FW: [802SEC] Further information re. 802.11g
Title: Message
Stuart,
Thank
you for providing this information. This addresses all the concerns I had
expressed earlier. I am content that 802.11g has met the requirements of
Procedure 10.
Now,
it would have been nice to have seen all this in the first email that was sent
out today. It probably would have eliminated a lot of scrambling on your
part. The WGs that should be emulated in regard to their reports to the
SEC on Procedure 10 are 802.3 and 802.16, in my opinion. Both seem to be
very thorough and open about the results of their
ballots.
-Bob
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
_______________________________