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 ad-hoc meeting 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
r21 will be uploaded in next day or so
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
The 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 11-06/541 (r11+)
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 (r20) 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. Thursday Morning Status (9 Nov 2006)
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

11. Components Nov 2006 Document name Version number Spreadsheet tab name
Short name 42
Beam & Adapt
beam 36
PSMP
psmp 40
General
general 43
MAC
mac 61
PHY
phy 20
edited in D1_05
No edit required
no edit required
Edited
edited
Duplicates
dup
Editorials
editorials 39
Transfer Out
frame transfer out
Frame Format
frame 33
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 1 40 8 94
143 49
34.2 ca 14 2 7 25 24 96
coex 10 18 13
251
293 41
13.9
dup
edited
244
131
375
100
edited in D1_05
240
332 52
624
editorials 12
frame 3 4 38 5 61
115 9
7.8
general 15 20
mac 26 6 68 31 54
201 46
22.8
no edit required
182
255
402 37
876
phy
111 74
172
199 53
psmp 16
62.5
Totals
720
933
569 39
641
135
3101
2268
73.1
Total unresolved comments: 776
Total approved (green) comments: Balance to be approved = 1226 (includes the 776)
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

13. Status per ad-hoc (inc approved comments)
Nov 2006
Status per ad-hoc (inc approved comments)
adhoc A C R L W D ER
Blank
Total
Done
% Done
beam 49
169 67 6 94
385
291
75.5 ca 14 1 2 7 24
100
coex 72 75 68 5
250 4
475
220
46.3
edit
frame
115 97 92 38 59
419
306 73
general
132
152 29 15
335
313
93.4
mac
166 89 96 8 31 54
514
359
69.8
phy
235
160 16
172
659
484
73.4
psmp 87 45
217
202 93
Totals
689
907
559 39
641
133
3030
2201
72.6
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 (~13) 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:
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
Whereas the referenced sheet contains resolutions to editorial comments as follows:
Accept the resolution to comments contained in 11-06/0706r21 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