1. 802.11 WG Editor’s Meeting (Nov ‘11)
May 2011
July 2007
November 2011
WG Editor’s Meeting (Nov ‘11)
Date:
Authors:
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco)
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

2. May 2011
November 2011
Abstract
This document contains agenda/minutes/actions/status as prepared/recorded at the IEEE Editors’ Meeting
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco)

3. Agenda for 2011-11-08 Roll Call / Contacts / Reflector
July 2007
May 2011
November 2011
Agenda for
Roll Call / Contacts / Reflector
Go round table and get brief status report
ANA Status / Process / What is administered
Discussion with IEEE Publications staff
Mandatory Draft Coordination before SB
Numbering Alignment process / Spreadsheet
Amendment Ordering / Draft Snapshots
Style Guide for
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco)
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

4. Roll Call – 2011-11-08 November 2011 May 2011 July 2007
Editor’s Present
P802.11mb Amendment (REVmb) – Adrian Stephens
P802.11aa Amendment (VTS) – Alex Ashley
P802.11ac Amendment (VHT L6) – Robert Stacey
P802.11af Amendment (TVWS) – Peter Ecclesine
P802.11ah Amendment (S1G) – Minyoung Park
P802.11ai Amendment (FILS) – Tom Siep
Editor’s Not Present
P802.11ad Amendment (VHT60) – Carlos Cordeiro
P802.11ae Amendment (QosMan) – Henry Ptasinski
Also present:
Clint Chapman
IEEE Staff present and always welcome!
Michelle Turner – staff editor for 802,
Tricia Gerdon – our staff liaison,
Francisco Drago – staff editor,
IEEE Staff not present and always welcome!
Kim Breitfelder – manager publishing,
Note: editors request that an IEEE staff member should be present at least during Plenary meetings
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco)
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

5. Volunteer Editor Contacts
July 2007
May 2011
November 2011
Volunteer Editor Contacts
TGmb – Adrian Stephens –
TGaa – Alex Ashley –
TGac – Robert Stacey –
TGad – Carlos Cordeiro –
TGae – Henry Ptasinski –
TGaf – Peter Ecclesine –
TGah – Minyoung Park –
TGai – Tom Siep –
Editors Emeritus:
TGk – Joe Kwak–
TGp – Wayne Fisher –
TGr – Bill Marshall –
TGs – Kazuyuki Sakoda –
TGu – Necati Canpolat –
TGv – Emily Qi –
TGw – Nancy Cam-Winget –
TGz – Menzo Wentink –
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco)
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

6. Round table status report
November 2011
Round table status report
REVmb – in Sponsor Ballot recirculation
11aa – in SB comment resolution, expect to recirc out of Nov
11ac – expect to go to WG LB out of November
11ad – in WG Letter Ballot comment resolution, approved a clean recirc
11ae – in SB comment resolution, ready for recirc again
11af – hope to go to WG LB after January meeting
11ah – working on spec framework, hope to have a draft in November, 2012
11ai – processing submissions, hope to start a skeleton draft in January, 2012
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco)

7. July 2007
May 2011
November 2011
Reflector Updates
Each editor is expected to be on the reflector and current.
If you didn’t receive the meeting notice from the reflector, please send to
To be updated:
None
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco)
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

8. IEEE Publication Status
July 2007
May 2011
November 2011
IEEE Publication Status
Publications completed for k, n, p, r, u, v, w , y and z
11k now available with Get802
11n now available with Get802
11p now available with Get802
11r now available with Get802
11u now available with Get802
11v now available with Get802
11w now available with Get802
11y now available with Get802
11z now available with Get802
Publication of 11s announced September 10th
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco)
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

9. Numbering Alignment Process
May 2011
November 2011
Numbering Alignment Process
Update from all published standards. Posted as 11-11/1149r7 (2011 November 10)
REVmb D10 is numbering baseline. 11ae is the first, then 11aa, 11ad, 11af, 11ac, 11ah, 11ai.
TG editor will be responsible for ensuring their column represents their latest draft
WG editor will update any “changes pending” columns and summarize status to editors
Robert to return the lock this week
Slide 9
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco)

