Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

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

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "P802.11s report to EC on request for approval to proceed to RevCom"— Presentation transcript:

1 P802.11s report to EC on request for approval to proceed to RevCom
November 2008 doc.: IEEE /1437r1 July 2011 P802.11s report to EC on request for approval to proceed to RevCom Date: Authors: Name Company Address Phone Dee Denteneer Philips HTC 34; 5656AE Eindhoven; The Netherlands Bruce Kraemer Marvell 5488 Marvell Lane, Santa Clara, CA 95054 +1 (321) D. Denteneer (Philips), B.Kraemer (Marvell) Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

2 November 2008 doc.: IEEE /1437r1 July 2011 Introduction This document contains the report to the IEEE 802 Executive Committee in support of a request for approval to send IEEE P802.11s to RevCom. This document (11-11/0990) was approved during the closing plenary session of the working group on July 22, 2011. Passed in the Working Group x-x-x Passed in the Task Group x-x-x D. Denteneer (Philips), B.Kraemer (Marvell) Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

3 TGs is ready for RevCom Recirculation ballots are complete
November 2008 doc.: IEEE /1437r1 July 2011 TGs is ready for RevCom Recirculation ballots are complete After resolution of the recirculation ballot, the approval percentage is at least 75% and there are no new valid DISAPPROVE votes. The approval percentage was 97.6%. There were no new valid disapprove votes. c) No technical changes, as determined by the WG Chair, were made as a result of the final recirculation ballot. d) There were no new valid DISAPPROVE comments on new issues. D. Denteneer (Philips), B.Kraemer (Marvell) Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

4 IEEE 802 Sponsor Ballot Results – P802.11s
November 2008 doc.: IEEE /1437r1 July 2011 IEEE 802 Sponsor Ballot Results – P802.11s Draft Opened Closed Days Ballot Type Pool Approve Disapprove Abstain Return D7.0 30 Initial 184 123 95% 6 5% 10 7% 139 83% D8.0 21 Recirc 1 131 96% 4% 11 148 88% D9.0 15 Recirc 2 134 7 9 6% 150 D10.0 Recirc 3 140 97% 5 3% 154 89% D11.0 Recirc 4 D12.0 Recirc 5 141* 97.2% 4 *After the final recirculation ballot, two of the disapprove voters indicated their wish to change their vote form “Disapprove” to “Approve” increasing approval rate to 98.6% D. Denteneer (Philips), B.Kraemer (Marvell) Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

5 November 2008 doc.: IEEE /1437r1 Comments by Ballot – P802.11s July 2011 Draft Ballot Not Required Satisfied Known Unsatisfied Assumed Unsatisfied Total D7.0 Initial 207 98 2 307 D8.0 Recirc 1 257 110 367 D9.0 Recirc 2 117 174 291 D10.0 Recirc 3 147 99 246 D11.0 Recirc 4* 101 18 119 D12.0 Recirc 5 1 830 499 1331 *In recirc 4, 117 late comments were received, that were all satisfied D. Denteneer (Philips), B.Kraemer (Marvell) Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

6 Unsatisfied Comments by Commenter
November 2008 doc.: IEEE /1437r1 July 2011 Unsatisfied Comments by Commenter Commenter D7.0 D8.0 D9.0 D10.0 D11.0 D12.0 Total J. Rosdahl (CSR) 1 M. Benveniste (En-aerion) 2 D. Denteneer (Philips), B.Kraemer (Marvell) Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

7 Mandatory coordination
June 2009 November 2008 doc.: IEEE /0674r0 doc.: IEEE /1437r1 July 2011 Mandatory coordination Coordination Entity Draft Date Status IEEE-SA Editorial (MEC) D7.0 July 2010 “Meets all editorial requirements. “ Quantities, Units and Letter Symbols (SCC14) Not required Terms and Definitions (SCC10) Registration Authority Committee (RAC) D. Denteneer (Philips), B.Kraemer (Marvell) Page 7 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel

8 Unsatisfied Comments – Topics
November 2008 doc.: IEEE /1437r1 July 2011 Unsatisfied Comments – Topics Topic #Comments Definition 1 MAC Total 2 D. Denteneer (Philips), B.Kraemer (Marvell) Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

9 November 2008 doc.: IEEE /1437r1 July 2011 Unsatisfied comments The composite of all unsatisfied comments and the resolutions approved by the ballot resolution committee during sponsor ballot is attached. Double click on the icon to the right to open this. A copy of the unsatisfied comments presented using MyBallot access database report format is attached. D. Denteneer (Philips), B.Kraemer (Marvell) Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

10 802.11 EC Motion –Approval to send P802.11s to RevCom
June 2009 November 2008 doc.: IEEE /0674r0 doc.: IEEE /1437r1 July 2011 EC Motion –Approval to send P802.11s to RevCom Motion: Approve sending the draft P802.11s D12.0 to RevCom. P802.11s D12.0 had a 97.2% approval on the last Sponsor Recirculation Ballot. There were 4 voters that had voted NO, then 2 of the NO voters changed to a YES vote. Working Group vote on the motion passes: y-n-a [Task Group vote on the motion passes: y-n-a] Moved: Bruce Kraemer Second: Jon Rosdahl D. Denteneer (Philips), B.Kraemer (Marvell) Page 10 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel

11 Key July 2011 June 2009 November 2008 doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0674r0
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. D. Denteneer (Philips), B.Kraemer (Marvell) Page 11 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel


Download ppt "P802.11s report to EC on request for approval to proceed to RevCom"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google