IEEE P802-97/@@

Thursday, March 11, 1999 - 7:00 p.m.

Hyatt Regency, Austin, TX

1. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER

Jim Carlo called the meeting to order at 7:04 pm Members in attendance were:

Jim Carlo - Chair, IEEE 802 LAN / MAN Standards Committee
Paul Nikolich - Vice Chair, IEEE 802 LAN / MAN Standards Committee
Buzz Rigsbee - Executive Secretary, IEEE 802 LAN / MAN Standards Committee
Howard Frazier - Recording Secretary, IEEE 802 LAN / MAN Standards Committee
Bill Lidinsky - Chair, IEEE 802.1 - HILI Working Group
Dave Carlson - Chair, IEEE 802.2 - Logical Link Control Working Group
Geoff Thompson - Chair, IEEE 802.3 - CSMA/CD Working Group
Bob Love - Chair, IEEE 802.5 - Token Ring Working Group
Jim Mollenauer - Chair, IEEE 802.6 - Metro Area Network Working Group
Chip Benson - Chair, IEEE 802.8 - Fiber Optic TAG
Vic Hayes - Chair, IEEE 802.11 - Wireless LANs Working Group
Robert Grow - Treasurer LMSC
Robert Russell - Chair, IEEE 802.14 - Cable TV Protocol Working Group

The meeting was attended by approximately 10 IEEE 802 Working Group members and several guests.

Thompson: Add concise representation of PAR title to agenda

Love: Item 4.15 802.5v Conditional Approval should be changed to Information Item. It is a WG ballot, not a sponsor ballot

Carlo explains agenda items regarding 802.11 WPAN PAR

Rigsbee: Add 4.25 MI Equipment purchases 10 minutes

AGENDA - IEEE 802 LMSC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING

Thursday, March 11, 1999 - 7:00 p.m.

Hyatt Regency, Austin, TX

1. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER -CARLO 1 07:00 PM

2. APPROVE OR MODIFY AGENDA -CARLO 4 07:01 PM

3. APPROVE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER, 1998 MEETING -FRAZIER 10 07:05 PM

4. TREASURER'S REPORT & Attendance Project -GROW 20 07:15 PM

Category (* = consent agenda)