10. Amendment & other ordering notes
May 2011
November 2011
Amendment & other ordering notes
Editors define publication order independent of working group public timelines:
Since official timeline is volatile and moves around
Publication order helps provide stability in amendment numbering, figures, clauses and other numbering assignments
Editors are committed to maintain a rational publication order
Numbering spreadsheet 11/1149:
Succeeding amendments to do their respective updates
Must match the official timeline after plenaries
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco)

11. Discussion with IEEE Publications staff
November 2011
Discussion with IEEE Publications staff
Current plan for publication of REVmb is
Current expectation is 120 days from Nov 29th – late March 2012
Reviewed the 11s pre-Sponsor Ballot review
A learning experience for us all, no benefit was perceived from early editing
We share a reasonable expectation that drafts are published soon after approval of the draft
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco)

12. MDR Status 802.11 Working Group MDR
May 2011
November 2011
MDR Status
Working Group MDR
11-11/615r4 documents the process
MDR now in the Operating Manual 11-09/0002r8
P802.11aa D5.0 went through Working Group Mandatory Editorial Coordination before July 2011
P802.11ad D4.0 went through Working Group Mandatory Editorial Coordination before July 2011
P802.11ae D4.0 went through Working Group Mandatory Editorial Coordination before July 2011
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco)

13. Editors page http://www.ieee802.org/11/editor_resources.html
November 2011
Editors page
Comments or changes?
Volunteers sought to improve this state.
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco)

14. 802.11 Style Guide See 11-09-1034-03-0000-wg11-style-guide.doc
November 2011
Style Guide
See wg11-style-guide.doc
Editor’s responsibility includes checking the 2009 IEEE Standards Style Manual when creating or updating drafts.
Submissions with draft text should conform to both the WG11 Style Guide and IEEE Standards Style Manual
Note that the Style Guide evolves with our practice
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco)

15. Editor Amendment Ordering
July 2007
May 2011
November 2011
Amendment numbering is editorial! No need to make ballot comments on these dynamic numbers!
Editor Amendment Ordering
Data as of Nov 2011
See
Amendment Number
Task Group
REVCOM Date
Amendment 8
TGv
Feb 2011
Amendment 9
TGu
Amendment 10
TGs
Sept 2011
Revision
802.11mb
Mar 2012*est.
Amendment 1
TGae
Jun 2012
Amendment 2
TGaa
Amendment 3
TGad
Dec 2012
Amendment 4
TGaf
Sept 2013
Amendment 5
TGac
Dec 2013
Amendment 6
TGah
July 2013
Amendment 7
TGai
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco)
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

16. Email Your Draft Status Updates
September 2007
May 2011
November 2011
Your Draft Status Updates
Each editor, please send update for next page via the editor’s reflector no later than Thursday am2 to update table on next page!
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco)
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

17. Draft Development Snapshot
July 2009
July 2007
November 2011
Nov 2011
Draft Development Snapshot
Most current doc shaded green.
Changes from last report shown in red. TG
Published or Draft Baseline Documents
Source
MEC
Style Guide
Editor
Snapshot Date
Published mb ae aa ad af ac ah ai Y
12.0
Frame 9.0
Yes
2009
Adrian Stephens
8-Nov
11.0
6.0
libreoffice 3.3
Henry Ptasinski
10-Nov
7.0
Word
Alex Ashley
9-Nov
10.0
5.0
Carlos Cordero
1.04 No
Peter Ecclesine
6-Nov
9.0
4.0
3.0
1.0
Robert Stacey
19-Jul
Minyoung Park
Frame 10.0
Tom Siep
22-Sep
Slide 17
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco)
Page 17
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

