Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

TGn Editor Report November 2006

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "TGn Editor Report November 2006"— Presentation transcript:

1 802.11 TGn Editor Report November 2006
May 2006 doc.: IEEE /0528r0 Nov 2006 TGn Editor Report November 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 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

2 May 2006 doc.: IEEE /0528r0 Nov 2006 Abstract This document summarises editorial activities on the TGn Draft and Comment resolution It also contains a summary of the status of the TGn LB84 comment resolution based on the ad-hoc comment resolution spreadsheets Status as of the start of the TGn session on Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

3 Editorial assistance: Editorial review:
Nov 2006 Acknowledgements Editorial assistance: John Ketchum Editorial review: Amit Bansal, Assaf Kasher, Bjorn A. Bjerke, Eldad Perahia, Joonsuk Kim, George Vlantis, Krishna Pillai, Solomon Trainin, Tomoko Adachi, Yuichi Morioka, Tomoya Yamaura Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

4 Related Documents TGn DRAFT (members’ area of 802.11 website)
Nov 2006 Related Documents TGn DRAFT (members’ area of website) P802.11n-D1 06.pdf   n-p tgn-redline-d106-insertions-and-deletions.pdf Comments “owned” by the editor: n-tgn-d1-0-lb84-editorial-plus-duplicates.xls r22 will be uploaded for motion of editorial comments later in this session Composite spreadsheet n-tgn-d1-0-lb84.xls Submission Template n-tgn-lb84-submission-template-and-guide.doc Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

5 Guidance for submission authors
Nov 2006 Guidance for submission authors Use the latest TGn Draft It’s OK to use D1.05 rather than D1.06, because the differences are minor But use D1.06 if you are starting a new submission Use the submission template doc 11-06/0967r0, and read the notes there Remember to propose new resolutions for already approved comments that conflict with your proposal You can find by looking for (Ed: CID yyyy) flags in the affected text Find the comments in document 11-06/541r12 Ad-hoc chairs, copy the comment from 11-06/541 into your spreadsheet and “take ownership” of it Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

6 May 2006 doc.: IEEE /0528r0 Nov 2006 Process for Draft D1.06 Each “A or C” resolution was implemented (if possible). The draft was edited and was also marked with a comment indicating the related CID. The comments spreadsheet was updated with Edit Status and Edit Notes. Edit Notes indicate any interpretation or modification of the resolution that was implemented. Edit Status indicates one of: EI, EM, EMR, ER, EN (see next slide). A response to the (A + C) Comments approved in September in is document 11-06/0706r19 in the “Edited in D1_05” tab. This draft was published as D1.05 The working draft and spreadsheet were reviewed by editorial volunteers who reported ~80 defects. The defects were corrected, and D1.06 was published. Time required (for ~800 comment resolutions): 2 weeks for initial editing 1 weeks for review 1 week for addressing defects and publication Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

7 Terminology Edit Status Type (Ed) Resolution Status
May 2006 doc.: IEEE /0528r0 Nov 2006 Terminology Edit Status EI = Edited as resolution EM = Edited with minor changes EMR = Edited with changes, recycled for TGn approval ER = Cannot edit, recycled for rework and TGn approval EN = Nothing to do (duplicate of other resolution) Type (Ed) T = Technical ST = Submission Technical DT = Disputed Technical Resolution Status A = Accept R = Reject C/L = Counter/Alternate (equivalent) D = Defer T = Transfer W = Withdraw Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

8 Implementation of “A+C” resolutions approved in September
Nov 2006 Implementation of “A+C” resolutions approved in September Status as in 11-06/0706r19 Since then EMR and ER comments have been recycled to ad-hocs Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

9 Status of Comments Database
Nov 2006 Status of Comments Database The LB84 comments are distributed between 13 Excel worksheets in 9 separate files. The comments are regularly checked against the original corpus, held in 11-06/0541r2 to ensure that no comments are lost, and fixed fields of the comments have not been changed. The list of components follows on the next slide. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

10 Monday Afternoon Status (13 Nov 2006)
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

11 Components Nov 2006 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation Document name
Version number Spreadsheet tab name Short name 47 Pending Motion 2 beam pending motion 2 Pending Motion 1 beam pending motion 1 Beam & Adapt beam Pending Motion 3 beam pending motion 3 38 Transfer Out psmp outbox PSMP psmp 43 General general xfer_out mac outbox MAC mac 67 PHY phy 21 Edited edited Editorials editorials Duplicates dup No edit required no edit required edited in D1_05 41 Frame Format frame frame transfer out 37 Coexistence coex 04 CA Doc ca Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

