1. P802.11u Report to EC on Conditional Approval to go to Sponsor Ballot
July 2009
doc.: IEEE /0715r3
July 2009
P802.11u Report to EC on Conditional Approval to go to Sponsor Ballot
Date:
Authors:
Stephen McCann (RIM)
Stephen McCann, RIM

2. July 2009
doc.: IEEE /0715r3
July 2009
Introduction
This document contains the report to the IEEE 802 Executive Committee in support of a request for conditional approval to send IEEE P802.11u Draft 8.0 to Sponsor Ballot.
This document (11-09/0713rx) was approved during the closing plenary session of the working group on 17th July 2009.
Passed in the Task Group <result>
Passed in the Working Group <result>
Stephen McCann (RIM)
Stephen McCann, RIM

3. 802.11 WG Letter Ballot Results – P802.11u
July 2009
doc.: IEEE /0715r3
July 2009
WG Letter Ballot Results – P802.11u
BallotID
Ballot Close Date
Title
BallotType
Pool
Return
%Return
Abstain
%Abstain
Approve
Disapprove
%Approve
132
12 July 2008
Technical Letter Ballot for IEEE u_D3.0
Technical
213
182
85.5 35
19.2
113 34
76.9
137
08 October 2008
Recirculation Letter Ballot for IEEE u_D4.0
Recirculation
189
88.7 37
19.6
118
77.6
142
20 February 2009
Recirculation Letter Ballot for IEEE u_D5.0
191
89.7 39
20.4
125 27
82.2
148
24 April 2009
Recirculation Letter Ballot for IEEE u_D6.0
192
90.1
18.2 15
90.4
152
19 June 2009
Recirculation Letter Ballot for IEEE u_D7.0
194
91.0 33
17.0 19
88.2
Stephen McCann (RIM)
Stephen McCann, RIM

4. OLD 11n Draft Text Stability
July 2009
doc.: IEEE /0715r3
July 2009
OLD 11n Draft Text Stability
<NOTE – this might be helpful in a conditional approval, otherwise skip it>
Stephen McCann (RIM)
Stephen McCann, RIM

5. Comments by Ballot : Values
July 2009
doc.: IEEE /0715r3
July 2009
Comments by Ballot : Values
Balloted LB
non-voter
withdrawn
not-required
satisfied
un-satisfied
total
132
463
320
161
944
137
407
255
209
871
142
127
211 38
376
148
186 13 30
229
152 1
143
225
Total
1326
799
438
2645
Stephen McCann (RIM)
Stephen McCann, RIM

6. Comments by Ballot : Key
July 2009
doc.: IEEE /0715r3
July 2009
Comments by Ballot : Key
Non-Voter: comment accepted from a non-voter
Withdrawn: comment formally withdrawn by voter
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
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 or the voter has indicated they are unsatisfied with the comment resolution.
Stephen McCann (RIM)
Stephen McCann, RIM

7. Unsatisfied Comments July 2009 July 2009 doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0715r3
Reason Status
Balloted LB
Accept
Counter
Reject
Total
132 95 31 35
161
137
162 16
209
142 17 15 6 48
148 18 8 4 30
152
292 70 76
438
Stephen McCann (RIM)
Stephen McCann, RIM

8. Unsatisfied Comments : Key
July 2009
doc.: IEEE /0715r3
July 2009
Unsatisfied Comments : Key
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.
C – Countered. The comment was accepted in principle, but a different change to the one indicated by the commenter was approved.
R – Rejected. The comment was declined and no change to address the comment was approved.
Stephen McCann (RIM)
Stephen McCann, RIM

9. By commenter July 2009 July 2009 doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0715r3 Accept
Reject
Counter
Bajko, Gabor
n/a
Bavafa, Moussa 8 6 2
Chaplin, Clint 85 1 3
Chu, Liwen 13 15
Ecclesine, Peter
Ellis, Mike
Engwer, Darwin
Epstein, Joseph
Fischer, Matthew 7
Kolze, Tom
Malarky, Alastair
110 19 14
Ptasinski, Henry 12
Razoumov, Leonid
Roy, Richard
Stanley, Dorothy 23 9
Tolpin, Alexander
Vlantis, George
Wang, Qi 18 5
Worstell, Harry
Grand Total
292 70 76
By commenter
Stephen McCann (RIM)
Stephen McCann, RIM

10. 11u Topics – 1 July 2009 July 2009 doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0715r3
Category
Total
Accept Required
Reject Required
Counter Required
Editorial
148
131 8 9
Architecture 5 1 2
Definitions 4 ES 37 26 6
GAS 53 24 17 12
GAS - NS
GAS-Native 10
HESSID 15 3
Interworking
IW-IE
MIB
MIH 21 18
Stephen McCann (RIM)
Stephen McCann, RIM

11. July 2009 July 2009 doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0715r3 Stephen McCann (RIM)

12. July 2009
doc.: IEEE /0715r3
July 2009
<comment>
You may want to include some analysis of the comments, such as summarizing/grouping by topic.
However, it is probably better not to attempt to analyse individual comments, because any response/explanation from the comment resolution committee should be in the comment resolution, not this submission.
The following pages give an example from TGn.
Stephen McCann (RIM)
Stephen McCann, RIM

13. Unsatisfied comments July 2009
doc.: IEEE /0715r3
July 2009
Unsatisfied comments
The composite of all unsatisfied comments and the resolutions approved by the comment resolution committee received during <sponsor|working group> ballot may be found in document: <doc ref>
A copy of this is 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.
Stephen McCann (RIM)
Stephen McCann, RIM

14. July 2009
doc.: IEEE /0715r3
July 2009
EC Motion – <agenda item#> <Conditional> Approval to send P802.11u to <Sponsor Ballot | RevCom>
Grant <conditional approval, under Clause 13 | approval>, to forward P802.11u Draft <n>.0 to Sponsor Ballot.
P802.11u had a <number>% approval on the last WG Recirculation Ballot. There were <n> voters that had voted NO [, then <number> of the NO voters changed to a YES vote].
Task Group Vote on the Motion Passed: <for> y, <against> n, <abstain> a
Working Group vote on the Motion Passed: <for> y, <against> n, <abstain> a
Moved: <WG Chair> nd: <name>
Yes No Abstain
It is critical that a properly formed motion be presented to the EC for consideration in the Friday afternoon session during the plenary when approval is requested. The wording of the motion used in the TG and then the WG does not need to be identical but complementary. Updates of the WG11 templates are needed.
Stephen McCann (RIM)
Stephen McCann, RIM