18. MIB style, Visio and Frame practices
November 2011
MIB style, Visio and Frame practices
I’m going to suggest going forward we use a single style with appropriately set tabs,  and use leading Tabs to distinguish the syntax and description parts. (Adrian Stephens Feb 9, 2010)
 Keep embedded figures using visio as long as possible
Near the end of sponsor ballot,  turn these all into .wmf (windows meta file) format files (you can do this from visio using “save as”).   Keep separate files for the .vsd source and the .wmf file that is linked to from frame.
Frame templates for 11aa, 11ac, 11ad, 11af
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco)

19. Conference Calls Are they of any value?
November 2011
Conference Calls
Are they of any value?
Next Meeting: January 15-20, Jacksonville, FL
Any need for conference calls?
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco)

20. November 2011
Two Technical Editors
Peter Ecclesine will run the face to face meetings
Adrian Stephens will run the publication process
Adrian Stephens is the ANA administrator
All are on the Editor’s list.
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco)

21. May 2011
November 2011
Reference Material
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco)

22. Editorial Streamlining
July 2007
May 2011
November 2011
Editorial Streamlining
Focus is on consistency across all TGs:
Completed
Streamlined ANA processes – 07/0827r0 and 11/270r7
Consistent format for REDLINE contributions across TGs – 07/0788r0
Consistent process for editorial comment resolution across TGs (WG & Sponsor) – 07/2050r0
Guideline for technical vs. editorial, sample editorial comment responses
Format for comment reporting across TGs (WG & Sponsor) – 07/1990r0 (tool in 07/2116r0)
Stable numbering method (See 07/2810r0)
Consistent naming of redlines (See 07/2810r0)
Draft templates for FRAME (no Word) to help train new editors more rapidly
Under Construction (in priority order)
Revise the editor’s guideline – comments on 09/1034?
Mentoring program – Name a mentor for each new editor
MIB element numbering and compiling – publish a rolled-up MIB of k/r/y
Guideline on non-technical front matter
Guideline describing expected editorial development and maturity of draft through stages in for consistency across TGs
Guidelines for primitives – ARC to consider
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco)
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

23. Numbering of Annexes and Clauses
July 2007
May 2011
November 2011
Numbering of Annexes and Clauses
Proposal: TGMb will fix the ordering of annexes
Ample bad precedent set by 11k
Bibliography should be the first or final annex per IEEE Standards Style Guide
Clause numbering has similar issue during rollup
TGn clause 3a, 11r clause 11a, 11y clause 11.9a
REVmb numbering will stay using “Amendment style” numbering until the very last possible moment before going to Sponsor Ballot.
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco)
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

24. Draft naming convention
May 2011
November 2011
Draft naming convention
Drafts and redlines are .pdf files
Syntax:
Draft <project>_<draft> [Redline [Compared to <project>_<draft>]].pdf
Examples:
Draft P802.11n_D8.0.pdf
Draft P802.11n_D8.0 Redline.pdf
Draft P802.11n_D7.04 Redline Compared to P802.11n_D7.03.pdf
Please use this convention for all drafts posted on the website.
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco)

25. Lessons Learned from RevCom
November 2011
Lessons Learned from RevCom
During Sponsor ballot… (see 09/1058r1)
Minimise cross references (“disagree – see CID 1234”)
Because not all CIDs are included in the “unsatisfied comments” listing, so this may end up a dangling reference.
Copy resolution + add (“same as resoution for CID 1234”)
Provide full URLs for doc references
Because some members of RevCom and the Sponsor Pool may not be familiar with how to get to Mentor
Minimise use of doc references
Cut and paste from reference doc, where-ever possible. This minimises work for sponsor ballot members getting reference documents.
Easier to audit process
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco)

