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
Thank you Bob for your due consideration.

I will endeavor to make sure that the honor and pride in reporting results from within 802.11 WG is held to the highest transitions of the other eminent groups.



"Bob O'Hara" <>

02/06/2003 17:34

        To:        Stuart Kerry/SVL/SC/PHILIPS@AMEC

        cc:        <>
        Subject:        RE: [802SEC] Further information re. 802.11g


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.


-----Original Message-----
From: []
Thursday, February 06, 2003 4:58 PM
[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.  


- 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 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