1 / 124

802.11 TGmb Editor Report – March 2011

802.11 TGmb Editor Report – March 2011. Authors:. Date: 2011-03-11. Abstract. This document summarises editorial activities on the TGmb Draft since the last meeting Status of Draft Status of comments E-Motions

khodgkins
Télécharger la présentation

802.11 TGmb Editor Report – March 2011

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. 802.11 TGmb Editor Report – March 2011 Authors: Date: 2011-03-11 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  2. Abstract • This document summarises editorial activities on the TGmb Draft since the last meeting • Status of Draft • Status of comments • E-Motions • This document is cumulative, newer data at the front – i.e., it will be revised per meeting to show updated status. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  3. March 2011 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  4. Balloting Status Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  5. Numbering • Keeping all comments from WG and Sponsor ballots in the same spreadsheet. • The initial sponsor ballot is shown as LB 1000 • Comments from 10000 onwards • The first recirc is LB1001 • Comments from 11000 onwards Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  6. Comment Status (2011-03-10) ** This was the comment to which two comments were attached. As a placeholder, it doesn’t need approval of TGmb as the comments attached appear separately in the database. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  7. REVmb Draft Numbering History (part) • D1.0, 2009-05 – balloted as LB149 • D2.0, 2009-12 – completion of LB149 edits. Balloted version. • D3.0 – balloted as LB162 • D3.02 – editing of LB162 technical • D4.0 – for ballot • D4.01 – Speculative editing of LB163 editorials • D5.0 – for ballot • D6.0 – first sponsor ballot, includes MEC change • D7.0 – Sponsor recirc #1 • D7.01 – 802.11v roll-in • D7.02 – Speculative editing of LB1001 editorials • D7.03 – 802.11u roll-in • D7.04 – Editing of remaining approved comment resolutions + Defects from D7.01, D7.02 & D7.03 • D 7.05?? – defect resolution from D7.04 • D8.0 – Sponsor Recirc #2 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  8. Documents • REVmb DRAFT (members’ area of 802.11 website) • Draft P802.11REVmb_D7.03.pdf • Draft P802.11REVmb_D7.03 Redline*.pdf • Composite comments (all ad-hocs) • 11-10-1284-05-000m-revmb-sponsor-ballot-comments.xls • Comments assigned to / held by editor • For: resolution, editing or other action • 11-10-1455-05-000m-revmb-sponsor-ballot-editor-comments.xls Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  9. 802.11v Roll-in Status • D7.01 contains .11v • D7.01 has completed review by volunteers from former TGv (71 defects were reported) • Defects will be resolved in a revision prior to D8.0 • There are a significant number of Editor’s Notes highlighting issues that need to be addressed. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  10. 802.11u Roll-in Status • Our current Plan of Record shows rolling in 802.11u in March. However, .11v roll-in went quicker than expected, and IEEE-SA publication editing for .11u completed earlier than expected • D7.03 contains .11u. D7.03 is currently in review by volunteers from former TGu. • There are a number of Editor’s Notes highlighting issues that need to be addressed. • Editorial Defects will be resolved in a revision prior to D8.0 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  11. Planning • As indicated earlier, 802.11v and 802.11u will be in D8. • Experience from .11v suggests 2 weeks roll-in duration (not including review) is reasonable for.11s. • An adjusted plan of record has been produced taking this into account – see later • Shows completing comment resolution In Oct • Dependent on .11s being available for editing at the start of June Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  12. Planning – D8.0 release • The plan discussed on the last telecon (and reproduced in the next slide) shows a 2-week period of editing & review before D8.0 is ready to ballot. There’s a lot of new material in D8.0, and I think we need to allow as much time as possible for ballot and comment resolution prep before the next meeting. • I propose to try and accelerate the availability of D8.0 to Thursday 24th March. • Mon & Tue – Edit • Wed – Review • Thu – Final edits, Chair requests IEEE-SA to open ballot • Fri – Ballot opens • So I need volunteers who will commit to deliver an on-time review over a period of 24 hours Wed next week. I’m anticipating 2 hours work per reviewer. • Please volunteer now & Jon please record and send list to Adrian. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  13. Planning – Detail Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  14. Editorial comment resolutions • Comment resolutions are proposed in document 11-10/1455r5. • The Editor requests TGmb to review CID 11211, which has related comments: 11213 (Gen) and 11215 (MAC). Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  15. CID 11211 • Comment: In SB1 it was pointed out that parameter names before this point (6.3.2.2.2) are lower case, while after this are in initial caps. The CRC response was that changing was too much work without benefit. However, this standard depends heavily on capitalization: "priority" is the name of the concept, while "Priority" is the name of a field. So inconsistency in capitalization provides a serious detriment to the utility of this standard. • Proposed Change: If no one else has time to work on this, it appears that I will not have a job after March 31, so I will have the time to buy a copy of FrameMaker, learn how to use it, and make the changes sometime in April. P.S., the implementer of this standard doesn't care about how hard it is to integrate amendments that had been erroneously approved by the WG. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  16. CID 11211 (discussion) • I see some benefit in doing what the commenter requests, but I also see costs. • The proposed changes open up the standard to further comments on changed text, because names of many items in clause 6 (in this comment) and clause 8 (in other comments) would change. • The proposed “let me edit the document” resolution provides discretion above and beyond that exercised thus far by your technical editor. The practicalities of making this work (i.e., new person editing, not particularly familiar with WG802.11 style, scheduling/planning) have not been determined and introduce schedule risk. • If this group disagrees with my resolution (next slide), I would suggest the best practical alternative is to request the commenter to provide a “mapping table” of old to new names that the editor would action. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  17. CID 11211 (resolution) • Proposed Resolution: DISAGREE (EDITOR: 2011-02-22 10:39:51Z) - There is no particular rule observable in the draft about whether these parameters should be lower case, InitialCaps, UPPER_CASE_WITH_UNDERSCORES, or something else. The IEEE-SA has no such rule, and the material cited has been through multiple rounds of IEEE-SA professional editing, from which we may determine that they do not regard such consistency to be necessary. While it is the commenter's preference to strive for consistency, the material cited is not incorrect and transgresses no IEEE-SA rule of style. Further, the substantial number of changes to be made would open up much of Clause 6 to further comment. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  18. E-motion 1 • Approve comment resolutions in 11-10-1455-05-000m-revmb-sponsor-ballot-editor-comments on the “Editorials & Terminology” tabs. • 24 Agree, 14 Principle, 4 Disagree, 2 Scope, 1 Unresolvable • Moved: • Seconded: Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  19. E-motion 2 (To be brought at a not inappropriate and suitably non-stationary juncture) • Having approved comment resolutions for all of the comments received from the initial Sponsor Ballot on P802.11REVmb D7.0, • Instruct the editor to prepare Draft 8.0 incorporating these resolutions and, • Approve a 15 day Sponsor Recirculation Ballot asking the question “Should P802.11REVmb D8.0 be forwarded to RevCom?” Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  20. February 2011For TGmb Telecon on 25 Feb 2011 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  21. Balloting Status Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  22. Numbering • Keeping all comments from WG and Sponsor ballots in the same spreadsheet. • The initial sponsor ballot is shown as LB 1000 • Comments from 10000 onwards • The first recirc is LB1001 • Comments from 11000 onwards Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  23. Comment Status (2011-02-24) ** This was the comment to which two comments were attached. As a placeholder, it doesn’t need approval of TGmb as the comments attached appear separately in the database. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  24. Comments by Commenter Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  25. REVmb Draft Numbering History (part) • D1.0, 2009-05 – balloted as LB149 • D2.0, 2009-12 – completion of LB149 edits. Balloted version. • D3.0 – balloted as LB162 • D3.02 – editing of LB162 technical • D4.0 – for ballot • D4.01 – Speculative editing of LB163 editorials • D5.0 – for ballot • D6.0 – first sponsor ballot, includes MEC change • D7.0 – Sponsor recirc #1 • D7.01 – 802.11v roll-in • D7.02 – Speculative editing of LB1001 editorials • D7.03 – 802.11u roll-in • D7.04 – Editing of remaining approved comment resolutions • D 7.05?? – defect resolution from D7.04 • D8.0 – Sponsor Recirc #2 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  26. Documents • REVmb DRAFT (members’ area of 802.11 website) • Draft P802.11REVmb_D7.02.pdf • Draft P802.11REVmb_D7.02 Redline*.pdf • Composite comments (all ad-hocs) • 11-10-1284-04-000m-revmb-sponsor-ballot-comments.xls • Comments assigned to / held by editor • For: resolution, editing or other action • 11-10-1455-04-000m-revmb-sponsor-ballot-editor-comments.xls Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  27. 