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

FW: [802SEC] Further information re. 802.11g

Title: Message
Roger,

Thank you for your remarks. I will follow your excellent lead.

Respectfully,

Stuart
_______________________________

Stuart J. Kerry
Chair, IEEE 802.11 WLANs WG
_______________________________









"Roger B. Marks" <r.b.marks@ieee.org>

Sent by:
owner-stds-802-sec@majordomo.ieee.org

02/06/2003 18:39

       
        To:        Stuart Kerry/SVL/SC/PHILIPS@AMEC
        cc:        stds-802-sec@ieee.org
        Subject:        Re: [802SEC] Further information re. 802.11g

        Classification:        





Stuart,

OK for me. My only concerns were:

(a) Tim Moore's new Disapprove vote
(b) an explanation for why Carl Temme's comment was ruled invalid.

You have clarified these.

Good luck in Sponsor Ballot.

Roger


At 5:47 PM -0800 03/02/06, stuart.kerry@philips.com wrote:
>Bob Grow and Roger Marks,
>
>Does the information contained in my previous email and copied
>below, satisfy your concerns regarding the 802.11g WG processes
>meeting all the requirements set forth in Procedure 10.
>
>Tardiness is no excuse for completeness on our part in 802.11 WG.
>
>Respectfully,
>
>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
>_______________________________
>
>----- Forwarded by Stuart Kerry/SVL/SC/PHILIPS on 02/06/2003 17:40 -----
>
>
>
>
>
>stuart.kerry+FromInterNet@philips.com
>
>Sent by:
>owner-stds-802-sec@majordomo.ieee.org
>
>02/06/2003 16:57
>        
>         To:        stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>         cc:        shoemake@ti.com
>(bcc: Stuart Kerry/SVL/SC/PHILIPS)
>         Subject:        [802SEC] Further information re. 802.11g
>
>         Classification:
>
>
>
>
>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
>_______________________________