FW: [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
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
- 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 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
- 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
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.
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.
Stuart J. Kerry
802.11 WLANs WG
Philips Semiconductors, Inc.
1109 McKay Drive, M/S 48A
San Jose, CA 95131-1706,
United States of America.
+1 (408) 474-7356
Fax: +1 (408) 474-7247
Cell: +1 (408) 348-3171