| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
"Bob O'Hara" <bob@airespace.com> 02/06/2003 17:34 | To: Stuart Kerry/SVL/SC/PHILIPS@AMEC <stds-802-sec@ieee.org> cc: <shoemake@ti.com> Subject: RE: [802SEC] Further information re. 802.11g
Classification:
|
-Bob
-----Original Message-----
From:
stuart.kerry@philips.com [mailto:stuart.kerry@philips.com]
Sent:
Thursday, February 06, 2003 4:58 PM
To:
stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Cc: shoemake@ti.com
Subject: [802SEC]
Further information re. 802.11g
Dear SEC members,
I am
writing to provide further clarification on the results of recirculation of
Draft 6.1 of 802.11g. There are 11 comment files received from voters.
Below, I have addressed why each set of comments was rejected for each
voter:
- Andrews Myles - Andrew vote YES to forward to
Sponsor Ballot.
Andrews comments are a duplicate
of a previous comment. Andrew seems to have resubmitted his comment
without reading draft 6.1, where his comments were addressed. Andrews
comments related to the rate at which control
response frames such as
acknowledgments are sent. The 802.11g task group believes that all of
these comments have been addressed with the current text. Andrew also
notes in his comment that this is not part of a NO vote. He expresses that
he may bring this back up at Sponsor Ballot. Based on Andrews position,
the Working Group chair determined that it was appropriate to respectfully
decline his comments and forward to Sponsor Ballot.
-
Carl Temme - Carl's comments are a duplicate of his comments on Letter Ballot
50. Carl voted NO with comments.
Carl's concern has to do with the
new CTS-to-self frame that is described in 802.11g. Carl admittedly says
that his reason for voting NO is because he does not want this frame mandated by
the Wi-Fi Alliance, and he fears that they will mandate this frame in their
testing. Thus he would like further consideration of taking this mechanism
out of the draft. Carl contacted the 802.11g chairperson and indicated
that he did not want to slow down ogress, but he would like this issue discussed
during Sponsor Balloting. The Working Group chair has agree to submit the
comment to the Sponsor Ballot. Based on Carl's desires, the Working Group
chair determined that his comment should be respectfully decline and the draft
forwarded to Sponsor Ballot.
- Charles Wright - Charles votes
YES with one new technical comment.
Charles technical comment is
invalid because it was made on an unchanged portion of the draft. Charles
comments relates to a statement in Annex E-2. Charles believes that there
may be a normative statement in the annex. Upon review, this is not the
case, as the whole annex is clearly marked as informative. Charles comment
is better resolved by editorial clarification than a technical change.
Charles has been given the opportunity forward this comment to Sponsor
Ballot via the working group chairperson. Based on these determinations,
Charles one technical comment has been respectfully decline
-
Clint Chaplin - Clint voted YES with comments.
All of Clint's comments are editorial. As with all editorial
comments on letter ballots 54, his comments will be forwarded to the 802.11g
editor for consideration. There were no technical comments from
Clint.
- Ivan Oakes - Ivan voted YES to forward to
Sponsor Ballot.
Ivan submitted several technical
comments. Ivan's first technical comment has more to do with nomenclature
than any technical change to the draft. Ivan has submitted three comments
on various rate sets used in 802.11g. Ivan's comments are in contradiction
to unanimous motions adopted by 802.11g in session after much technical debate
and discussion at the 802.11g meeting in Ft. Lauderdale. Thus based on
Ivan's YES vote, the fact that nothing is broken in the draft and the position
of 802.11g on this topic, comments have been respectfully declined.
Nonetheless, the working group chair has agreed to forward Ivan's comments
to Sponsor Ballot.
- Joe Kwak, Joe voted YES with comments.
All of Joe's comments are duplicates from the
previous ballot. Joe's comments relate to how a header length field is
calculated. Joe believes that the current calculation is wrong. This
was looked at by 802.11g at their January 2003 meeting. It was determined
that the calculation in the draft was correct, and Joe's calculation was wrong.
The editor was directed to clarify some text to try to eliminate any
confusion that readers my have, and these changes are reflected in Draft 6.1.
Due to the analysis of 802.11g and Joe's YES vote, Joe's comment has been
respectfully declined.
- Kevin Karcz, Kevin voted YES
with comments.
Kevin submitted three new
technical comments. Kevin's comments are actually requests for
clarification, and he does not request technical changes to the draft.
Kevin's comments can easily be addressed at Sponsor Ballot. Kevin
will be given the opportunity to forward his comments to submit his comments on
the Sponsor Ballot via the working group chair to insure consideration of his
requests. Based on Kevin's vote to forward to Sponsor ballot, the comment
has been respectfully declined.
- Marcus Gahler, Marcus voted YES
with comments.
Marcus submitted many comments
related to indication of supported rates. These comments do not proposed
major changes to draft. The working group chair will include these
comments in his Sponsor Ballot vote. Based on Marcus's vote to forward to
Sponsor Ballot and the fact that his comments will be considered again by
802.11g, his comments have been respectfully declined at this time.
-
Ni Quang- Ni submitted a comment form with no comments.
Ni's voted is YES WITH NO COMMENTS.
-
Thomas Maufer - Thomas voted YES with comments.
Thomas has one technical comment. It is duplicate from the
initial balloting. Thomas and the 802.11g chair spoke, and Thomas
indicates that there is nothing broken in the draft with respect to his comment,
but he
believes there is some redundancy in indication of support for a
particular modulation. Thomas indicates that he would like consideration
of elimination of this redundancy in signaling support for this modulation.
Thomas indicates in that he would like his comment forwarded to Sponsor
Ballot, and the working group chair has
agree to do this. Based on
discussions with Thomas, his YES vote and the fact that his comment will receive
further consideration at the Sponsor level, his comment has been respectfully
declined.
- Tim Moore - Tim voted YES*** with two technical
comments.
Tim's comments relate to adding additional control
in the MIB. Tim and the 802.11g chairperson spoke, and Tim indicates that
he would like for the draft to be forwarded to Sponsor Ballot, but he would like
further discussion on this topic, thus the working group chair has agreed to
submit Tim's comments at the sponsor level. Based on Tim's YES vote, Tim's
desire to move the process forward, and the fact that his comments will be
submitted on the Sponsor Ballot, his comments have been respectfully
declined at this time.
Note*** There may have been some
confusion over how Tim Moore voted. Tim originally submitted a NO vote on
the recirculation. Tim later changed his vote to YES. Tim did not
update his comment form to say YES, but
he did send a confirmation to the
802.11 Working Group officers and the 802.11g chairperson confirming his desire
to change his vote to YES.
In
conclusion, there is only one NO vote that was submitted on the recirculation
ballot. This was from Carl Temme. The 802.11 Working Group chair
determined that this was not a new valid disapprove vote, because it was
identical to a comment that Carl submitted on the previous ballot and the
802.11g chair spoke with Carl and Carl does not wish for it to be considered as
a new valid no vote. Therefore, there are no new valid NO votes on the
recirculation of 802.11g Draft 6.1.
Best regards,
Stuart
_______________________________
Stuart J.
Kerry
Chair, IEEE 802.11 WLANs WG
Philips Semiconductors, Inc.
1109
McKay Drive, M/S 48A SJ,
San Jose, CA 95131-1706,
United States of
America.
Ph : +1 (408) 474-7356
Fax: +1 (408) 474-7247
Cell:
+1 (408) 348-3171
eMail:
stuart.kerry@philips.com
_______________________________