doc.: IEEE /0159r1 Submission January 2009 Matthew Gast, Trapeze NetworksSlide 1 January 2009 Closing Report for TGmb Date: Authors:

doc.: IEEE /0159r1 Submission January 2009 Matthew Gast, Trapeze NetworksSlide 2 Abstract Closing report for TGmb for January 2008 interim meeting in Los Angeles, California, USA.

doc.: IEEE /0159r1 Submission January 2009 Matthew Gast, Trapeze NetworksSlide 3 TGmb Status Photo credit: David Goehring (CarbonNYC on Flickr); used with permission

doc.: IEEE /0159r1 Submission January 2009 Matthew Gast, Trapeze NetworksSlide 4 Lack of Accomplishment The TG was unable to find an editor (our best effort was the candidate at right) Schedule impact – new plan of record –TG has directed WG secretary to publish a schedule with unknown dates –New plan of record (next slide) Possible solutions –IEEE could provide editor for a fee –Multiple funding sources for an editor (multiple potential candidates need sponsorship) –Editing in Microsoft Word is now acceptable

doc.: IEEE /0159r1 Submission January 2009 Matthew Gast, Trapeze NetworksSlide 5 TGmb Plan of Record May 2008 – Issue Call for Comment/Input July 2008 – begin process input and old Interpretation requests Acknowledge previous Task Group referrals Sept 2008 – PAR revision process started Nov 2008 – close receipt of new input Nov 2008 – WG/EC approval of PAR Revision Dec 2008 – NesCom/SASB approval PAR Revision Editor + 1 meeting (2 months) – First WG Letter ballot –(includes All published Amendments as of Mar 2009) Editor + 2 or 3 meetings (4-6 months) – Recirc start Editor + 3 meetings (6 months) – Form Sponsor Pool Editor + 4 meetings (8 months) – Sponsor Ballot Start –(Include all published amendments as of Nov 2009) Editor + 6 meetings (12 months) – Sponsor Recirc Editor + 10 meetings (20 months) – WG/EC Final Approval Editor + 12 meetings (24 months) – RevCom/SASB Approval

doc.: IEEE /0159r1 Submission January 2009 Matthew Gast, Trapeze NetworksSlide 6 Accomplishments Processed one interpretation request (#16) Comment resolution status –104 comments received in November –28 comments resolved in November; 45 comments resolved in January –73 out of 104 (70%) resolved Timeline revision

doc.: IEEE /0159r1 Submission January 2009 Matthew Gast, Trapeze NetworksSlide 7 Interpretation Request #1 Request received from Christian Skupin on regarding (FCS field) and Annex G, specifically tables G.1 and G.14: “During the evaluation process of my PHY/MAC implementation I got in doubt with the accuracy of the given FCS (bytes ) in Table G.1. This FCS in Table G.1 corresponds to bits in Table G.14. With respect to the FCS calculation instructions in chapter and the given message (bytes 1-96) in Table G.1 my calculations result in the FCS { } (msb-left), whereas the given FCS is { } (bits in Table G.14). In consideration of the fact that my FCS-implementation works with other reference data which I collected by recording a signals, I assume that the given FCS in Table G.1 is not

doc.: IEEE /0159r1 Submission January 2009 Matthew Gast, Trapeze NetworksSlide 8 Interpretation Response (text contained in 11-09/0042r0) Designation Number: 16 Classification: Unambiguous Relevant Clauses: and Annex G Response: IEEE Std contains an error in the FCS calculation of the sample encoding in Annex G. This issue will be forwarded to the Working Group for consideration in the next revision of the P standard.

doc.: IEEE /0159r1 Submission January 2009 Matthew Gast, Trapeze NetworksSlide 9 Objectives for March Find a Technical Editor Consider new interpretation requests Continue comment review

doc.: IEEE /0159r1 Submission January 2009 Matthew Gast, Trapeze NetworksSlide 10 Documents Agenda: 11-09/0040r3 Minutes: 11-09/0095r0 Interpretation response: 11-09/0042r0 Current issues list: 11-08/1127r12 Motions: 11-09/0056r0