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

RE: [802SEC] 802.11f Draft to IEEE Sponsor Ballot

Forwarded for Dave Bagby.

-----Original Message-----
From: "David Bagby" <>
To: "THALER,PAT \(A-Roseville,ex1\)" <>,
   <>, <>
Cc: <>
Subject: RE: [802SEC] 802.11f Draft to IEEE Sponsor Ballot
Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 11:40:47 -0700

Hi Pat -
I think there is a small misunderstanding here. My understanding of the 30
days Stuart referred to is the lead time to place an item on your agenda for
July. The purpose of Stuart's email was to have the topic on the agenda for
the July meeting.

FYI - the Current status of 802.1 TGf is:
WG ballot completed in March, result passing. However, some significant
comments caused the TG to want to make another pass before going to sponsor
ballot. This resulted in Draft 3.1 which was completed in April and will be
recirculated within the WG starting this week. That ballot will complete
before July and the TG anticipates proceeding to SB out of the July meeting.

(FYI - While a recirc only needs to be 10 days long, we decided to make this
internal recirc 40 days - this was motivated by the recent running of
several simultaneous ballots etc and the WG membership wanted some more
time - since we had the time avail before July, we figured we'd get a better
review if we didn't rush them.)

My understanding is that to accomplish that requires approval during the
July mtg and hence needed to be on the agenda. I was also told that the
agenda needed to be settled 30 days prior to the meeting - hence my prod to
Stuart to make sure the topic was queued up for July.

David Bagby
Chairman IEEE 802.11 TGf

Calypso Consulting
Office: (650) 637-7741

> -----Original Message-----
> From: THALER,PAT (A-Roseville,ex1) []
> Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 11:11 AM
> To:;
> Cc:;
> Subject: RE: [802SEC] 802.11f Draft to IEEE Sponsor Ballot
> Stuart,
> I don't know of any 30 day requirement for requests to go to
> sponsor ballot.
> Such a requirement would slow down the standards process to an
> unacceptable
> extent. I believe that what the Exec needs to see to approve a sponsor
> ballot is the ballot tally, the unresolved negative comments and their
> responses, assurance that any substantive changes were
> recirculated and the
> draft itself (mainly because the comments may only be clear when one looks
> at the draft). Unless there are massive unresolved negative comments, this
> shouldn't require 30 days to review. Usually comment resolution is done
> during the plenary week so this information is not available
> until Wednesday
> or Thursday.
> Pat
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stuart J. Kerry []
> Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2002 3:09 PM
> To:
> Cc:;
> Subject: [802SEC] 802.11f Draft to IEEE Sponsor Ballot
> Paul,
> My TGF Chair has reminded me to confirm my intent to ask for a motion at
> the beginning of the July 802 Plenary SEC meeting regarding our IEEE
> 802.11f Draft for approval to go to Sponsor Ballot. This notice shall
> serve as that intent.
> Closing today is WG Letter Ballot #37 that requested the Working Groups
> approval to initiate a Recirculation Ballot of TGf Draft P802.11f-D3.1,
> which seems to have been approved by the membership. It is our intention
> to start a 40-Day Letter Ballot (#38), if LB #37 results confirm this
> action, on Wednesday next week for the Recirculation the Draft to WG
> members. If this passes with the prescribe percentages then I will ask
> for the requested motion at the SEC meeting in July. As normally
> required I will also include the required documentation before the 30
> day requirement to the other SEC members.
> Regards,
> Stuart