12 Status per Component Nov 2006 Last Updated By A C R L W D ER Blank
Total Done % Done beam 28 beam pending motion 1 1 40 8 49 100 beam pending motion 2 48 2 51 beam pending motion 3 15 ca 14 7 25 24 96 coex 39 50 21 183 294 110 37.4 dup edited 234 128 362 edited in D1_05 242 332 52 626 frame 13 6 36 5 35 32 29 general 3 10 70 mac 62 26 47 207 130 62.8 no edit required 181 252 402 875 phy 137 79 140 12 384 229 59.6 psmp Totals 781 1090 631 416 9 98 3077 2549 82.8 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

13 Status per ad-hoc Res = resolved – i.e. decided in the ad-hoc
Nov 2006 Status per ad-hoc adhoc A C R L W D EMR ER Blank Tot TBD Res % Res App % App (blank) 34 26 10 4 2 3 79 9 70 88.6 56 70.8 beam 50 217 83 6 28 384 356 92.7 242 63 ca 14 1 7 24 100 coex 98 107 76 179 469 182 287 61.1 180 38.3 edit frame 126 94 36 5 33 403 74 329 81.6 297 73.6 gen 133 155 325 321 98.7 313 96.3 mac 183 119 118 8 47 505 75 428 84.7 309 phy 261 165 16 140 11 670 154 516 77 42.8 psmp 69 95 216 177 81.9 Totals 781 1090 631 40 416 3077 375 2549 82.8 1863 60.5 Res = resolved – i.e. decided in the ad-hoc App = approved – i.e. approved by motion in TGn Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

14 Possible “end game” timeline
Nov 2006 Possible “end game” timeline Scenario 1. All 1200 unapproved comments are approved in Nov. 3 weeks editing. 15 day then 30 day letter ballot. 30 day ballot completes after Jan 2007 meeting Scenario 2. >1100 comments approved in Nov, <~80 comments approved in Jan (by Tuesday pm) Final editing done during Jan session. LB approved during Jan session 30 day LB completes well before March session Can have a pre-meeting in March Scenario 3. >900 comments approved in Nov, <~300 comments approved in Jan “Editorial caucus” after Jan meeting 15 day then 30 day LB Completes the day before the March meeting No slack - No room for error Scenario 4. > 300 comments left to approve in Jan 30 day LB completes after March 2007 session Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

15 Nov 2006 Scenario 3 timing Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

16 Editorial Motions this week
Nov 2006 Editorial Motions this week Motion: Approval of “Edit Status”=EM (edit with mods) resolutions in 11-06/0706r21 “Edited in D1.05” tab Motion: approve draft D1.06 Motion: approve resolutions to editorials Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

17 Nov 2006 Editor Motion 1 Whereas the editor found it necessary to make minor modifications in the incorporation of TGn comment resolutions approved in September, identified with an “Edit Status” of “EM”, and whereas 11-06/0706r21 has 95 “EM” Comments on the “Edited in D1_05” tab: CIDs: 12, 150, 356, 357, 381, 402, 414, 507, 551, 630, 636, 659, 681, 701, 876, 891, 1001, 1002, 1005, 1015, 1016, 1028, 1048, 1083, 1152, 1156, 1162, 1164, 1166, 1250, 1302, 1349, 1350, 1351, 1353, 1354, 1359, 1363, 1366, 1374, 1376, 1390, 1400, 1406, 1410, 1444, 1467, 1490, 1526, 2371, 2750, 2767, 2772, 2773, 2774, 3374, 3495, 3590, 3700, 3808, 3848, 3858, 3862, 3864, 3865, 3901, 3906, 3992, 4238, 4692, 4773, 6906, 6919, 6923, 7070, 7265, 7504, 7613, 7629, 7631, 7634, 7722, 7723, 7902, 7910, 8221, 10031, 10032, 11923, 11945, 11947, 11949, 12133, 12169, 7049 Move to accept the resolution of the comments as amended by the “Edit Notes” column where the comment has an “Edit Status” of “EM” (Edited with modifications) in document 11-06/0706r21 on the “Edited in D1_05” tab Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

18 Nov 2006 Editor Motion 3 Accept the resolution to comments contained in 11-06/0706r22 on the “Editorials” tab. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

19 Nov 2006 Editor Motion 4 Whereas P802.11n D1.06 contains the implementation of comment resolutions approved by TGn in September 2006 Approve P802.11n D1.06 as the TGn Draft Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation


Download ppt "TGn Editor Report November 2006"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google