802.11v Roll-in Status • D7.01 contains .11v • D7.01 is currently in review by volunteers from former TGv • Defects will be resolved in a revision prior to D8.0 • There are a significant number of Editor’s Notes highlighting issues that need to be addressed. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  28. 802.11u Roll-in Status • Our current Plan of Record shows rolling in 802.11u in March. • However, .11v roll-in went quicker than expected, and IEEE-SA publication editing for .11u completed earlier than expected • Work on the 802.11u roll-in has just started • D7.03 will contain .11v – expected during March 802.11 session. • Editorial Defects will be resolved in a revision prior to D8.0 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  29. Planning • As indicated earlier, 802.11v and 802.11u will be in D8. • Experience from .11v suggests 2 weeks roll-in duration (not including review) is reasonable for .11u and .11s. • An adjusted plan of record has been produced taking this into account – see next page for detail. • Shows completing comment resolution In Oct • Dependent on .11s being available for editing at the start of June Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  30. Planning – Detail Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  31. January 2011 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  32. Balloting Status Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  33. Numbering • Keeping all comments from WG and Sponsor ballots in the same spreadsheet. • The initial sponsor ballot is shown as LB 1000 • the first recirc will be 1001 • The sponsor ballot comments are numbered from 10001 onwards • The next set will be 11001 onwards • Review comments from .11p roll-in are numbered LB=0, Draft=6.01, CID=10500 onwards Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  34. Comment Status (2011-01-13) Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  35. REVmb Draft Numbering History (part) • D1.0, 2009-05 – balloted as LB149 • D2.0, 2009-12 – completion of LB149 edits. Balloted version. • D3.0 – balloted as LB162 • D3.01 – speculative editing of LB162 editorials • D3.02 – editing of LB162 technical • D4.0 – for ballot • D4.01 – Speculative editing of LB163 editorials • D5.0 – for ballot • D6.0 – first sponsor ballot, includes MEC change • D6.01 – includes TGp roll-in. Reviewed in the TG. • D6.02 – includes TGz roll-in • D6.03 – Speculative resolution of editorial + defects resolved from D6.02 review • D6.04 – implementation of LB1000 technicals • D6.05 – implementation of approved D6.01 roll-in resolutions + defects resolved from D6.03 & D6.04 review. • (future) D6.06 – Implementation of remaining LB1000 comment resolutions for editorial panel review • D7.0 – Sponsor recirc #1 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  36. Documents • REVmb DRAFT (members’ area of 802.11 website) • Draft P802.11REVmb_D6.05.pdf • Draft P802.11REVmb_D6.05 Redline*.pdf • Composite comments (all ad-hocs) • 11-10-1284-02-000m-revmb-sponsor-ballot-comments.xls • Comments assigned to / held by editor • For: resolution, editing or other action • 11-10-1455-02-000m-revmb-sponsor-ballot-editor-comments.xls Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  37. 802.11p Roll-in Status • D6.01 contains .11p • D6.01 was reviewed by this TG and former TGp members, and 91 comments were generated. • Comment resolutions were approved at the TGmb CRC telecon on 7th January • D6.05 contained the edited resolutions was prepared and should be available before the Jan 2011 session starts. • Edit status: 32 implemented, 4 modified, 55 nothing to do. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  38. 802.11z Roll-in Status • D6.02 contains .11z rolled-in. • Review highlighted 14 defects, which were fixed in D6.03. • Scope of review could not address technical issues highlighted in Editor’s Notes. • In particular, power-saving terminology (Use of “BU”) was highlighted as a technical issue by reviewers. Menzo Wentink is preparing a submission showing changes necessary. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  39. Editor’s Notes • These are emplaced to highlight issues discovered during roll-in of an amendment or implementation of an approved comment resolution. • .11z: 31 • .11p: 2 (These are informational and can be removed) • Comment resolutions: 11 (mainly 10.3-related) • Suggestion: Group to review these notes and decide: • 1) to address them prior to ballot • 2) to leave them in place for ballot • 3) to remove them without addressing them prior to ballot Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  40. CID 10369. Includes 3 “will” to “shall” changes. Dissent from one reviewer to the editor’s proposal is recorded in the Edit Notes. CID 10449. A resolution is proposed by the editor. However one review proposed an alternate resolution shown in the Ad-hoc Notes. CID 10451. A resolution is proposed that declines to make any editorial fix-ups in Annex H (SDL). However, TGmb should decide whether “is not maintained” at the top of Annex H applies to editorial as well as technical changes. The editor sees no benefit in performing editorial maintenance but not technical maintenance, and feels disinclined to spend any effort on an Annex that, it has been rumoured, has no practical use. Editorial Resolutions needing Discussion Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  41. Approved Resolutions needing attention • Editor requests that the resolution of CID 10112 is reviewed. • Comment: 3.1 says that "A bufferable management frame is a unicast management frame of the following subtypes: Action, Disassociation, Deauthentication, or Probe Response (when sent in an IBSS in response to a unicast probe request)".However, this statement in a subsection of section 10.2.1 Power management in an infrastructure network so the IBSS caveat is outside its scope. The IBSS stuff is described in section 10.2.2 Power management in an IBSS. • Resolution: Change to read ".. , or a Probe Response frame that is sent in an IBSS in response to a unicast Probe Request frame." • Editor’s Notes: I am unclear whether the resolution intended also to delete "; or a group addressed management frame of the following subtypes: Action, Disassociation, or Deauthentication" by showing a period at the end of the replacement text. (Also, FWIW, note that one reviewer claims the resolution is non-responsive, and, FWIW2, I agree.) • Please confirm whether the change edited in D6.05 is correct or not. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  42. Planning • TGv and TGu approval will not take place until Feb 2011. • I have spoken with IEEE-SA editorial staff and they will try to bring TGv publication editing forward. • We are hoping to see a first version of the copyedits shortly. • Need to start editing TGv at start of Feb. • This enables us to keep publication of REVmb in 2011. • The other variable is whether TGs should be included in REVmb or not – see next slide. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  43. Planning – Impact of TGs • Estimate 4 weeks of roll-in effort. • Estimate 4 weeks of additional comment resolution. • Separate recirc: + 20 days ballot + 2 weeks editing/review • TGs plan indicates EC approval in July and Standards Board approval in Sept • It would create a new precedent if the professionally edited sources were available before SB approval. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  44. Planning – Impact of TGs • Based on the previous analysis, we should anticipate an extra recirc: • TGs is unlikely to be ready to incorporate by early July • TGmb is unlikely to want to “wash” the July session • Any additional delay in availability of the sources of TGs to the editor beyond early Aug introduces a day/day slip. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  45. Planning – Spreadsheet • Open the SS to see more rows Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  46. E-motion 1 • Approve comment resolutions in 11-10-1455-02-000m-revmb-sponsor-ballot-editor-comments on the “Editorials” tab. • 40 Accept, 17 Principal, 11 Disagree, 1 Unresolvable • <Call out any changes made in resolution of “discuss” comments> • Moved: • Seconded: Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  47. E-motion 2 • Approve comment resolutions in 11-10-1455-02-000m-revmb-sponsor-ballot-editor-comments on the “Terminology” tab. • 140 Accept, 60 Principal, 6 Disagree • <Call out any changes made in resolution of “discuss” comments> • Moved: • Seconded: Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  48. E-motion 3 • Having approved comment resolutions for all of the comments received from the initial Sponsor Ballot on P802.11REVmb D6.0, • Instruct the editor to prepare Draft 7.0 incorporating these resolutions and, • Approve a 15 day Sponsor Recirculation Ballot asking the question “Should P802.11REVmb D7.0 be forwarded to RevCom?” Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  49. November 2010 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

  50. Balloting Status Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

More Related