doc.: IEEE /0884r0 Submission July 2011 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 1 Introduction to the MC Date: Authors:

doc.: IEEE /0884r0 Submission Introduction The submission expresses my personal opinions that have evolved during my tenure as WG editor and REVmb editor I have written an MC process (the 11MC) defined in 11-11/0615, with the aid of various editors This process has been discussed by the editors, but there remain certain areas were consensus has not been reached The goal of this presentation is to give some background and analysis on the 11MC process, and to determine the sentiment of the group by straw poll July 2011 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 2

doc.: IEEE /0884r0 Submission Motivation for the 11MC Group-specific editorial divergence –Each new person (editor, contributor) brings to their group their own favorite “ways of doing things”. Unless they specifically attempt to learn IEEE-SA and WG11 style, it is likely that they will adopt a group-specific style that is divergent from style. –We don’t want to distract our voters with stylistic differences between groups. –Creates work for either the WG editor or the revision voters Evolution of style in REVmb Experience with the MIB July 2011 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 3

doc.: IEEE /0884r0 Submission Evolution of style in REVmb See Style evolves in REVmb as a function of comments. For example, we had 600 comments in a recent ballot on the use of the word “can”. The comment resolutions on this topic result in a better appreciation of how to use this specific word. The history of these comment resolutions creates an evolving style, which we have tried to capture in This style includes: Frame format figures, use of specific phrases or words, naming of MIB variables, descriptive text for MIB variables, capitalization, SAP consistency and design patterns. July 2011 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 4

doc.: IEEE /0884r0 Submission My experience with the MIB The published u contained about 200 compilation errors (many trivial, but some fundamental). It had clearly not been compiled recently. As a former software engineer, the concept of writing code and delivering it to the customer without compiling it is utterly incomprehensible. Groups sometimes seem to me to treat the MIB as “just another unnecessary hoop to jump through” and give it little attention Maintaining the MIB takes a lot of editorial effort – e.g. see , a 247-page submission. I’m guessing I’ve spent about 2 months in the last 2 years full-time on this topic. I would like to see the group set expectations on requirements for the MIB and believe it is reasonable to expect that compilation and compliance errors are addressed during the 11MC process. July 2011 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 5

doc.: IEEE /0884r0 Submission 11 MC Process 11MC is performed on the “last draft but one” in the WG ballot – to allow changes to be made without impact on schedule Draft is reviewed against specific review items TG editor, WG editor and WG nominee work together and produce an output report representing a consensus TG editor presents to TG and seeks approval for changes July 2011 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 6

doc.: IEEE /0884r0 Submission Specific Review Points Numbering of clauses, subclauses, figures, tables and equations –“As best as we can do” to final publication numbering –No “private numbering spaces” (e.g., Figure 8-zz1, mib object numbering zz1) ANA objects –All numbers allocated through ANA mechanism –No ANA flags –All objects to be cross-checked against ANA database (11- 11/0270) MIB compiles. Any compilation or compliance errors resolved. Compliance to WG style as described in 11-09/1034 July 2011 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 7

doc.: IEEE /0884r0 Submission Strawpoll Should the MIB satisfy the compliance requirement in r3 section 3.8.3? July 2011 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 8

doc.: IEEE /0884r0 Submission Strawpoll Do you agree that drafts should undergo the 11MC as described in 11-11/0615r3 prior to sponsor ballot? –Yes –No –Abstain July 2011 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 9

doc.: IEEE /0884r0 Submission References r3 – The WG MEC Process r3 – The WG11 Style Guide July 2011 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 10