March 2003 doc IEEE 802 11 03227 r

  • Slides: 6
Download presentation
March 2003 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -03/227 r 1 Addressing the controversial comments

March 2003 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -03/227 r 1 Addressing the controversial comments in 9. 10. 2. 4. 2 and Annex “A” John M. Kowalski Sharp Labs Submission 1 John Kowalski, Sharp Labs

March 2003 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -03/227 r 1 Summary • 802. 11

March 2003 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -03/227 r 1 Summary • 802. 11 e is supposed to direct the “ 9. 2. 10. 4. 2 & Annex ‘A’” ad hoc groups as to what kind of response we should have to the comments. • This presentation reflects an analysis of those comments related to the mandatory/optional issue (as well as “General” comments on the issue). • There are still other comments in 9. 2. 10. 4. 2 & Annex “A”- some of which are, IMO, easy to resolve & some I need help on- but aren’t in the above area. – This is not that story. Submission 2 John Kowalski, Sharp Labs

March 2003 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -03/227 r 1 Voting totals (from memory)

March 2003 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -03/227 r 1 Voting totals (from memory) • There were about 34 “No” voters - 17% • Meaning, there were approximately 200 “Yes” voters- 83% • There was 285 responses meaning the rest were “Abstains. ” • The result of resolving these comments must be first, create no new “No” voters- do no harm! – Note: at this point any “E” regular should be able to address this issue technically from any position. Submission 3 John Kowalski, Sharp Labs

March 2003 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -03/227 r 1 I’ve got a little

March 2003 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -03/227 r 1 I’ve got a little list… • “No” Voters wanting mandatory HCF polling: 7 (1 of which maybe persuaded to change their vote based on their comment). • “No” Voters wanting the “ambiguity cleaned up”: 2 • “No” Voters wanting explicit optionality in the PICs: 2 • “No” Voters who want “any TSPEC may be rejected” removed since it’s a “policy issue. ”: 1 (but voted “No” on lots of other things. ) • Total: 12. Submission 4 John Kowalski, Sharp Labs

March 2003 • doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -03/227 r 1 My recommendation Whereas:

March 2003 • doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -03/227 r 1 My recommendation Whereas: – We may be changing many more “Yes” votes to “No” votes by changing the nature of the text, AND – The current text describes a standard that provides the best tradeoff of cost, performance and ease of implementation, that the task group has found. Furthermore, we believe the text accurately reflects this tradeoff, and therefore this standard meets a broad spectrum of market needs for Qo. S and guarantees interoperability among all implementations • I recommend declining the comments above using bullet item “in blue” as our proposed resolution. Submission 5 John Kowalski, Sharp Labs

March 2003 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -03/227 r 1 “Other” in 9. 10.

March 2003 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -03/227 r 1 “Other” in 9. 10. 2. 4. 2 & Annex A Comment 564 (Recommend declining). Comment 1064 – I recommend accepting this one. Comment 763 - Need discussion Comment 877 - Need discussion Comment 913– I recommend accepting this one. Comment 81 I recommend declining. Submission 6 John Kowalski, Sharp Labs