July 2009 doc IEEE 802 11 090674 r

July 2009 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -09/0674 r 3 P 802. 11 n report to EC on request for approval to proceed to Rev. Com Date: 2009 -07 -15 Authors: Submission 1 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

July 2009 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -09/0674 r 3 Introduction • Revision 3 of this document, reflects the status as of 200907 -15 after the fifth recirculation ballot and after approval in the 802. 11 n task group. Any greyed-out sections will be filled in the final version of this document. • This document contains the report to the IEEE 802 Executive Committee in support of a request for approval to send IEEE P 802. 11 n to Rev. Com. • Document (11 -09/0674 r 2) was approved during the closing plenary session of the 802. 11 working group on <date>. – Passed in the Task Group 26 -0 -0 – Passed in the Working Group <result> Submission 2 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

July 2009 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -09/0674 r 3 IEEE 802 Sponsor Ballot Results – P 802. 11 n QTY ** Note, one voter changed from “disapprove” to “approve” following the closure of the 5 th recirculation. This is included in the figures above. Submission 3 % QTY Key: • “with” = “with comments” • “w/o” = “without comments” Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation %

July 2009 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -09/0674 r 3 Comments by Ballot Key: SB 0 = Initial sponsor ballot. SB 1 = 1 st recirculation ballot, etc. • Coordination: comment supplied by a Mandatory coordination entity • Not Required: comment indicated as not required to satisfy voter • Satisfied: comment required to satisfy voter that is indicated as satisfied either by the voter indicating satisfaction with the specific comment, or by voting yes in a subsequent ballot • Known Unsatisfied: a comment that is indicated to be “required” by the voter, and the voter is maintaining a “no” vote, and the voter has indicated they are unsatisfied with the comment resolution. • Assumed Unsatisfied: comment not meeting any of the above criteria – i. e. , a comment that is indicated to be “required” by the voter, and the voter is maintaining a “no” vote, and the voter has not responded when asked about their satisfaction with the comment resolution. Submission 4 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

July 2009 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -09/0674 r 3 Mandatory coordination Coordination Entity Draft Date Status IEEE-SA Editorial (MEC) D 9. 0 D 10. 0 D 11. 0 March 09 May 09 June 09 “Meets all editorial requirements. “ Quantities, Units and Letter Symbols (SCC 14) D 8. 0 February 09 “OK” Terms and Definitions (SCC 10) No response Registration Authority Committee (RAC) Not required Submission 5 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

July 2009 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -09/0674 r 3 Updated resolution of the 20/40 MHz in 2. 4 GHz comments • Prior to completion of comment resolutions in the May 2009 802. 11 session (Montreal, Canada), many of the comments relating to the 20/40 MHz in 2. 4 GHz topic were rejected by the comment resolution committee. • During the May session, a compromise was worked out, including active participation from the comment resolution committee and those voting “no” on this topic. Significant changes were incorporated into D 10. 0 • As a result, resolutions of 81 comments from the initial ballot and 16 comments from the first recirculation ballot were re-written (replacing a “disagree” with an “accept in principle”). • The updated resolutions form the basis of the analysis in the rest of this document. Submission 6 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

July 2009 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -09/0674 r 3 Note • In subsequent slides, “Unsatisfied comments” includes both “Known Unsatisfied” and “Assumed Unsatisfied” comments. Submission 7 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

July 2009 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -09/0674 r 3 Unsatisfied Comments The table shows the count of unsatisfied editorial comments and technical comments separately. The comments are then classified into: • A – Accepted. The comment was accepted and the change indicated by the commenter was approved. • P – Accepted in Principle. The comment was accepted in principle, but a different change to the one indicated by the commenter was approved. • D – Disagree. The comment was declined and no change to address the comment was approved. • U – Unresolvable. • S – Out of Scope. Submission 8 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

July 2009 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -09/0674 r 3 Unsatisfied comments by commenter The list of 18 voters includes all “disapprove” voters with unsatisfied comments indicated as “Must be satisfied”. Note, one voter (Harry Bims) counted as a “disapprove with comments” by My. Ballot did not have any “Must be satisfied” comments. Submission 9 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

July 2009 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -09/0674 r 3 Unsatisfied Comments by Topic Submission 10 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

July 2009 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -09/0674 r 3 Comments • The composite of all unsatisfied comments and the resolutions approved by the comment resolution committee received during P 802. 11 n sponsor ballot is attached. – Double click on the icon to the right to open this. • A copy of this same data presented using My. Ballot access database report format is attached. – Double click on the embedded. pdf to the right to open this. • The complete set of comments (i. e. including not required, satisfied and unsatisified comments) was published on the mentor document server in document 1109/0024 r 17). This is embedded to the right for convenience. Submission 11 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

July 2009 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -09/0674 r 3 Note • The following slide will be brought to motion in the July EC meeting. Submission 12 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

July 2009 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -09/0674 r 3 802. 11 EC Motion – Approval to send P 802. 11 n to Rev. Com • Grant approval, to forward P 802. 11 n Draft 11. 0 to Rev. Com. • P 802. 11 n had a 91% approval on the last Recirculation Sponsor Ballot. There are 18 disapprove voters representing 80 unsatisfied comments. • Moved: Bruce Kraemer – Yes Submission No 13 2 nd: James Gilb Abstain Bruce Kraemer, Marvell; Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation