1. TGn Editor’s Report – July 2006
Month Year
doc.: IEEE yy/xxxxr0
July 2006
TGn Editor’s Report – July 2006
Date:
Authors:
Notice: This document has been prepared to assist IEEE It is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein.
Release: The contributor grants a free, irrevocable license to the IEEE to incorporate material contained in this contribution, and any modifications thereof, in the creation of an IEEE Standards publication; to copyright in the IEEE’s name any IEEE Standards publication even though it may include portions of this contribution; and at the IEEE’s sole discretion to permit others to reproduce in whole or in part the resulting IEEE Standards publication. The contributor also acknowledges and accepts that this contribution may be made public by IEEE
Patent Policy and Procedures: The contributor is familiar with the IEEE 802 Patent Policy and Procedures < ieee802.org/guides/bylaws/sb-bylaws.pdf>, including the statement "IEEE standards may include the known use of patent(s), including patent applications, provided the IEEE receives assurance from the patent holder or applicant with respect to patents essential for compliance with both mandatory and optional portions of the standard." Early disclosure to the Working Group of patent information that might be relevant to the standard is essential to reduce the possibility for delays in the development process and increase the likelihood that the draft publication will be approved for publication. Please notify the Chair as early as possible, in written or electronic form, if patented technology (or technology under patent application) might be incorporated into a draft standard being developed within the IEEE Working Group. If you have questions, contact the IEEE Patent Committee Administrator at
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation
John Doe, Some Company

2. Month Year
doc.: IEEE yy/xxxxr0
July 2006
Abstract
This presentation contains an opening report from the TGn editor intended to be presented in the opening session of TGn, plus associated editorial motions intended to be used later in the agenda.
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation
John Doe, Some Company

3. July 2006
Acknowledgments
The following people provided editorial assistance during the last 2 months:
Editing and comment resolution: Amit Bansal, Ariton Xhafa, Bjorn Bjerke, John Ketchum, Krishna Pillai, Eldad Perahia, Sanjiv Nanda, Srinivas Kandala, Vinko Erceg
FrameMaker conversion: Gary Williams (Qualcomm)
Editorial and comment review: George Vlantis, John Ketchum, Assaf Kasher, Krishna Pillai, Yuichi Morioka, Eldad Perahia, Sanjiv Nanda, Tomoko Adachi, Bill Marshall, Solomon Trainin
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

4. Slide from May 2006 Editor’s closing report Editorial Process
July 2006
Slide from May 2006 Editor’s closing report
Editorial Process
Volunteers will work with sections of the working draft and matching sections of comments to prepare tentative resolution
The goal is to complete this for the July TGn session
The editor will bring:
A change-bar D1.01 showing editorial changes
A comment-resolution spreadsheet showing tentative resolutions
A motion in TGn to accept the changes and approve D1.01 as the embodiment of those changes
There will be some un-handled HE editorials requiring discussion in TGn (e.g. naming, document structure)
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

5. Recent Editorial Activities
July 2006
Recent Editorial Activities
Split the draft (D1.00 word version) and matching editorial comments into 10 packets of work and assigned these to volunteer “heavy lifters” to resolve and edit. (2 weeks)
Reassembled the draft and resolved “deferred” editorials (1 week)
Conversion to FrameMaker
Initial import (1 week)
Manual fixing of headings, cross-references, styles (2 weeks)
Editorial review. Split the comments between 12 volunteers who checked that resolutions had been implemented. They also checked a range of pages in the draft to ensure that there were no technical changes. (1 week)
D 1.01 publication (2 versions)
D 1.01 review comments (about 50 defects reported so far)
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

6. Status of the Draft Conversion to FrameMaker complete
July 2006
Status of the Draft
Conversion to FrameMaker complete
Conditional text used to show insertions and deletions since D1.00
Only a single FrameMaker source, but multiple ways of creating the .pdf file based on conditional text settings
Two version of the document are published:
D1.01 showing insertions in blue and unchanged text in black
D1.01 showing insertions in blue, deletions in red strikeout and unchanged text in black
Why two versions?
The extent of the changes, together with the automated change tracking process (a Word compare followed by a Frame import of the file with tracked changes) resulted in some bizarre (and confusing) decisions regarding what matches up with what.
This confusion is apparent only in the “insertions and deletions” version. The “insertions” version suffers from no artefacts resulting from the change tracking.
Some defects need to be fixed before voting on a D1.02 can take place
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

7. Status of the Editorial Comments (not including exact duplicates)
July 2006
Status of the Editorial Comments (not including exact duplicates)
Resolution Status % A
2376
76.2% C
427
13.7% R
317
10.2%
Grand Total
3120
100.0%
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

8. July 2006
Hard Editorials
These are comments requiring submission and/or discussion in the technical ad-hocs
These comments are owned by the technical ad-hocs and will be progressed along with other technical comments
Some comments need input from TGn – there are some straw polls to come in this session to resolve these
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

9. Editorial activities this Session
July 2006
Editorial activities this Session
In TGn Session (<1hr)
Report on Status (This report)
Brief Review of Resolutions
Brief Review of Draft
In Editorial Ad-hoc (2 hours)
More detailed review of the comments
More detailed review of the draft
Q & A on the resolutions and draft changes
Collate any additional defects defects
Between sessions
Update Draft 1.01 to Draft 1.02
TGn chair publishes draft
In TGn Session
Motion to accept editorial resolution (15 minutes)
Motion to accept Draft 1.02 as an editorial revision (15 minutes)
Straw Polls on “Hard Editorials” 6 straw poll * 5 minutes (30 minutes)
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

10. Editorial Goals for September
July 2006
Editorial Goals for September
Incorporate all changes approved by TGn during the July session in a draft to be released before September
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

11. Editorial Guidance to Submission Authors
July 2006
Editorial Guidance to Submission Authors
Authors please read and use
n-tgn-lb84-submission-template-and-guide.doc
Quick review of document here (5 minutes)
Guidance only – no normative requirements
Goal is to achieve both of the following
Clear presentation of the results of any changes to aid TGn voters
Smallest possible set of changes presented as editing instructions to the TGn editor using the usual change, insert, delete commands to minimise the likelihood of conflicting changes
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

12. July 2006
Ad-hocs
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

13. Status comment database technical ad-hocs
July 2006
Status comment database technical ad-hocs
Unique Technical comments status summary + detail
Last Updated By A C R L W D T
Blank
Total
Done
% Done
beam 65 35 72 1
208 9
390
173
44.3 ca 13 4 7 25 24 96
coex 52 32 44 2
135
259
524
130
24.8
frame 61 54 53 33
282
484
168
34.7
general
131
150 17
331
305
92.1
mac
103 51 56 3
155
184
552
213
38.5
phy 62 58 85
123
338
670
209
31.1
psmp 68 29 43 16
224
161
71.8
Totals
555
442
367 12
714 5
1098
3200
1383
43.2
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

14. July 2006
Review of Resolutions
Brief walkthrough of contents of editorial spreadsheet
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

15. July 2006
Review of Draft
Brief walkthrough of unapproved D1.01 and explanation why there are two versions published
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

16. July 2006
Review agenda for remaining editorial activities shown in following slides
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

17. Q & A Session – Editorial Ad-hoc
July 2006
Q & A Session – Editorial Ad-hoc
Q & A session on specific comments or changes to draft
Identification of additional defects in D1.01
Look at change marks in D1.01 and compare with D1.00 text
~ 50 defects already reported
Review and update editorial straw polls to be asked in TGn later
Solicit additional volunteer helpers to review revisions of the draft prior to publication
Solicit additional volunteer helpers to help edit resolutions (needs FrameMaker v7 installed)
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

18. Motion to accept editorial resolutions
July 2006
Motion to accept editorial resolutions
Move to accept the LB84 comment resolutions shown in document r9 on the “Editorials” tab (CHECK)
Moved/Seconded:
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

