1. 802.11 TGn Editor Report Sept 2007 Date: 2007-09-12 Authors: Sept 2007
May 2006
doc.: IEEE /0528r0
Sept 2007
TGn Editor Report Sept 2007
Date:
Authors:
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

2. May 2006
doc.: IEEE /0528r0
Sept 2007
Abstract
This document summarises editorial activities on the TGn Draft since the July 2007 meeting
Status of D2.07
Guidelines to submission authors - new
Status of ad-hocs and assignments
D3.0 process and timing
Editorial motions
A lot of this submission is similar to previous sessions, and is provided for reference only.
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

3. Acknowledgements PHY co-editor Working draft D2.06 review John Ketchum
May 2006
doc.: IEEE /0528r0
Sept 2007
Acknowledgements
PHY co-editor
John Ketchum
Working draft D2.06 review
Volunteer review panel, consisting of:
Bjorn Bjerke, Bruce Kraemer, Eldad Perahia, George Vlantis, Solomon Trainin, Tomoko Adachi, Yuichi Morioka, Matt Fischer
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

4. May 2006
doc.: IEEE /0528r0
Sept 2007
LB97 Documents
TGn DRAFT and redlines (members’ area of website)
Draft-P802.11n D2.07.pdf 
n TGn redline D2.07 CMP D2.05 insertions.pdf
n TGn redline D2.07 CMP D2.05 insertions & deletions.pdf  
Word conversion
Not available. If anybody needs big tables in word format, ask.
LB97 implemented resolutions
n-tgn-lb97-editor-comments.xls
LB97 composite comments (all ad-hocs)
n-tgn-lb97-comments.xls
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

5. Draft Numbering History (D2.0+)
May 2006
doc.: IEEE /0528r0
Sept 2007
Draft Numbering History (D2.0+)
D2.0, February 2007
TGn and WG approved draft for balloting
D2.01-D2.02, April-May 2007
D2.02 approved by TGn
D2.03, D2.04, D2.05 June-July 2007
D 2.05 approved by TGn
D2.06, Aug 2007
Draft for editorial panel review
D2.07, Sept 2007
Current reviewed draft
Contains some EMR resolutions
(D2.08, Sept 2007)
Following discussion and resolution of EMR comments draft will be updated to agree with outcome
TBD - Will ask for draft to be approved by TGn
(D3.0, Sept 2007)
Draft for Letter Ballot
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

6. Process for Draft D2.07 Working version D 2.06 Review D2.07
May 2006
doc.: IEEE /0528r0
Sept 2007
Process for Draft D2.07
Working version D 2.06
The 778 approved technical resolutions were (attempted to be) implemented
This working draft and the comment resolutions/edit notes were sent to review
Review
A review panel of volunteers checked resolutions/edit notes against draft D2.06 and reported any defects of editing
A total of 86 defects were reported
D2.07
The defects were addressed by editing the TGn draft and updating the comment resolutions/edit notes
Unapproved Draft 2.07 was released and the edit notes in were published in early September
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

7. Status of comments approved in May
doc.: IEEE /0528r0
Sept 2007
Status of comments approved in May
Status as in n-tgn-lb97-editor-comments.xls
In tab “Edited in D2.06”
EI (implemented as specified in the resolution): 90
EM (edited with modifications noted in the editor’s notes): 43
Resolution of conflicts
Editorial changes – e.g. terminology, grammar
EN (nothing to do - covered by another resolution): 469
e.g. when the same resolution is cut and paste to multiple resolutions
Recycled comments (now owned by own ad-hocs):
EMR (edit with mods, recycle - speculative edits require consideration by TGn): 21
ER (recycle - could not action resolution): 5
e.g. conflict with no obvious resolution that keeps the intention of the resolution
Or, the editor’s can’t understand how to implement the resolution
Doesn’t include 2 comments recycled earlier in the process to the Coex group
In tab “Approved Rejects”
All approved rejects (181 technical approved in Sept)
A “reject” comment implies no work for the editor!
Nothing entered in “edit status/notes” for these comments
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

8. Guidelines for Submission Authors
May 2006
doc.: IEEE /0528r0
Sept 2007
Guidelines for Submission Authors
Use the latest available draft (D2.07)
If your submission is based on an earlier draft – revise it now
Pay attention to the CID “flags” (e.g., #1234) in nearby text. Check that your proposed resolution does not create a conflict. If it does, provide a new resolution for that CID.
Clearly highlight in your submission any editing instructions
Some submissions have mixed editing instructions with comment resolutions (e.g. “Accept”) and some edits were missed in D2.06 as a result
Use TGn Editor for edit instructions to me, and colour highlight/fill table cells that imply any further editing. I need all actions to be taken by me to be painfully obvious.
Stick to the standard editing instructions: Delete, Insert, Change (followed by change-marked text).
Change tracking has been used for multiple purposes in the same submission (i.e., showing edits following a “change” instruction, and showing the history of changes in the submission.)
This creates ambiguity and possible conflict.
Be consistent – either use change tracking to show edits, or use it to show the history of changes in a submission – but not both!
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

9. Editorial activities this week
May 2006
doc.: IEEE /0528r0
Sept 2007
Editorial activities this week
Motion to resolve two CIDs transferred to EDITOR
TBD - Update the draft to reflect the resolution of the EMR comments
TBD - Issue D2.08 in time for voting this session
TBD - Motion to approve D2.08
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

10. Summary of the status of the ad-hoc groups
May 2006
doc.: IEEE /0528r0
Sept 2007
Summary of the status of the ad-hoc groups
Sept 12th
Sept 17th
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

11. Current Assignees Sept 2007 May 2006 doc.: IEEE 802.11-06/0528r0
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

12. May 2006
doc.: IEEE /0528r0
Sept 2007
D3.0 Process & Motion
We are operating as a comment resolution group in recirculation – i.e., we approve changes/resolutions, not drafts.
There may be (TBD) a requirement to have a procedural confirmation ballot because of lack of quorum at this meeting.
Motion: “approve the comment resolutions in document 11-07/0336rX, instruct the TGn editor to prepare draft D3.0 and send D3.0 to working group letter ballot when ready asking the question ‘Shall this draft be sent to sponsor letter ballot?’”
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

13. D3.0 Timing Caveats: 15-day Confirmation Ballot required
May 2006
doc.: IEEE /0528r0
Sept 2007
D3.0 Timing
Caveats:
15-day Confirmation Ballot required
Continuous review process
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

14. Continuous review process
May 2006
doc.: IEEE /0528r0
Sept 2007
Continuous review process
Two editors
Four reviewers
Continuous review and feedback of defects
Offline process operated across 4 timezones
Goal: no review delay, editing defects identified and resolved
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

15. May 2006
doc.: IEEE /0528r0
Sept 2007
Editorial Motion #1
Move to accept the comment resolutions in document 11-07/0366r7 on the “Transferred” tab.
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

16. May 2006
doc.: IEEE /0528r0
Sept 2007
Editorial Motion – TBD
Move to approve IEEE P802.11n D2.08 as the TGn draft
Yes No
Abstain
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell