Amendment 7
TGz
Sept 2010
Amendment 8
TGv
Amendment 9
TGu
Revision
802.11mb
June 2011
Amendment 1
TGs
Sept 2011
Amendment 2
TGae
Oct 2011
Amendment 3
TGaf
Dec 2011
Amendment 4
TGaa
Sept 2012
Amendment 5
TGac
Dec 2012
Amendment 6
TGad
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

14. Email Your Draft Status Updates
Mar 2010
September 2007
Your Draft Status Updates
Each editor, please send update for next page via the editor’s reflector no later than Thursday am2 to update table on next page!
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

15. Draft Development Snapshot
July 2009
July 2007
May 2010
Draft Development Snapshot
Most current doc shaded green.
Changes from last report shown in red. TG
Published or Draft Baseline Documents
Source
MEC
Style Guide
Editor
Snapshot Date
802.11 k r y w n p Z v u mb s aa af
2007
2008
2009
11.0
Word
Yes
Wayne Fisher
16-Mar z
10.0
Frame 7.2
Menzo Wentink
17-July
7.0
Emily Qi
18-May
9.0
Necati Canpolat
3.01 No
Adrian Stephens
8.03
5.0
Frame 8.0
Kazuyuki Sakoda
8.0
0.05
Hang Liu
0.04
0.02
Frame 7.1
Peter Ecclesine
Slide 15
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)
Page 15
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

16. MIB style, Visio and Frame practices
Mar 2010
MIB style, Visio and Frame practices
I’m going to suggest going forward we use a single style with appropriately set tabs,  and use leading Tabs to distinguish the syntax and description parts. (Adrian Stephens Feb 9, 2010)
 Keep embedded figures using visio as long as possible
Near the end of sponsor ballot,  turn these all into .wmf (windows meta file) format files (you can do this from visio using “save as”).   Keep separate files for the .vsd source and the .wmf file that is linked to from frame.
Frame templates for 11aa, 11ac, 11ad, 11ae, 11af
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

17. Scope and Purpose Statements
Mar 2010
Mar 2010
Scope and Purpose Statements
We have invited IEEE-SA staff to present the frontmatter discussion of Scope and Purpose
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

18. 802.11 Style Guide See 11-09-1034-00-0000-wg11-style-guide.doc
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

19. Conference Calls Are they of any value? Next Meeting: July 11-16
Any need for conference calls?
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

20. Pre-RevCom IEEE-SA Review
Mar 2010
Pre-RevCom IEEE-SA Review
Possibly near the end of Working Group Letter Ballot (3rd recirc or 4th recirc) , we will offer the draft to the publications editor for review. This allows ambiguities and errors to be addressed in Sponsor Ballot by comments, rather than discover the ambiguities and errors after RevCom.
It appears that during MEC is the least risky time for a publication editor’s review.
TGs Draft 7.0 is expected out of July plenary, and by agreement with ExCom and IEEE SA staff, will go for professional editing for ~50 days, after which Draft 8.0 will be available to start Sponsor Ballot.
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

21. Mar 2010
Two Technical Editors
Peter Ecclesine will run the face to face meetings
Adrian Stephens will run the publication process
Adrian Stephens is the ANA administrator
All are on the Editor’s list.
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

22. Mar 2010
Reference Material
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

23. Editorial Streamlining
Mar 2010
July 2007
Editorial Streamlining
Focus is on consistency across all TGs:
Completed
Streamlined ANA processes – 07/0827r0
Consistent format for REDLINE contributions across TGs – 07/0788r0
Consistent process for editorial comment resolution across TGs (WG & Sponsor) – 07/2050r0
Guideline for technical vs. editorial, sample editorial comment responses
Format for comment reporting across TGs (WG & Sponsor) – 07/1990r0 (tool in 07/2116r0)
Stable numbering method (See 07/2810r0)
Consistent naming of redlines (See 07/2810r0)
Draft templates for FRAME (no Word) to help train new editors more rapidly
Under Construction (in priority order)
Revise the editor’s guideline – comments on 09/1034?
Mentoring program – Name a mentor for each new editor
Request in future Plenary sessions Mondays 7:30pm Frame surgery
MIB element numbering and compiling – publish a rolled-up MIB of k/r/y
Guideline on non-technical front matter
Guideline describing expected editorial development and maturity of draft through stages in for consistency across TGs
Guidelines for primitives – ARC to consider
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

24. Numbering of Annexes and Clauses
Mar 2010
July 2007
Numbering of Annexes and Clauses
Proposal: TGMb will fix the ordering of annexes
Ample bad precedent set by 11k
Bibliography should be the final annex per IEEE Standards Style Guide
Clause numbering has similar issue during rollup
TGn clause 3a, 11r clause 11a, 11y clause 11.9a
REVmb numbering will stay using “Amendment style” numbering until the very last possible moment before going to Sponsor Ballot.
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

25. Draft naming convention
Mar 2010
Draft naming convention
Drafts and redlines are .pdf files
Syntax:
Draft <project>_<draft> [Redline [Compared to <project>_<draft>]].pdf
Examples:
Draft P802.11n_D8.0.pdf
Draft P802.11n_D8.0 Redline.pdf
Draft P802.11n_D7.04 Redline Compared to P802.11n_D7.03.pdf
Please use this convention for all drafts posted on the website.
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

26. Lessons Learned from RevCom
During Sponsor ballot… (see 09/1058r1)
Minimise cross references (“disagree – see CID 1234”)
Because not all CIDs are included in the “unsatisfied comments” listing, so this may end up a dangling reference.
Copy resolution + add (“same as resoution for CID 1234”)
Provide full URLs for doc references
Because some members of RevCom and the Sponsor Pool may not be familiar with how to get to Mentor
Minimise use of doc references
Cut and paste from reference doc, where-ever possible. This minimises work for sponsor ballot members getting reference documents.
Easier to audit process
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

27. Mar 2010
July 2007
Publication Work Plan Note: to be included in the editor’s operations manual
Here is the workflow we have used for a number of years with IEEE staff on publication of publications: 
Editors provide FRAME source and any freestanding graphics (Powerpoint, Visio. TIF) to staff at time of REVCOM submission.
Editors provide a list of requests editorial corrections no later than REVCOM approval date.
Staff prepares a publication draft and highlights changes they have made and questions they need addressed or confirmed. This draft is sent to Task Group Editor and the Working Group Technical Editor (me). This typically occurs about 2-3 weeks after approval for publication, since the preparation work is usually (but not always) begun ahead of approval. This is also typically the draft peer reviewed by IEEE staff.
The Task Group Editor responds to all questions on domain specific questions, with copy to Working Group editor (me). This typically takes about 3-5 days.
The Working Group Technical Editor reviews responses from the Task Group editor, completes any responses, and provides a list of WG officers and voting members valid for the document as of the opening day of the Sponsor ballot. This typically only takes one additional day from the prior step as most of the work is done in parallel by the two editors.
Final draft is submitted by the IEEE staff to Working Group Technical Editor and Task Group Editor for sign-off. Any changes from the responses or IEEE peer review are highlighted and explained. This typically takes only one or two days more after the responses are received from the editors.
Task Group Editor gives final approval. No changes are expected. This usually occurs within 24 hours.
Working Group Technical Editor signs off and provides draft to Working Group Chair. No changes are expected. This usually occurs within 24 hours and in parallel with the previous step.
Working Group Chair sends to sponsor and IEEE staff letting them know the Working Group has signed off on the publication process.
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

28. Terry Cole on Changes to MIB elements
Mar 2010
Terry Cole on Changes to MIB elements
You can incrementally add to a MIB element without deprecation at any level. That is, add new values and meaning pairs.
You can change the description of a MIB element without deprecation at any level. That is add new text clarifying or even changing the meaning of the element to keep up with the standard.
I would advise deprecation when changing the definition of some value of a MIB from one thing to another. However, I don't know of any rules requiring this.
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

29. Publications: lessons learned
Mar 2010
Publications: lessons learned
When quoting baseline text inaccurately, the baseline text is changed whether or not the changes were marked. The IEEE staff will actually do the appropriate changes as if the task group had actually intended to change the baseline.
Drafts can minimally quote baseline text to minimize such changes
Should revisit the decision to include full context during insertion
Full Annex titles have to be shown in the amendment; more importantly included “normative” vs. “informative”
TGk inadvertently changed Annex A to be fully informative
TGr battled to fix Annex A but caused ripples
TGy r1 has brief review of significant things changed for publication
In editor’s operations manual and during balloting, should comment that Annexes should be fully titled with good reason to vote “No” in balloting
Slide 29
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

30. Publications: lessons learned (cont’d)
Mar 2010
Publications: lessons learned (cont’d)
Acronym rules are inconsistent
Styleguide doesn’t include definitions
Every document is treated as standalone, thus first acronym reference must be spelled out. Even though, other amendments or baseline may have defined and used the acronym earlier.
Goal should be to have as few changes between the final balloted amendment and final published amendment.
How do we deal with subjective decisions made by the IEEE copy editors as their styles vary?
Booleans should be capitalized: TRUE and FALSE
when “set to”
Booleans should be lower case: is true and is false (raise the issue with Style Guide update)
Slide 30
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)