Re: [802SEC] Clause 19 Report regarding P802.11k to RevCom
Richard,
As I am unavailable all next week, please coordinate the answers to
Geoff's pertinent comments directly to him and the rest of the 802 EC
members via the reflector.
Work with Harry too, he can post to the 802 EC reflector.
Thanks.
Regards,
/ Stuart
-------------------------
Stuart J. Kerry
eMail: stuart@ok-brit.com
-------------------------
Quoting Geoff Thompson <gthompso@nortel.com>:
> Stuart:
>
> I am troubled by the responses to the MIB issues, to wit:
> Cl 11k-D8. SC D P 127 L Comment Type T LB96#18-Aboba: The modified
> IEEE 802.11 MIB, including all the changes, does not appear to have
> been run through a MIB compiler to test whether it will compile.
> SuggestedRemedy Issue a MIB file including all of the changes, then
> run the updated MIB through a MIB compiler, correcting the errors.
> REJECT. This comment will be addressed after D9.0.
>
> appears to claim that the problem will be fixed "after D9.0" and
> this appears to be a ballot report for D12.0. Thus it looks like it is
> time to have this problem fixed. Either you were supposed to have it
> done by now and the comment thus should have been removed or ???. If
> it was done, then why hasn't the rebuttal been updated?
>
> Further,
> Cl 11k-D12 SC Q P 181 L 47 Comment Type TR "FALSE::= {
> dot11RRMRequestEntry 36 }" This is the only place where the attribute
> is explicitly set to FALSE. No other place is this done.
> SuggestedRemedy "::= { dot11RRMRequestEntry 36 }" to delete the FALSE
> REJECT. We deem this comment to be editorial. This editorial change
> and any other editorial MIB changes required for error free
> compilation will be made by the editor prior to publication.
>
> seems to indicate that compiler error checking will be made
> post-balloting. That is, they will be made at a time when technical
> errors may not be corrected and the inclusion of ANY corrections is
> subject to the whim of the SA editorial staff. That seems like a bad
> idea. It is not clear to me that all errors pointed out by a compiler
> will be (a) editorial and (b) will require a change that is so obvious
> that it should not require checking by the balloting group.
>
> Why is running the MIB through a compiler for error checkin
> stubbornly being held off until after balloting?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Geoff Thompson
>
> At 08:29 AM 2/11/2008 , Stuart J. Kerry wrote:
>
> 802 EC members,
>
> The IEEE 802.11 Working Group obtained 802 EC conditional approval in
> Atlanta, November 2007 to forward the P802.11k
> draft to RevCom between the Atlanta and Orlando 802 plenaries.
>
> The report attached details that as required by that conditional
> approval under Clause 19 of the 802 LMSC P&P.
>
> The position of the WG Chair and the TGk Chair (acting as comment
> resolution group Chair) is that we believe that we
> have met the conditions of Clause 19 for sending P802.11k Draft 12.0
> to RevCom.
>
> Regards,
>
> / Stuart
> _________________________________
>
> Stuart J. Kerry
> Chair, IEEE 802.11 WLANs WG
>
> +1 (408) 474-7356 - Phone
> +1 (408) 474-5343 - Fax
> +1 (408) 348-3171 - Cell
> eMail: stuart@ok-brit.com
>
> AND
>
> Richard H. Paine
>
> Chair, IEEE 802.11 Task Group k &
> SB Comment Resolution Group Chair
>
> +1 (206) 854-8199 - Phone
> eMail: richard.h.paine@boeing.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.