Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

stds-802-16: tentative TGa schedule, and request for comments



Folks,

Now that the TGc and MBWA deadlines are passed, we have one week 
remaining before the May 15 deadline to respond to the TGa Call for 
Contributions:
	<http://ieee802.org/16/docs/02/80216-02_22.pdf>.

I would like to encourage you to use this week to think about what 
Draft 4 will look like and how to fix the errors in Draft 3. Please 
note that "Detailed change proposals may be itemized in Commentary 
format." That means that you are free to, and encouraged to, submit 
comments on Draft 3 for resolution at Session #19 in Calgary.

To illustrate the importance of Session #19, I have constructed a 
tentative schedule so you can see where we might be headed. I have 
developed the schedule based on the assumptions that Letter Ballot #5 
is approved (which seems likely 
<http://ieee802.org/16/tga/ballot05/report5.html>) and that, in 
Calgary, the WG decides to begin WG Letter Ballot #6 asking for 
approval to send a Draft 4 to the SEC for Sponsor Ballot. Other 
scenarios are possible, but I haven't analyzed them.

I have further assumed that:

*We resolve all LB#5 comments at Session #20 in July, so that the SEC 
grants us conditional approval to go ahead to Sponsor Ballot with a 
single, clean recirc.

*We get through Sponsor Ballot with only a single recirc.

With these basic assumptions, here is my view of a realistic schedule:
	http://ieee802.org/16/tga/schedule.html

This shows us turning the final draft over to RevCom on November 1. 
This is three months behind our previous schedule. (Since RevCom 
operates on a three-month cycle, the delay is one RevCom period. 
Given that we would have had a lot of problems to resolve in Sponsor 
Ballot in the old plan, it's not clear that we could have hit August 
2 deadline anyway.)

The critical point here is in July. If we expect the SEC to allow us 
to open Sponsor Ballot, we need to be in consensus at the July 
meeting. If we are still arguing over the fundamentals then (instead 
of fixing the bugs, addressing Disapprove comments, and finalizing 
coexistence concerns), then I think we will again have a hard time at 
the SEC.

And now, the bottom line: let's finish our homework and be prepared 
to find consensus in Calgary.

Cheers!

Roger