1. 802.11 TGn Editor Report Sept 2008 Date: 2008-09-02 Authors:
May 2006
doc.: IEEE /0528r0
September 2008
TGn Editor Report Sept 2008
Date:
Authors:
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

2. May 2006
doc.: IEEE /0528r0
September 2008
Abstract
This document summarises editorial activities on the TGn Draft since the July 2008 meeting
Status of Draft
Status of ad-hocs and assignments
Plan for this meeting
Editorial motions
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

3. Acknowledgements Speculative draft D6.01: Krishna Pillai,
May 2006
doc.: IEEE /0528r0
September 2008
Acknowledgements
Speculative draft D6.01:
Krishna Pillai,
Eldad Perahia,
Douglas Chan,
John Ketchum
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

4. September 2008
LB134 comments
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

5. September 2008
Comments by ballot
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

6. Status by ad-hoc – Sept 01 September 2008
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

7. May 2006
doc.: IEEE /0528r0
September 2008
LB134 Documents
TGn DRAFT and redlines (members’ area of website)
Draft P802.11n_D6.01.pdf
Includes speculative edits of comments assigned to editor
LB134 composite comments (all ad-hocs)
n-tgn-lb134-composite-comments.xls
LB134 comments assigned to editor
n-tgn-lb134-editor-comments.xls
Includes tentative resolutions matching speculative edits to D6.01
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

8. Draft P802.11n_D6.0 Mandatory Editorial Coordination (MEC)
September 2008
Draft P802.11n_D6.0 Mandatory Editorial Coordination (MEC)
MEC is an inspection of the draft by IEEE-SA staff which must be completed prior to sponsor ballot, and a second time during sponsor ballot.
MEC was performed on Draft P802.11n_D6.0 by the Program Manger, Michelle Turner.
The initial MEC comments and the TGn Editor response are contained in document
n-tgn-D6.0-MEC.doc
A small number of changes resulting from this MEC are included in Draft P802.11n_D6.01.pdf
These are flagged with (Ed:MEC)
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

9. Draft Numbering History (D2.0+)
May 2006
doc.: IEEE /0528r0
September 2008
Draft Numbering History (D2.0+)
D2.0, February TGn and WG approved draft for balloting
D2.01-D2.02, April-May D2.02 approved by TGn
D2.03, D2.04, D2.05 June-July D 2.05 approved by TGn
D2.06, Aug Draft for editorial panel review
D2.07, Sept 2007
D3.0, Sept Draft for Letter Ballot 115
D3.01, Nov Draft containing speculative editorial resolutions matching 11-07/2688r0.
D3.02, Dec 2008 – Draft incorporating Nov 2007 resolutions
D3.03, Feb 2008 – Draft incorporating Jan 2008 resolutions
D4.00, March 2008 – Draft for LB124
D4.01, May 2008 – Speculative editing of comments assigned to the editor
D5.00, May 2008 – Draft for LB 129
D5.01 (June 2008) to D5.04 (July 2008) – Speculative edits
D6.00, July 2008 – Draft for LB134
D6.01, Aug 2008 – Speculative edits (editorials, minor technical)
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

10. May 2006
doc.: IEEE /0528r0
September 2008
Editorial Motion #1
Move to accept the comment resolutions in document n-tgn-lb134-editor-comments.xls on the “Editorial Comments” tab.
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

11. May 2006
doc.: IEEE /0528r0
September 2008
Editorial Motion #2
Move to accept the comment resolutions in document n-tgn-lb134-editor-comments.xls on the“Minor Technical from MAC” tab.
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

12. May 2006
doc.: IEEE /0528r0
September 2008
Editorial Motion #3
Move to approve IEEE P802.11n_D6.01 as the TGn draft
Yes No
Abstain
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

13. How do we close out this Letter Ballot?
September 2008
How do we close out this Letter Ballot?
At some stage we need to close out the ballot – we currently have ~91% approval – which is close to the magic “95%” that may be necessary to gain EC approval
With each balloting cycle, we are still getting comments, and will probably continue to get them, no matter how many ballots we have
At some stage we need to reject all the comments received in one recirculation ballot and then recirculate the comment rejections with an unchanged ballot
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

14. Requirements for EC Approval
September 2008
Requirements for EC Approval
Even if we choose not to resolve some comments, we still have to explain why...
Report created which details:
Ballot results
Copies of unsatisfied comments in the format produced by MyBallot
LMSC : “Submission of a draft standard or a revised standard to the EC must be accompanied by any outstanding negative votes and a statement of why these unresolved negative votes could not be resolved.”
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

15. Procedure for conditional approval
September 2008
Procedure for conditional approval
LMSC P&P Clause 19.
“This procedure is to be used when approval to forward a draft standard to LMSC letter ballot or to RevCom is conditional on successful completion of a WG or LMSC recirculation ballot, respectively.
Seeking conditional approval is only appropriate when ballot resolution efforts have been substantially completed and the approval ratio is sufficient. ”
Conditions:
not yet had final recirculation
resolution efforts are “substantially completed”
approval ratio is “sufficient”
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

16. Conditions required to gain conditional approval
September 2008
Conditions required to gain conditional approval
a) Recirculation ballot is completed. Generally, the recirculation ballot and resolution should occur in accordance with the schedule presented at the time of conditional approval.
b) After resolution of the recirculation ballot is completed, the approval percentage is at least 75% and there are no new [valid] DISAPPROVE votes.
Adrian: inserted [valid] because a new no vote must be supported by a comment that is in order.
c) No technical changes, as determined by the WG Chair, were made as a result of the recirculation ballot.
d) No new valid DISAPPROVE comments on new issues that are not resolved to the satisfaction of the submitter from existing DISAPPROVE voters.
e) If the WG Chair determines that there is a new invalid DISAPPROVE comment or vote, the WG Chair shall promptly provide details to the EC.
f) The WG Chair shall immediately report the results of the ballot to the EC including: the date the ballot closed, vote tally and comments associated with any remaining disapproves (valid and invalid), the WG responses and the rationale for ruling any vote invalid.
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

17. Plan to close out the letter ballot
September 2008
Plan to close out the letter ballot
TBD – add project plan here
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation