1 / 54

TGn Chairs’ Report Atlanta, GA 802 Plenary – 12-16 Nov ‘07

Name. Company. Address. Phone. email. +1. -. 321. -. 4. 27. -. bkraemer@. marvell. .com. Bruce Kraemer. Marvell. 4098. 5402 East Ben White,. +1 (512) 602. -. Garth.hillman@amd.com. Garth Hillman. AMD. Austin TX 78741. 7869. sli@sibeam.com. Sheung Li. SiBEAM.

roanna-barnett
Download Presentation

TGn Chairs’ Report Atlanta, GA 802 Plenary – 12-16 Nov ‘07

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Name Company Address Phone email +1 - 321 - 4 27 - bkraemer@ marvell .com Bruce Kraemer Marvell 4098 5402 East Ben White, +1 (512) 602 - Garth.hillman@amd.com Garth Hillman AMD Austin TX 78741 7869 sli@sibeam.com Sheung Li SiBEAM 15 JJ Thompson +1 (503) 616 - adrian.p.stephens@intel.c Adrian Intel om Avenue, Cambridge, 3800 Stephens Corporation CB3 0FD, UK TGn Chairs’ Report Atlanta, GA 802 Plenary – 12-16 Nov ‘07 Authors: Date: 2007-11-12 5488 Marvell Lane, Santa Clara, CA, 95054 +1 (408) 245-3120 555 Mathilda Ave, Sunnyvale, CA 94085 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  2. Welcome to AtlantaMonday – Friday, Sep 17-21This document 07/2775TGn Hyatt Meetings Rooms TGN 1 (Main Room) = Centennial B.R. IIIBallroom Level TGN 2 (second room) = Piedmont Atlanta Conf Center (Lowest Level) Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  3. Attendance • http://newton.events.ieee.org • Register • Indicate attendance See document 11-07-2799r0 for more details Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  4. Word Documents –Page 1 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  5. [place presentation subject title text here] PowerPoint Documents –Page 1 Date: YYYY-MM-DD Authors: Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  6. Attendance, Voting & Document Status • Make sure your badges are correct • If you plan to make a submission be sure it does not contain company logos or advertising • Questions on Voting status, Ballot pool, Access to Reflector , Documentation, member’s area • see Harry Worstell – hworstell@att.com • Cell Phones Silent or Off Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  7. Important IEEE Links • The following slides in this deck are believed to be the latest available however the Source locations are: • http://standards.ieee.org/guides/bylaws/sect6-7.html#6 • http://standards.ieee.org/faqs/affiliationFAQ.html • http://standards.ieee.org/resources/antitrust-guidelines.pdf • http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.ppt • http://www.ieee.org/portal/cms_docs/about/CoE_poster.pdf • http://www.ieee.org/web/membership/ethics/code_ethics.html • For summary see 11-07-0660-01-0000-opening-presentation Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  8. Member Affiliation • It is defined in the IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws, 5.2.1.5 as: “An individual is deemed “affiliated” with any individual or entity that has been, or will be, financially or materially supporting that individual’s participation in a particular IEEE standards activity. This includes, but is not limited to, his or her employer and any individual or entity that has or will have, either directly or indirectly, requested, paid for, or otherwise sponsored his or her participation. • http://standards.ieee.org/faqs/affiliationFAQ.html Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  9. Declaration of Affiliation • Revision: May 2007 Standards Board Bylaw 5.2.1.1 • 5.2.1.1 Openness • Openness is defined as the quality of being not restricted to a particular type or category of participants. All meetings involving standards development an all IEEE Sponsor ballots shall be open toa all interested parties. Each individual participant in IEEE Standards activities shall disclose his or her affiliations when requested. A person who knows or reasonably should know, that a participant’s disclosure is materially incomplete or incorrect should report that fact to the Secretary of the IEEE-SA Standards Board and the appropriate Sponsors. • http://standards.ieee.org/faqs/affiliationFAQ.html Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  10. Affiliation Policy • Requirement to declare affiliation at all standards development meetings and recorded in the minutes • Affiliation not necessarily same as employer • Declaration requirement may be familiar to some 802 WGs, though WG declaration process may evolve • 11. What if I refuse to disclose my affiliation? • As outlined in IEEE-SA governance documents, you will lose certain rights. In a working group where voting rights are gained through attendance, no attendance credit will be granted if affiliation isn’t declared. Similarly, voting rights are to be removed if affiliation isn’t declared. • Affiliation declaration will be added to Sponsor ballot • http://standards.ieee.org/faqs/affiliationFAQ.html Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  11. Highlights of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards • Participants have a duty to tell the IEEE if they know (based on personal awareness) of potentially Essential Patent Claims they or their employer own • Participants are encouraged to tell the IEEE if they know of potentially Essential Patent Claims owned by others • This encouragement is particularly strong as the third party may not be a participant in the standards process • Working Group required to request assurance • Early assurance is encouraged • Terms of assurance shall be either: • Reasonable and nondiscriminatory, with or without monetary compensation; or, • A statement of non-assertion of patent rights • Assurances • Shall be provided on the IEEE-SA Standards Board approved LOA form • May optionally include not-to-exceed rates, terms, and conditions • Shall not be circumvented through sale or transfer of patents • Shall be brought to the attention of any future assignees or transferees • Shall apply to Affiliates unless explicitly excluded • Are irrevocable once submitted and accepted • Shall be supplemented if Submitter becomes aware of other potential Essential Patent Claims • A “Blanket Letter of Assurance” may be provided at the option of the patent holder • A patent holder has no duty to perform a patent search • Full policy available at http://standards.ieee.org/guides/bylaws/sect6-7.html#6 1 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  12. IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards 6.2 Policy IEEE standards may be drafted in terms that include the use of Essential Patent Claims. If the IEEE receives notice that a [Proposed] IEEE Standard may require the use of a potential Essential Patent Claim, the IEEE shall request licensing assurance, on the IEEE Standards Board approved Letter of Assurance form, from the patent holder or patent applicant. The IEEE shall request this assurance without coercion. The Submitter of the Letter of Assurance may, after Reasonable and Good Faith Inquiry, indicate it is not aware of any Patent Claims that the Submitter may own, control, or have the ability to license that might be or become Essential Patent Claims. If the patent holder or patent applicant provides an assurance, it should do so as soon as reasonably feasible in the standards development process. This assurance shall be provided prior to the Standards Board’s approval of the standard. This assurance shall be provided prior to a reaffirmation if the IEEE receives notice of a potential Essential Patent Claim after the standard’s approval or a prior reaffirmation. An asserted potential Essential Patent Claim for which an assurance cannot be obtained (e.g., a Letter of Assurance is not provided or the Letter of Assurance indicates that assurance is not being provided) shall be referred to the Patent Committee. A Letter of Assurance shall be either: a) A general disclaimer to the effect that the Submitter without conditions will not enforce any present or future Essential Patent Claims against any person or entity making, using, selling, offering to sell, importing, distributing, or implementing a compliant implementation of the standard; or b) A statement that a license for a compliant implementation of the standard will be made available to an unrestricted number of applicants on a worldwide basis without compensation or under reasonable rates, with reasonable terms and conditions that are demonstrably free of any unfair discrimination. At its sole option, the Submitter may provide with its assurance any of the following: (i) a not-to-exceed license fee or rate commitment, (ii) a sample license agreement, or (iii) one or more material licensing terms. 2 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  13. IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards Copies of an Accepted LOA may be provided to the working group, but shall not be discussed, at any standards working group meeting. The Submitter and all Affiliates (other than those Affiliates excluded in a Letter of Assurance) shall not assign or otherwise transfer any rights in any Essential Patent Claims that are the subject of such Letter of Assurance that they hold, control, or have the ability to license with the intent of circumventing or negating any of the representations and commitments made in such Letter of Assurance. The Submitter of a Letter of Assurance shall agree (a) to provide notice of a Letter of Assurance either through a Statement of Encumbrance or by binding any assignee or transferee to the terms of such Letter of Assurance; and (b) to require its assignee or transferee to (i) agree to similarly provide such notice and (ii) to bind its assignees or transferees to agree to provide such notice as described in (a) and (b). This assurance shall apply to the Submitter and its Affiliates except those Affiliates the Submitter specifically excludes on the relevant Letter of Assurance. If, after providing a Letter of Assurance to the IEEE, the Submitter becomes aware of additional Patent Claim(s) not already covered by an existing Letter of Assurance that are owned, controlled, or licensable by the Submitter that may be or become Essential Patent Claim(s) for the same IEEE Standard but are not the subject of an existing Letter of Assurance, then such Submitter shall submit a Letter of Assurance stating its position regarding enforcement or licensing of such Patent Claims. For the purposes of this commitment, the Submitter is deemed to be aware if any of the following individuals who are from, employed by, or otherwise represent the Submitter have personal knowledge of additional potential Essential Patent Claims, owned or controlled by the Submitter, related to a [Proposed] IEEE Standard and not already the subject of a previously submitted Letter of Assurance: (a) past or present participants in the development of the [Proposed] IEEE Standard, or (b) the individual executing the previously submitted Letter of Assurance. 3 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  14. IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards The assurance is irrevocable once submitted and accepted and shall apply, at a minimum, from the date of the standard's approval to the date of the standard's withdrawal. The IEEE is not responsible for identifying Essential Patent Claims for which a license may be required, for conducting inquiries into the legal validity or scope of those Patent Claims, or for determining whether any licensing terms or conditions are reasonable or non-discriminatory. Nothing in this policy shall be interpreted as giving rise to a duty to conduct a patent search. No license is implied by the submission of a Letter of Assurance. In order for IEEE’s patent policy to function efficiently, individuals participating in the standards development process: (a) shall inform the IEEE (or cause the IEEE to be informed) of the holder of any potential Essential Patent Claims of which they are personally aware and that are not already the subject of an existing Letter of Assurance, owned or controlled by the participant or the entity the participant is from, employed by, or otherwise represents; and (b) should inform the IEEE (or cause the IEEE to be informed) of any other holders of such potential Essential Patent Claims that are not already the subject of an existing Letter of Assurance. 4 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  15. Other Guidelines for IEEE WG Meetings • All IEEE-SA standards meetings shall be conducted in compliance with all applicable laws, including antitrust and competition laws. • Don’t discuss the interpretation, validity, or essentiality of patents/patent claims. • Don’t discuss specific license rates, terms, or conditions. • Relative costs, including licensing costs of essential patent claims, of different technical approaches may be discussed in standards development meetings. • Technical considerations remain primary focus • Don’t discuss fixing product prices, allocation of customers, or dividing sales markets. • Don’t discuss the status or substance of ongoing or threatened litigation. • Don’t be silent if inappropriate topics are discussed… do formally object. --------------------------------------------------------------- If you have questions, contact the IEEE-SA Standards Board Patent Committee Administrator at patcom@ieee.org or visit http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/index.html See IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, clause 5.3.10 and “Promoting Competition and Innovation: What You Need to Know about the IEEE Standards Association's Antitrust and Competition Policy” for more details. This slide set is available at http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.ppt 5 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  16. TGn Minutes Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  17. TGn Minutes of July ’07 07/2616r0 • Executive Summary (also see Chairs’ meeting doc 11-07-2455r6 and closing report doc. 11-07-2585r0): • Goal for September was to complete the comment resolution; generate Draft D 3.0 and authorize a 15 recirculation letter ballot on D3.0 The goal was achieved!!!!!!!!!!!! • The remaining 507 comments were resolved in 53 (270-217) motions • The technical editor was directed to create draft D3.0 • The TG requested a procedural LB asking the question “should Draft D3.0 be forwarded to WG LB?” so that a quorum can be assured • The TG requested a WG recirculation LB on D3.0 assuming the procedural LB passes • No teleconferences were planned between September and November • A one day ad hoc meeting was sanctioned on Saturday November 10, 2007 before the Plenary meeting which starts on 11-12-07 • The official time line end date was not changed although the formation of a SB pool was changed from Sept to Nov • Goal for November meeting is comment resolution Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  18. Approve Minutes • Motion to approve Sep ‘07 (Waikoloa) TGn minutes as contained in 07-2616-r0 • Move: • Second: Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  19. TGn Quick Reviewof Events prior to this meeting Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  20. One Page History of TGn • HTSG formed – First meeting (Sep-11-’02 Monterey) • TGn formed – First meeting (Sep-15-’03 Singapore) • Began call for proposals (May 17 ’04 Garden Grove) • 32 First round presentations (Sep 13 ’04 Berlin) • Down selected to one proposal (Mar ’05 Atlanta) –first confirm vote failed • Confirmation vote #2 failed - reset to 3 proposals -left the May ‘05 meeting with a serious deadlock. (Cairns) • 3 proposal groups agreed to a joint proposal activity (Jul ’05 San Francisco) • JP proposal accepted by vote of 184/0/4, editor instructed to create draft (Jan ’06 Waikoloa) • Baseline specification converted into Draft 1.0 (335p). Letter ballot issued (LB84) March 20, ’06 (Denver) and closed on April 29, ‘06 (failed) • Draft 1.0 Comment resolution begins (May ’06 Jacksonville) • Approved 6711 editorial and 1041 technical resolutions; Created Draft 1.03 (Jul ’06 San Diego) • Approved 568 technical resolutions (Sep ’06 Melbourne); Created Draft 1.06 (388p) • Approved 703 technical resolutions (Nov ’06 Dallas); Created Draft 1.09 (444p) • Approved 496 technical resolutions (Jan ’07 London); created D 1.10 (500p); went to WG letter ballot Feb 7, ’07 with D 2.0 (500p); closed March 9, ’07 • LB97 on TGn D2.0 passed with 83.4% approval. (Mar ’07 Orlando) Began comment resolution on with target of Draft 3.0 completion and release to ballot in Sep ’07. • Approved 1470 editorial resolutions and approved TGn draft 2.02. Also approved 450 technical comment resolutions. (May 07 Montreal) Cumulative insertion of resolutions contained in TGn draft 2.04. (494p) • Approved 750 technical resolutions and approved TGn draft 2.05. (July 07 San Francisco) Cumulative insertion of resolutions now contained in TGn draft 2.07. (498p) • Approved 507 technical resolutions and approved recirculation ballot for TGn draft 3.0 (544p). (Sep 07 Waikoloa) Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  21. 11n - Overall timeline 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2008 HT SG Formed Publication PAR Approved TGn Formed REVCOM Approval First Sponsor Letter Ballot Selection Process & Criteria 2nd WG Letter Ballot Call for Proposals 1st WG Letter Ballot Proposal Presentations Confirmation Renewal required Down Select Joint proposal Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  22. Letter Ballot 95Requesting Release of Draft 2.0 Official Results of IEEE 802.11 WG Letter Ballot #95: Procedural Vote Closing date: 2007-02-06 1. This ballot has met the 50% returned ballot requirement.     330 eligible people in this ballot group.    293 affirmative votes       6 negative votes      14 abstention votes =====    313 votes received =  94.85% returned                            4.47% abstention 2. The 75% affirmation requirement is being met. 293 affirmative votes 6 negative votes ===== 299 votes = 97.99% affirmative - MOTION PASSES 2.01% disapprove Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  23. Letter Ballot 97Requesting to move Draft 2.0 to Sponsor • Official Results of the recently closed IEEE 802.11 WG Letter Ballot #97: • Ballot Summary: Technical Vote • Closing date: 2007-03-09 • 1. This ballot has met the 50% returned ballot requirement. •     325 eligible people in this ballot group. •    231 affirmative votes •      46 negative votes •     28 abstention votes • ===== •    306 votes received =  94.2% returned •                           9.2% abstention • 2. The 75% affirmation requirement is being met. • 231 affirmative votes • 46 negative votes • ===== • 277 votes = 83.4% affirmative - MOTION PASSES • 16.6% disapprove Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  24. TGn Draft Voting Statistics Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  25. Draft 2.0 - Comment Distribution Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  26. Draft 3.0 – Technical Comment Distribution Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  27. Letter Ballot # 3.0 Comments 906 Editorial & Technical Unique - 884 DUP-22 Editorial - 282 Technical - 602 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  28. TGn Document History Mar ‘06 Jul ‘06 Sep ‘06 Nov ‘06 Jan ‘07 1.0 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 LB 84 Comment Resolution Feb ‘07 May ‘07 July ‘07 Sep ‘07 2.0 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 2.07 95 LB 97 Comment Resolution Oct ‘07 Nov ‘07 3.0 3.01 115 Comment Resolution Nov ’07 session Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  29. Comment Spreadsheets Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  30. PAR Renewal Status The Project Authorization Request (PAR) submitted for P802.11n was considered at the 09/26/2007 NesCom meeting and a 2 year extension was granted. Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  31. Draft 3.0 – Actual ActivityFocus on Technical Comments Activity • organize for submissions • Prepare submissions • Review subs for voting • May interim • July ad hoc • July Plenary • Sept ad hoc • Sept interim Original Plan • 500 • 500 • 200 May • 0 • 0 • 0 • 450 • 0 • 700 • 0 • 550 Sep • 0 • 0 • 0 • 450 • 0 • 750 • 0 • 500 Event • March Orlando • April – telecon only • May ad hoc • May interim • July ad hoc • July Plenary • Sept ad hoc • Sept interim Following the Sept meeting, assuming all comments are resolved and the WG approves them, Draft 3.0 will prepared by the Technical Editor based upon instructions to the editor approved in the Sept interim. Draft 3.0 will then be distributed as a 15 day WG recirculation letter ballot. Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  32. Draft 4.0 – Activity PlanFocus on Technical Comments 906 to resolve Activity • Review submissions • Review submissions • Prepare subs for voting • Resolution approvals • Review submissions • Prepare subs for voting • Resolution approvals Approval Plan • 282 editorial • 0 • 0 • 324 • 0 • 0 • 300 Event • Nov Plenary (Atlanta) • Telecons • Jan ad hoc (Taipei or San Jose) • Jan interim (Taipei) • Telecons • Mar ad hoc (Orlando?) • Mar Plenary (Orlando) Following the Mar ‘08 meeting, assuming all comments are resolved and the WG approves them, Draft 4.0 will prepared by the Technical Editor based upon approvedinstructions to the editor in the Mar interim. Draft 4.0 will then be distributed as a 15 day WG recirculation letter ballot. Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  33. November TGn Agenda Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  34. TGn – Nov ‘07 Schedule am1 am2 pm1 pm2 eve Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  35. TGn – Nov ‘07 Schedule Nov 12 Nov 13 Nov 14 Nov 15 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  36. TGn – November ‘07 Schedule Nov 12 Nov 13 Nov 14 Nov 15 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  37. TGn – November ‘07 Schedule Nov 12 Nov 13 Nov 14 Nov 15 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  38. Agenda Topics • Primary topic: Comment Resolution • General Order – “water fill” TGn Full with ad hoc topics where appropriate • Thursday Topics: • Voting on prepared comment resolutions • Timeline review • Plans • Teleconferences • Approval of adhocs in January and March • Any other Business? Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  39. Approve Agenda • Motion to approve Nov ’07 TGn agenda as contained on slide 35 - 38 (with any minuted amendments). • Move: • Second: Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  40. TGn – Room Assignment – November ‘07 Nov 12 Nov 13 Nov 14 Nov 15 Room code : Centennial B.R. III = CBR Piedmont = PT Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  41. Thursday Ad hoc Discussion • January ad hoc: 8, 9, 10 Tue, Wed, Thu • Taipei (at or near conf hotel) • Westcoast US (at Cisco office) • January meetings Sunday Jan 13 to Fri Jan 18 • March ad hoc: 12,13,14 Wed, Thu, Fri • Orlando at conference hotel (Caribe Royale) • March meetings Sun Mar 16 to Fri Mar 21 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  42. Comment Resolution Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  43. Links • IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual http://standards.ieee.org/guides/opman/ • Frequently Asked Questions: Recirculating a Standard http://standards.ieee.org/faqs/ballot.html • 802.11 WG Policies & Procedures 11-07-0360 r4 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  44. IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual5. Standards development • 5.4.3.2 Resolution of comments, objections, and negative votes • The Sponsor shall make a reasonable attempt to resolve all comments, objections, and negative votes that are accompanied by comments. Comments that advocate changes in the document, whether technical or editorial, may be accepted, revised, or rejected. Comments addressing grammar, punctuation, and style, whether attached to an affirmative or a negative vote, may be referred to the publications editor for consideration during preparation for publication. It should be borne in mind that documents are professionally edited prior to publication. • Comments received before the close of ballot from persons who are not in the balloting group, including from the mandatory coordination entities, require acknowledgement sent to the commenter and shall be presented to the comment resolution group for consideration. The Sponsor shall send an explanation of the disposition of the mandatory coordination comments to the commenter. • In order for a negative vote to be changed to an affirmative vote, the Sponsor shall obtain written confirmation from each voter (by letter, fax, or electronic mail) that indicates concurrence with any change of his or her vote. If the negative vote is not satisfied, either entirely or in part, the negative voter shall be informed of the reasons for the rejection and be given an opportunity either to change his or her vote to "approve" or to retain his or her negative vote during a recirculation ballot. • Changes may be made in the document to resolve negative votes that are accompanied by comments or for other reasons. All substantive changes made since the last balloted draft shall be identified and recirculated to the Sponsor balloting group. All unresolved negative votes with comments shall be recirculated to the Sponsor balloting group. The verbatim text of each comment, the name of the negative voter, and a rebuttal by the members