HI Robert,
Thanks for the additional information.
Regards,
srini
From: Stacey, Robert <robert.stacey@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2026 10:10 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBN] P802.11bn Draft D2.0 Now Available
Alfred is correct. This is an initial ballot, so what matters is the task group and working group approval for the draft that will go to ballot. The entire draft
is in scope for comments and so, at least for the purpose of balloting; previous
|
This Message Is From an External Sender
|
|
Use caution opening files, clicking links or responding to requests.
|
|
|
This is an initial ballot, so what matters is the task group and working group approval for the draft that will go to ballot. The entire draft is in scope for comments and so,
at least for the purpose of balloting; previous comment resolutions or the evolution of the draft itself is not relevant to determining whether a comment is in scope.
Once an initial ballot is approved, then we move into the recirculation phase, where we keep the ballot pool stable and improve consensus by converting disapprove voters to approve
voters. In this phase, previous resolutions are relevant since they determine what is in scope for commenting. Also, the redline helps here to determine what is in scope: only text that has changed or is affected by text that has changed is in scope.
Of course, through the entire process we try to improve the draft by addressing comments irrespective of the source. But should the process become contentious, the process provides
a means for narrowing the scope of the contention to improve the chances that the group can reach consensus.
The redline versions of the draft are available in the members area. The comment resolution is available on mentor.
[+ WG chair in cc for any further insights and to confirm my understanding]
Per my understanding, LB295 is an initial letter ballot, so the requirement to include a comment resolution document and a redline document does not apply. Checking the history
of past letter ballots, comment resolution information and the associated redline are typically provided as part of the subsequent recirculation letter ballots. Therefore, the N/A entry is expected for the current LB295 ballot.
Hi Alfred,
Thanks – found it.
Again, thanks a lot for the team. All of this takes lot of energy for almost an year and I appreciate it! So please do not think I am nitpicking!
Is there a reason the resolution document is not included into the “Ballot Details” (it says NA). Could this be added? I assume that the Redline version would also be added as it is available.
Thanks.
Regards,
srini
Hi Srini, That doc can be found under Other documents. Regards, Alfred On Mon, Aug 3, 2026 at 2: 24 PM Srini Kandala <srini. k1@ samsung. com> wrote: Hi Alfred, Looking at .11mf draft 3. 0, I think the convention is
also to put the CIDs next
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
|
This Message Is From an External Sender
|
|
Use caution opening files, clicking links or responding to requests.
|
|
|
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Hi Srini,
That doc can be found under Other documents.
Regards,
Alfred
On Mon, Aug 3, 2026 at 2:24 PM Srini Kandala <srini.k1@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Alfred,
Looking at .11mf draft 3.0, I think the convention is also to put the CIDs next to the changes even in the clean version. It would have helped if we had these references. Can we also have a clean version with references to the
CID that effected the changes?
Thanks.
Regards,
srini
Hi Sigurd, Yes, we will announce, when redline 2. 0 compared to 1. 0 is available in the members area, with a separate email in the next day or so. Regards, Alfred On Mon, Aug 3, 2026, 12: 31 PM Sigurd Schelstraete
<0000147fea1cee5c-dmarc-request@ listserv. ieee. org>
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
|
This Message Is From an External Sender
|
|
Use caution opening files, clicking links or responding to requests.
|
|
|
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Hi Sigurd,
Yes, we will announce, when redline 2.0 compared to 1.0 is available in the members area, with a separate email in the next day or so.
Regards,
Alfred
On Mon, Aug 3, 2026, 12:31 PM Sigurd Schelstraete <0000147fea1cee5c-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Alfred, Ross,
For major draft revisions (e.g. D2.0) we usually get a redline version relative to the immediately preceding draft (D1.5 in this case) and the last major revision (D1.0). In this case, I only see a revision relative to D1.5.
Not to put an undue burden on the editor but is it possible to have a revision relative to D1.0 as well?
Thanks,
Sigurd
This email was sent from outside of MaxLinear.
Hello all,
P802.11bn Draft D2.0 is now available in the members area:
https://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/11/private/Draft_Standards/11bn/index.html
Many thanks to our editor, Ross, for working around the clock to ensure timely delivery of the draft.
Also, if you are in the list of
voters, please consider voting on the working group letter ballot LB296. Instructions can be found
here.
Regards,
Alfred
--
Alfred Asterjadhi, PhD
IEEE802.11 Vice Chair/TGbn Chair,
Qualcomm Technologies Inc.
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBN list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBN&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBN list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBN&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBN list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBN&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBN list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBN&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBN list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBN&A=1
|