Re: +++ PAR Approval for 802.11g
Paul Nikolich votes APPROVE
At 01:49 PM 9/8/00 -0500, Jim Carlo wrote:
>
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>SEC OFFICIAL EMAIL BALLOT 802.0/6Sept2000
>Issue Date: 8Sept2000 Closing Date: 14Sept2000
>Moved By: Stuart Kerry
>Move: Approve PAR for 802.11g per SEC Motion 7/13/2000.
>
>Notes:
>+ SEC Motion (7/13/2000) : To presubmit the PAR for further Higher data Rate
>extension in the 2.4 GHz band to NesCom pending the following actions:
>a) the 802.11 WG performs an email ballot to affirm the forwarding of the
>PAR, (approves+disapproves amounting to at least 50% of the WG voting
>members).
>b) the SEC reviews the results of (a) and has an email ballot to forward the
>PAR to the standards board for approval.
>Hayes/Nikolich
>9/0/0 Approved at 8:52
>
>+ IEEE 802.11 conducted a WG ballot with the results as follows:
>Summary of LB #23:
>Total Eligible voters = 100.
>Vote Approve: 69
>Vote Approve with Comment: 1
>Did not respond: 30
>Start of Ballot: 23July2000
>End of Ballot: 2Sept2000
>
>+ Letter Ballot was:
>This Letter Ballot is being issued in compliance with directions from the
>IEEE 802 Executive Committee (ExCom). Although the IEEE 802.11 Working
>Group and the Higher Rate 802.11b Study Group have both approved the PAR and
>5 Criteria unanimously, and the 802.11 WG received absolutely no objections
>to the PAR by any other 802 Working Group or individual at the July 2000
>meeting, the ExCom has directed another 802.11 WG vote via Letter Ballot to
>reaffirm support of the PAR and 5 Criteria. The ExCom has directed the
>802.11 WG to take this action due to the ExCom's desire to obtain the
>largest vote count possible from the 802.11 WG on approval of the PAR. The
>PAR and 5-Criterion are listed below. (The only change is to correct the
>item that the PAR is a supplement to 802.11-1999, since IEEE rules do not
>allow a supplement to a supplement.) Only the PAR (after reformatting) will
>be submitted to NesCom.
>
>+ The one Approve with comment was from Dave Bagby, who would prefer to not
>mandate backward capability with the IEEE 802.11b standard. Mr. Bagby
>agreed to have his comment discussed at the next WG meeting and have the PAR
>go forward as is.
>
>