|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
I’m voting approve though I have some reservations.
The patent issue is a thorny one, but in the absence of alternatives I don’t think there is anything left to do about it but let the draft go forward and leave it to PatCom and the SASB to decide what to do.
There were some comments on the last draft that were rejected but not marked out of scope and the changes requested are correct but relatively minor so they don’t justify delaying moving forward. It would have been better to have rejected them at the current time but offer to submit them for consideration at Sponsor ballot (or ask the commenter to resubmit them then).
In particular, the response to 7036 is inaccurate. The comment response is:
According to the IEEE SA Style guide: "That is best reserved in essential (or restrictive) clauses; which is appropriate in nonessential (or nonrestrictive) parenthetical
clauses. Simply stated, if a comma can be inserted before the word that or which, the word should be which. If a comma would not be used, the word to use is that."
As suggested by the style guide, in the sentence pointed out by the commenter a comma can be inserted before the "which" as follows:
"A relay AP is an AP, which offers the relay function to its associated non-AP STAs, and provides access to the DS indirectly through the relay STA's path to the root AP."
However, the comma is not required.”
Clearly that is a restrictive clause (using “restrictive” and “clause” in the grammar, not standard, sense). It is restrictive because an AP is only a relay AP if it offers the relay function. You wouldn’t call a relay that doesn’t have the relay function. Therefore commas wouldn’t be appropriate around the clause and “that” should be used instead of “which”. You could perhaps have used the “standards are professionally edited response.”
Dear EC members,
Paul Nikolich has approved the running of the following 10-day EC Email Ballot, with no early closure.
Conditionally approve sending P802.11ah to sponsor ballot.
Moved: Adrian Stephens
Seconded: Jon Rosdahl
Start of ballot: 2015-09-19
End of ballot: 2015-09-29, 23:59 UTC-12
The motion to request conditional approval passed 31,0,0 in the 802.11 WG (and 53,0,1 in the TG).
The WG ballot is currently at 96% approval. 107 comments were received in the last recirculation (D5.0),
all of which were rejected. I have today started a 15-day WG recirculation ballot of D5.0 unchanged.
P802.11ah was held up for a couple of sessions due to concerns about asserted essential IP.
Based on various communications received, it is evident that those concerns were resolved. The
motion to approve rejection of the four remaining IP-related comments was approved 45,0,8.
The full report is show here:
Adrian P STEPHENS
Tel: +44 (1793) 404825 (office)
---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.