19. Motion to accept Draft 1.02 as an editorial revision
July 2006
Motion to accept Draft 1.02 as an editorial revision
Move to accept TGn Draft 1.02 (no tracked changes) as the current draft of this task group.
Moved/seconded:
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

20. Editorial Straw Polls (intro)
July 2006
Editorial Straw Polls (intro)
Some comment resolutions have significant impact or scope
Frame formats
Naming
I don’t want to change something because of a handful of comments only to generate more objections to the new name – i.e. I need to discover a TGn consensus
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

21. Editorial Straw Polls (ESP)
July 2006
Editorial Straw Polls (ESP)
CIDS
Description
1752
Naming: control channel -> primary channel
2231, 2237, 2245, 2253, 2273, 2297, 2345, 2353
Frame formats. Change table description of action frames to a figure showing sizes plus a paragraph below containing information currently in the value field.
2911
Naming: is "High Throughput" the right name for clause 21?
3992
Naming: we have transmitter/receiver, requester/responder, beamformer/beamformee. Are they all necessary?
4797, 7698, 11955, 11956
Naming. We dropped the "legacy" term, but we still have L-STF etc... Should this be NHT-STF?
7700
Naming: should we replace HT STA with something like NSTA?
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

22. July 2006
ESP
CIDS: 2231, 2237, 2245, 2253, 2273, 2297, 2345, 2353
The commenter said:
The frame formats would be much better shown as a Figure than a table
Change to a Figure showing sizes of each field, and a short paragraph below with the information currently in the "Value" column
The editor can do this as an editorial without submission, but it would require significant work. Also there are related technical comments the identify that each field referenced in the table of fields needs its own subclause to define it, early in clause 7.
Should we accept the specific comment?
Should we address the other structural issues at the same time?
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

23. Types of frame format figure in the Draft
July 2006
Types of frame format figure in the Draft
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

24. July 2006
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

25. July 2006
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

26. July 2006
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

27. July 2006
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

28. What alternatives do we have?
July 2006
What alternatives do we have?
Review of document 11-06/0923r0
Four options:
Leave it as is
Fix the problem with where the fields are defined and structure the tables like the existing action frames
Fix the problem with where the fields are defined and structure the tables to look like figures as the comment requested
Only modify the structure of the tables as the commenter requested
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

29. July 2006
Editorial Motion
Move that the editor update the format of the TGn Draft HT Action frame subclauses according to the changes illustrated in r0 section “xxx” (insert after straw poll).
Moved/Seconded:
Result:
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

30. ESP CID 1752 Naming: control channel -> primary channel Result:
July 2006
ESP
CID 1752
Naming: control channel -> primary channel
And also extension channel -> secondary channel
Result:
Yes No
Don’t care
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

31. July 2006
ESP
CID 2911
Naming: is "High Throughput" the right name for clause 21, and by implication, all HT features?
Issue, HT used as an adjective – e.g. HT pure mode, HT greenfield mode. We need a term that can act as an adjective and as a noun.
Straw poll keep HT name?:
Yes No
Abstain
If no, then what do you want?
MSTA (MIMO STA)
NSTA (TGn STA)
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

32. July 2006
ESP4
CID 3992
Naming: we have transmitter/receiver, requester/responder, beamformer/beamformee. Are they all necessary?
Straw poll: do we need to remove one of the above terms?
Yes No
Abstain
If so, which one, and what replaces it?
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

33. July 2006
ESP
CID 7700
Naming: should we replace HT STA with something like NSTA?
Straw poll: replace HT STA with NSTA?
Yes No
Abstain
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

34. July 2006
ESP5
CID 4797, 7698, 11955, 11956
Naming. We dropped the "legacy" term, but we still have L-STF etc... Should this be NHT-STF?
Straw poll: replace L-STF with NHT-STF?
Yes No
Abstain
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

35. References TGn Draft: P802.11n D1.01.pdf
July 2006
References
TGn Draft: P802.11n D1.01.pdf
Editorial Comment Resolution spreadsheet: /r8
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation