Re: [802SEC] Clause 19 Report regarding P802.11y to Sponsor Ballot
Stuart:
The answers to my questions were satisfactory. I have no additional concerns with the project advancing to Sponsor ballot.
--Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: Stuart J. Kerry [mailto:stuart@ok-brit.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 5:34 PM
To: Grow, Bob
Cc: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG; petere@cisco.com
Subject: RE: [802SEC] Clause 19 Report regarding P802.11y to Sponsor Ballot
Dear Bob,
In answer to your email entitled RE: Clause 19 Report regarding P802.11y to Sponsor Ballot. I would like to present the
following:
Stating LB 116 resolution facts:
- LB116 recirculation of P802.11y D6.0 received 36 comments, eight from a new DISAPPROVE voter and 28 from approve
voters.
- All comments were Rejected.
- No agreements were made in the resolution of any LB 116 comments.
- 28 comments were on approved portions of the document, and were ruled Out of Scope.
- Eight comments were on changed text or text affected by changed text, or text that is not part of the amendment.
- No comments were received on text referred to by outstanding unresolved comments.
Regarding changes that were agreed to be made in the resolution of prior ballot DISAPPROVE comments:
- P802.11y D2.0 contains the changes agreed to be made resolving comments 426-438, and recirculated in LB 104.
- P802.11y D4.0 contains the changes agreed to be made resolving comments 2072-2076, and recirculated in LB 109.
- P802.11y D5.0 contains the changes agreed to be made resolving comments 3176-3180, and recirculated in LB 112.
- P802.11y D6.0 contains the change agreed to be made resolving comment 4043, and recirculated in LB 116.
Responding to your comments (Bob Grow) point by point:
1. To be ruled invalid, the comments also must not be related to changed text, and I didn't find that assurance in
the report. Are all comments also not related to changes in the balloted draft?
- None of the comments from the new DISAPPROVE voter were on text related to changed text which was recirculated.
- None of the other comments ruled Out of Scope were on text related to changed text.
2. The report indicates that changes were agreed to be made in response to those out of scope comments. All
substantive changes must be recirculated. Are any of the changes in response to these comments substantive?
- No substantive changes were agreed to be made or have been made.
- No agreements were made in resolving Out of Scope comments.
3. The report does not indicate if approve comments were submitted and what the disposition of those comments was.
Were any substantive changes made to the draft in response to Approve comments or for any other reason?
- No substantive changes were agreed to be made or have been made.
- No agreements were made in resolving any comments.
The new DISAPPROVE voter was contacted about the proposed comment resolutions to his comments, and declined to change
his vote.
The position of the WG Chair and the TG Chair (acting as resolution committee Chair) is that no additional recirculation
is required and that we believe that we have detailed our answers to you questions.
I thank you for your excellent due diligence and present this for your consideration. I am sorry for the detailed long
email.
With all due respects,
/ Stuart
-----Original Message-----
From: Grow, Bob [mailto:bob.grow@INTEL.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 1:13 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Clause 19 Report regarding P802.11y to Sponsor Ballot
Stuart:
In reading the ballot report, I think it says that all comments
accompanying the new negative ballot were on unchanged text.
1. To be ruled invalid, the comments also must not be related to
changed text, and I didn't find that assurance in the report. Are all
comments also not related to changes in the balloted draft?
2. The report indicates that changes were agreed to be made in response
to those out of scope comments. All substantive changes must be
recirculated. Are any of the changes in response to these comments
substantive?
3. The report does not indicate if approve comments were submitted and
what the disposition of those comments was. Were any substantive
changes made to the draft in response to Approve comments or for any
other reason?
4. If the answer to #1 is yes and #2 and #3 is no, then I don't see any
reason why an additional recirculation is required.
5. For purposes of the conditional approval, it isn't relevant, but I
can't figure out how the invalid Disapprove was counted. Per the SASB
Operations Manual 5.4.3.2, if the new Disapprove vote is only based on
approved portions of the document and the voter does not change the
negative ballot when informed the comments are invalid, the Disapprove
vote then becomes a Disapprove without comments. The tally does not
indicate a Disapprove without comment, was the "invalid Disapprove"
counted as a Disapprove without comment?
--Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Stuart J. Kerry
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 3:34 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [802SEC] Clause 19 Report regarding P802.11y to Sponsor Ballot
802 Members,
I am writing to report on the status of P802.11y/D6.0, per the 802 EC
P&P Clause 19 Approval granted on Friday November
16, 2007 under agenda ITEM: 5.16 ME Conditional approval of 802.11y for
sponsor ballot.
The conditions have been met:
IEEE 802.11 Working Group Letter Ballot 116, including the review of
P802.11y/Draft 6.0, ran from November 23, 2007 to
December 8, 2007 (final result:271/2/54, with 99% approval ratio). No
new valid Disapprove votes were submitted in this
recirculation.
The 802.11y Sponsor Ballot Conditional Report and comments associated
with the LB116 Disapprove votes, along with the
Working Group responses, are included in the document which is attached.
If you need to download another copy or for
your members information, it can be downloaded from the following URL on
our central depository:
https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/file/07/11-07-2958-00-000y-802-11y-sponso
r-ballot-report.pdf
Respectfully,
/ Stuart
_______________________________
Stuart J. Kerry
Chair, IEEE 802.11 WLANs WG
c/o: NXP Semiconductors,
1109 McKay Drive, M/S 48A SJ,
San Jose, CA 95131-1706,
United States of America.
+1 (408) 474-7356 - Phone
+1 (408) 474-5343 - Fax
+1 (408) 348-3171 - Cell
eMail: stuart@ok-brit.com
_______________________________
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.