RE: [802SEC] Report on 15.2 Recirculation Ballot
not very comfortable with going to RevCom when the WG hasn't had the opportunity
to review the SB results. (While they had the opportunity to view all
comments before the ballot closed, it isn't really the same thing.) Some
1. Were any comments (editorial or technical)
received on the latest recirculation ballot?
2. Did the WG approve June RevCom
submission (per 802.15 rules 7.7)?
Recirculation ballot closed on April 15. The results were:
ballot has met the 75% returned ballot requirement.
66 eligible people in this ballot group.
1 negative votes with comments
0 negative votes without
7 abstention votes
56 votes received = 84%
2. The 75% affirmation requirement is being met.
48 affirmative votes
1 negative votes with
49 votes = 97% affirmative
We received one new affirmative and one of
the no voters changed their vote to affirmative. The one remaining no vote
was from the previous ballot and was ruled then as not a valid technical comment
and made part of the recirculation. (copy below) There has been no response from
Given that there are no new no votes and no changes required
to the draft, I will be making a motion to the SEC, via a 10 day letter
ballot, to forward Draft 9 to RevCom in time for the May 2 submission
Comment received on Draft 8 and recirculated with Draft
CommenterName CommentType CommentID Clause Subclause
source code of Appendix D is provided without a flow diagram schematic. To
enhance understanding and accessibility of the program material a flow diagram
schematic is required.
Include a flow diagram
schematic of the source code presented in Appendix D.
The BRC does not know of any requirements to supply a flow
diagram for code, therefore one will not be created and included. BRC does not
consider this a technical comment on the draft, since it relates to a
Bob Heile, Ph.D
Chair, IEEE 802.15 Working Group on Wireless Personal Area Networks
Chair, ZigBee Alliance
11 Louis Road
Attleboro, MA 02703 USA