26. July 2007
May 2011
November 2011
Publication Work Plan Note: to be included in the editor’s operations manual
Here is the workflow we have used for a number of years with IEEE staff on publication of publications: 
Editors provide FRAME source and any freestanding graphics (Powerpoint, Visio. TIF) to staff at time of REVCOM submission.
Editors provide a list of requests editorial corrections no later than REVCOM approval date.
Staff prepares a publication draft and highlights changes they have made and questions they need addressed or confirmed. This draft is sent to Task Group Editor and the Working Group Technical Editor (me). This typically occurs about 2-3 weeks after approval for publication, since the preparation work is usually (but not always) begun ahead of approval. This is also typically the draft peer reviewed by IEEE staff.
The Task Group Editor responds to all questions on domain specific questions, with copy to Working Group editor (me). This typically takes about 3-5 days.
The Working Group Technical Editor reviews responses from the Task Group editor, completes any responses, and provides a list of WG officers and voting members valid for the document as of the opening day of the Sponsor ballot. This typically only takes one additional day from the prior step as most of the work is done in parallel by the two editors.
Final draft is submitted by the IEEE staff to Working Group Technical Editor and Task Group Editor for sign-off. Any changes from the responses or IEEE peer review are highlighted and explained. This typically takes only one or two days more after the responses are received from the editors.
Task Group Editor gives final approval. No changes are expected. This usually occurs within 24 hours.
Working Group Technical Editor signs off and provides draft to Working Group Chair. No changes are expected. This usually occurs within 24 hours and in parallel with the previous step.
Working Group Chair sends to sponsor and IEEE staff letting them know the Working Group has signed off on the publication process.
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco)
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco Systems)

27. Terry Cole on Changes to MIB elements
May 2011
November 2011
Terry Cole on Changes to MIB elements
You can incrementally add to a MIB element without deprecation at any level. That is, add new values and meaning pairs.
You can change the description of a MIB element without deprecation at any level. That is add new text clarifying or even changing the meaning of the element to keep up with the standard.
I would advise deprecation when changing the definition of some value of a MIB from one thing to another. However, I don't know of any rules requiring this.
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco)

28. Publications: lessons learned
May 2011
November 2011
Publications: lessons learned
When quoting baseline text inaccurately, the baseline text is changed whether or not the changes were marked. The IEEE staff will actually do the appropriate changes as if the task group had actually intended to change the baseline.
Drafts can minimally quote baseline text to minimize such changes
Should revisit the decision to include full context during insertion
Full Annex titles have to be shown in the amendment; more importantly included “normative” vs. “informative”
TGk inadvertently changed Annex A to be fully informative
TGr battled to fix Annex A but caused ripples
TGy r1 has brief review of significant things changed for publication
In editor’s operations manual and during balloting, should comment that Annexes should be fully titled with good reason to vote “No” in balloting
Slide 28
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco)

29. Publications: lessons learned (cont’d)
May 2011
November 2011
Publications: lessons learned (cont’d)
Acronym rules are inconsistent
Styleguide doesn’t include definitions
Every document is treated as standalone, thus first acronym reference must be spelled out. Even though, other amendments or baseline may have defined and used the acronym earlier.
Goal should be to have as few changes between the final balloted amendment and final published amendment.
How do we deal with subjective decisions made by the IEEE copy editors as their styles vary?
Booleans should be capitalized: TRUE and FALSE
when “set to”
Booleans should be lower case: is true and is false (raise the issue with Style Guide update)
Slide 29
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco)

30. Pre-RevCom IEEE-SA Review
November 2011
Pre-RevCom IEEE-SA Review
Adrian: not sure we need this slide
Possibly near the end of Working Group Letter Ballot (3rd recirc or 4th recirc) , we will offer the draft to the publications editor for review. This allows ambiguities and errors to be addressed in Sponsor Ballot by comments, rather than discover the ambiguities and errors after RevCom. It appears that during MEC is the least risky time for a publication editor’s review.
TGs Draft 7.0 went to LB166 out of July plenary, and by agreement with ExCom and IEEE SA staff, went for professional editing for ~50 days, after which Draft 8.0 will be available for recirculation Sponsor Ballot.
Our experience with this process led us to have an MEC by our Technical Editor
Peter Ecclesine (Cisco)