July 2011 doc IEEE 802 11 110884 r

July 2011 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -11/0884 r 0 Introduction to the 802. 11 MC Authors: Submission Date: 2011 -07 -14 Slide 1 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

July 2011 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -11/0884 r 0 Introduction • • The submission expresses my personal opinions that have evolved during my tenure as WG editor and 802. 11 REVmb editor I have written an 802. 11 MC process (the 11 MC) defined in 11 -11/0615, with the aid of various 802. 11 editors This process has been discussed by the editors, but there remain certain areas were consensus has not been reached The goal of this presentation is to give some background analysis on the 11 MC process, and to determine the sentiment of the group by straw poll Submission Slide 2 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

July 2011 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -11/0884 r 0 Motivation for the 11 MC • Group-specific editorial divergence – Each new person (editor, contributor) brings to their group their own favorite “ways of doing things”. Unless they specifically attempt to learn IEEE-SA and WG 11 style, it is likely that they will adopt a group-specific style that is divergent from 802. 11 style. – We don’t want to distract our voters with stylistic differences between 802. 11 groups. – Creates work for either the WG editor or the 802. 11 revision voters • Evolution of style in REVmb • Experience with the MIB Submission Slide 3 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

July 2011 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -11/0884 r 0 Evolution of style in REVmb • See 11 -09 -1034. Style evolves in REVmb as a function of comments. For example, we had 600 comments in a recent ballot on the use of the word “can”. The comment resolutions on this topic result in a better appreciation of how to use this specific word. • The history of these comment resolutions creates an evolving style, which we have tried to capture in 11 -091034. • This style includes: Frame format figures, use of specific phrases or words, naming of MIB variables, descriptive text for MIB variables, capitalization, SAP consistency and design patterns. Submission Slide 4 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

July 2011 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -11/0884 r 0 My experience with the MIB • The published 802. 11 u contained about 200 compilation errors (many trivial, but some fundamental). It had clearly not been compiled recently. • As a former software engineer, the concept of writing code and delivering it to the customer without compiling it is utterly incomprehensible. • Groups sometimes seem to me to treat the MIB as “just another unnecessary hoop to jump through” and give it little attention • Maintaining the MIB takes a lot of editorial effort – e. g. see 11 -090921, a 247 -page submission. I’m guessing I’ve spent about 2 months in the last 2 years full-time on this topic. • I would like to see the group set expectations on requirements for the MIB and believe it is reasonable to expect that compilation and compliance errors are addressed during the 11 MC process. Submission Slide 5 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

July 2011 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -11/0884 r 0 11 MC Process • 11 MC is performed on the “last draft but one” in the WG ballot – to allow changes to be made without impact on schedule • Draft is reviewed against specific review items • TG editor, WG editor and WG nominee work together and produce an output report representing a consensus • TG editor presents to TG and seeks approval for changes Submission Slide 6 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

July 2011 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -11/0884 r 0 Specific Review Points • Numbering of clauses, subclauses, figures, tables and equations – “As best as we can do” to final publication numbering – No “private numbering spaces” (e. g. , Figure 8 -zz 1, mib object numbering zz 1) • ANA objects – All numbers allocated through ANA mechanism – No ANA flags – All objects to be cross-checked against ANA database (1111/0270) • MIB compiles. Any compilation or compliance errors resolved. • Compliance to WG style as described in 11 -09/1034 Submission Slide 7 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

July 2011 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -11/0884 r 0 Strawpoll • Should the MIB satisfy the compliance requirement in 11 -09 -1034 r 3 section 3. 8. 3? Submission Slide 8 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

July 2011 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -11/0884 r 0 Strawpoll • Do you agree that 802. 11 drafts should undergo the 11 MC as described in 11 -11/0615 r 3 prior to sponsor ballot? – Yes – No – Abstain Submission Slide 9 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

July 2011 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -11/0884 r 0 References • 11 -11 -0615 r 3 – The WG 802. 11 MEC Process • 11 -09 -1034 r 3 – The WG 11 Style Guide Submission Slide 10 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation