1 / 13

P802.11n report to EC on request for approval to proceed to RevCom

P802.11n report to EC on request for approval to proceed to RevCom. Authors:. Date: 2009-06-25. Introduction.

raymond-stephens
Download Presentation

P802.11n report to EC on request for approval to proceed to RevCom

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. P802.11n report to EC on request for approval to proceed to RevCom Authors: Date: 2009-06-25 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  2. Introduction • Revision 0 of this document is preliminary, reflecting the status as of 2009-06-25 after the fourth recirculation ballot. Any greyed-out sections will be filled in the final version of this document. • This document contains the report to the IEEE 802 Executive Committee in support of a request for approval to send IEEE P802.11n to RevCom. • Document (11-09/0674r<tbd>) was approved during the closing plenary session of the 802.11 working group on <date>. • Passed in the Task Group <result> • Passed in the Working Group <result> Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  3. IEEE 802 Sponsor Ballot Results – P802.11n % % % QTY QTY QTY % QTY • Key: • “with” = “with comments” • “w/o” = “without comments” Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  4. Updated resolution of the 20/40 MHz in 2.4 GHz comments • Prior to completion of comment resolutions in the May 2009 802.11 session (Montreal, Canada), many of the comments relating to the 20/40MHz in 2.4 GHz topic were rejected by the comment resolution committee. • During the May session, a compromise was worked out, including active participation from the comment resolution committee and those voting “no” on this topic. Significant changes were incorporated into D10.0 • As a result, resolutions of 81 comments from the initial ballot and 16 comments from the first recirculation ballot were re-written (replacing a “disagree” with an “accept in principle”). • The updated resolutions form the basis of the analysis in the rest of this document. Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  5. Comments by Ballot • Key: • SB0 = Initial sponsor ballot. SB1 = 1st recirculation ballot, etc. • Coordination: comment supplied by a Mandatory coordination entity • Not Required: comment indicated as not required to satisfy voter • Satisfied: comment required to satisfy voter that is indicated as satisfied either by the voter indicating satisfaction with the specific comment, or by voting yes in a subsequent ballot • Known Unsatisfied: a comment that is indicated to be “required” by the voter, and the voter is maintaining a “no” vote, and the voter has indicated they are unsatisfied with the comment resolution. • Assumed Unsatisfied: comment not meeting any of the above criteria – i.e., a comment that is indicated to be “required” by the voter, and the voter is maintaining a “no” vote, and the voter has not responded when asked about their satisfaction with the comment resolution. Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  6. Mandatory coordination Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  7. Note • In subsequent slides, “Unsatisfied comments” includes both “Known Unsatisfied” and “Assumed Unsatisfied” comments. Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  8. Unsatisfied Comments • The table shows the count of unsatisfied editorial comments and technical comments separately. The comments are then classified into: • A – Accepted. The comment was accepted and the change indicated by the commenter was approved. • P – Accepted in Principle. The comment was accepted in principle, but a different change to the one indicated by the commenter was approved. • D – Disagree. The comment was declined and no change to address the comment was approved. • U – Unresolvable. • S – Out of Scope. Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  9. Unsatisfied comments by commenter Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  10. Unsatisfied Comments by Topic Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  11. Unsatisfied comments • The composite of all unsatisfied comments and the resolutions approved by the comment resolution committee received during P802.11n sponsor ballotis attached. • Double click on the icon to the right to open this. • A copy of this same data presented using MyBallot access database report format is attached. • Double click on the embedded .pdf to the right to open this. Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  12. Note • Having filled in the blanks, the following slide will be brought to motion in the July EC meeting. Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  13. 802.11 EC Motion – Approval to send P802.11n to RevCom • Grant approval, to forward P802.11n Draft 11.0 to RevCom. • P802.11n had a 90% approval on the last Recirculation Sponsor Ballot. There are 22 disapprove voters representing 98 unsatisfied comments. • Working Group vote on the Motion Passed: <for> y, <against> n, <abstain> a • Moved: Bruce Kraemer 2nd: <tbd> • Yes No Abstain Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

More Related