conducting the resolution of comments shall be included in the recirculation ballot package. • During a recirculation ballot, balloting group members shall have an opportunity to change their previously cast ballots. A change to "do not approve," which is submitted with comments, shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted document, clauses affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted document that are the subject of the unresolved negative votes. If a change to "do not approve" is based solely on comments concerning previously approved portions of the balloted document, the balloter shall be informed that the comments are not based on the changed portion of the balloted document and, therefore, those comments may not be addressed in the current ballot and may be considered for a future revision of the standard. If the balloter does not agree to change the negative ballot, the ballot shall be recorded as an unresolved negative without comment. • Further resolution efforts, including additional recirculation ballots, shall be required if negative votes with new comments within the scope of the recirculation result. Once all required recirculations have been completed and 75% approval has been achieved, the IEEE requirements for consensus have been met. Efforts to resolve negative votes may continue for a brief period; however, should such resolution not be possible in a timely manner, the Sponsor should forward the submittal to RevCom because the IEEE has an obligation to the majority to review and publish the standard quickly. • Copies of all unresolved negative votes, together with the reasons given by the negative voters and the rebuttals by the Sponsor, shall be included with the ballot results submitted to RevCom. Copies of the written confirmations from voters that indicate concurrence with the change of their votes from negative to affirmative shall be included in the submittal to RevCom. • Proposed standards receiving a significant number of unresolved negative votes should be considered by the Sponsor for trial-use (see 5.7). Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  45. Ballot & Draft Logic Highlights • When is a recirculation ballot necessary? • A recirculation ballot is necessary when • There are unresolved negative comments on the original ballot, or • Any technical or substantive changes have been made to the draft.   • See 5.4.3.2 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual. • Changes in the document • “Changes may be made in the document to resolve negative votes that are accompanied by comments or for other reasons.” Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  46. Document Contents & Changes • Top level Document Clauses (count = 22) • 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 20 • Annex A, C, D, G, I, J, P, Q, R, S, T • All level headings = 663 • Contents of at least 429 sub clauses were changed in D3.00 (more precise number being generated) Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  47. Recirculation Comment classifications • Accept • Accept in Principle (Accepted but revised) • Reject • Out of Scope • “[Negative comments] shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted document, clauses affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted document that are the subject of the unresolved negative votes.” • Reporting categories – Technical, Editorial, General Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  48. Special Comment Topics Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  49. Special Comment Notes - 1 • One set of 8 comments arrived after ballot close. • This resulted from sending the wrong comment file during the valid ballot window and subsequently sending the correct file after ballot close. • The CIDs in question are 5898 thru 5905 from Luke Qian. Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  50. Special Comment Notes - 2 • Assign to MAC • Note #1: TGw comment during LB114: One comment notes that the P802.11n draft requires that CCMP implementations to mask bit 15 of the FC field, which is incompatible with the base standard and the legacy installed base. May be transferred to TGn and fixed in the next revision of the 802.11n draft.   Comments from LB114 are contained in 11-07-2697 • TGw CID 91: “The enforced masking of the order bit (bit 15) to 0 breaks legacy. While the change is being made by TGn, it is wrong and should be done in such a way to enable legacy to move forward. If TGn does not address this, TGw shou.d” • Suggestion: “The masking of the order bit should be conditional, perhaps on the existance or use of TGn and only there….as legacy systems do respect and use this bit.” • Assign to COEX • Note #2:  TGy description of ECSA is contained in TGY draft 5.1 clauses 7.2.3, 7.4.7, 10.3.36 & 11.9 text to be coordinated – latest TGy comments in 11-07-2656 r3 • Note #3:  TGy description of Public Action Frame is contained in TGY draft 5.1 Clause 7.4.7a - text to be coordinated – latest TGy comments in 11-07-2683 r3 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

More Related