4.1 ME 802.11b Conditional Approval -HAYES 5 07:35 PM

4.2 PA BWA PAR -MARKS 15 07:50 PM

4.3 PA WPAN PAR 802.11 Recommendation -HAYES 10 08:00 PM

4.4 PA WPAN PAR Study Group Recommendation -HEILE 10 08:10 PM

4.5 PA WPAN PAR SEC Action -HAYES 20 08:30 PM

4.6 PA 802.11 Additional Regulatory Domains PA -HAYES 10 08:40 PM

4.7 PA 802.1v PAR to NESCOM -LIDINSKY 5 08:45 PM

4.8 PA 802.1w PAR to NESCOM -LIDINSKY 5 08:50 PM

4.9 PA*802.5aa Enhanced Source Routing -LOVE 5 08:55 PM

4.10 ME - 0 08:55 PM

4.11 ME 802.11a Conditional Approval -HAYES 5 08:55 PM

4.12 ME Letter to FCC Re: RF Lighting -HAYES 5 09:00 PM

4.13 ME Internationalization Process -CARLO 10 09:05 PM

4.14 ME 802.14 Coordination w/ CableLabs -NICKOLICH 5 09:15 PM

4.15 II 802.5v Conditional Approval WG Ballot -LOVE 5 09:20 PM

4.16 ME*802.5t to REVCOM -LOVE 5 09:25 PM

4.17 ME 802 Overview and Architecture to Sponso -LIDINSKY 5 09:30 PM

4.18 Break - 15 09:35 PM

4.19 MI - 0 09:50 PM

4.20 MI Higher Speed Study Group -THOMPSON 15 10:05 PM

4.21 MI QoS/FC ECSG -MOLLENAUE10 10:15 PM

4.22 MI New Registration Process -GROW 10 10:25 PM

4.23 MI Meeting Services Agreement Renewal -RIGSBEE 10 10:35 PM

4.24 MI Rules Change Ballot -NIKOLICH 10 10:45 PM

4.25 MI Equipment purchases -RIGSBEE 10 10:55 PM

4.26 II 802.3ab 1000BASE-T -THOMPSON 15 11:05 PM

4.27 II DTE Power Call for Interest -THOMPSON 10 11:20 PM

4.28 II FCC Teleconference -HAYES 5 11:30 PM

4.29 II Seminar Adjacent to 802.11 Interim -HAYES 5 11:35 PM

4.30 II 802.5 WG Recirculation -LOVE 5 11:40 PM

4.31 II 802.5 Interim Meeting -LOVE 5 11:45 PM

4.32 II Future Meeting Venues -RIGSBEE 10 11:50 PM

4.33 II AlphaGraphics -GROW 10 12:00 AM

4.34 II - 0 12:10 AM

4.35 DT SEC Meeting Automation -FRAZIER 10 12:10 AM

4.36 DT - 0 12:20 AM

4.37 DT - 0 12:20 AM

4.38 DT - 0 12:20 AM

DT- Discussion Topic II - Information Item

ME - Motion, External MI - Motion, Internal

PA - PAR APPROVAL

No comments on November, 1998 minutes

Higher than expected attendance. +$6420 change in operating reserve.

Carlo: What happened to all of the deadbeats?

Marks: One of the deadbeats from BWA paid up, three were not here.

Grow: Time to send annual report to Computer Society. Same format as has been used before. Will submit report, with

copy to Carlo.

Grow: Meeting Attendance. Forecast is woefully under what Grow expects actual attendance to be.

Nikolich: Responses from dot1, dot5, dot11.

Thompson: Predict 200 bodies for the next six meetings.

Grow: Complaints from meeting services about services received from our bank. Our bank is incredibly slow about responding to requests. Grow does not yet have signature authority. Current bank is US Bank at Whitebear Lake. Received Quote from Well's Fargo. Cannot keep money in interest bearing checking account, would have to keep in money market and transfer in order to earn interest. Grow will keep investigating banks, likely to change banks in near future.

Carlo: For next meeting, we need cost/reserve projection so that we can plan fee for next meeting.

see file (80211b.pdf)

Postponed item until Hayes has presentation materials ready.

Picked up at 8:09.

change tape.

Presentation of Disapprove comments and WG response. Comment from J Fischer, Comment from J. Cafarella, Comment from D. Bagby.

Motion:

To submit the draft standard for IEEE P802.11b to LMSC ballot,

subject to compliance with the Conditional Approval Procedure.

M: Hayes

S: Carlson

Carlo: Reviews steps for conditional approval. Asks: "Do negative comments, if still outstanding, get included in sponsor ballot package?"

A: Yes

Thompson: It is not a RevCom requirement to include the WG ballot negative comments.

Passes 12/0/0 8:23 pm.

see file (80216par.txt)

Marks: reviews changes. received 3 comments.

One from NESCOM member about item 9 wanting more explanation of

why other standards work is not adequate here.

Comment from Geoff Thompson "interoperability should be in scope".

Comment from Jim Carlo "title should be more specific".

A motion to submit the revised PAR passed 27 to 3. Two of the dissapproves come from representatives from one company.

Disapprover asks "Would the IEEE extend the life of the study group so that the coexistence PAR can be prepared and substituted for the air interface PAR".

Thompson: If we did not do a standard for air interface, and equipment were to come in to the market place, how would overlap problem be addressed.

Marks: FCC's position is that license holders should work it out amongst themselves. There is an active US/Canada committee that is working to resolve the issue for that border.

Second disapprove comment is that completion target of January 2001 is too optimistic, lack of succesful field experience.

Nikolich: What is the focus for the frequency range:

Marks: 30 GHz. Access mechanism can be applied to a broader range of frequencies, 10 to 66 GHz.

Carlo: We would be approving this PAR and establishing a new WG, 802.15.

Thompson: Shouldn't we add "Local and Metropolitan Area Networks" blah, blah.

Carlo: Agrees and asks group to approve PAR contingent upon title being fixed.

Nikolich: Need a charter for the new WG. Suggests using scope and purpose from this PAR as initial charter of WG.

Marks: Concerned that lifting scope and purpose would be too limiting for new working group.

Carlo: Need name of WG and charter, action item for new WG

Marks: IEEE 802.16 Working Group on Broadband Wireless Access.

Nikolich: agree that first order of business for new WG is to define charter.

Carlson: Is there a formal mechanism to announce formation of new WG.

Thompson: PAR approval announced in IEEE Standards Bearer.

Motion: To Approve BWA PAR for an air interface fixed BB wireless access and the formation of a new 802 Working Group 802.x

M: Nikolich

S: Grow

Thompson: Wants working group number assigned.

Carlo: Another activity has dibs on .15, if they don't take it, BWA gets it.

Frazier: Please add " contingent upon appropriate title change"

Motion:

Passed: 12/0/0 7:58 pm

Carlo: Entertain motion to

Carlo: Marks needs a letter from his company, as described in 802 operating rules, confirming support.

Carlo: Membership in Working Group. Attendees of first meeting (during Plenary week) become voting members.

Grow: No quroum can be established at an iterim.

Hayes: We established 802.11 WG at an interim meeting.

Marks: Plan to call an interim meeting of two task groups, wait until July plenary to form WG.

Thompson: Suggests affirming motions from interim meeting at July plenary meeting.

Grow: Does attendance at interim meeting count towards gaining membership?

A: If person shows up at interim, it counts towards acquring voting rights.

see file (wpanexec.pdf)

Vic introduces Bob Heile, vice chair of WPAN Study Group. Since Dick Braley's departure, acting as chair.

Heile recaps history of development of WPAN PAR.

Bob O'Hara presents the 802.11 WG position, which is to conduct this work in a task group within 802.11 (no materials)

• Compared requirements developed by the study group to PICs from 802.11, found much overlap.
• 802.11 MAC has to be extraordinarily flexible and extensible.
• Need to exchange data between WPANs and 802.11 networks. Best place to ensure this is within 802.11.
• Despite protestations of the WPAN SG, a PAN is a LAN.

Nikolich: How big is the WPAN SG?

O'Hara: Steady state, 10 or 12.

Bob Heile presents WPAN Study Group Recommendation.

Nikolich: what percentage of the WPAN SG wants new WG?

Heile: 100 % of the core group of 10-12 people.

Marks: What was the vote, this week, on this issue?

Heile: Unanimous consent.

Carlo: What was the number of attendees of the Study Group meeting?

Heile: 12

Love: If Bluetooth is so big (500 companies), why are your meetings so small?

Heile: Until the group is "real", interested parties don't care to attend.

Motion:

M: Hayes

S: Rigsbee

Mollenauer: Motion to ammend the WPAN motion to enable WPAN to function as a working group of LMSC.

M: Mollenauer

S: Carlson

Grow: I don't know what this means. Needs the specific words that are to be added or deleted to motion.

Rigsbee: This is really an amendment to the PAR, not an amendment to the motion.

Mollenauer: Changes amendment to read: ammend the WPAN motion to

enable WPAN to function as a working group of LMSC

by replacing "Rev 10" with "Rev 9".

Rigsbee: Does 802.11 MAC have sufficient lattitude to support WPAN? directs question to O'Hara and Heile.

O'Hara: Yes, that was the result of the exercise to examine PICs.

Heile: If the result is a substantially different MAC, which is possible, then a new MAC needs a new WG.

Mollenauer: Saw 802.14 disolve because of inability to address industry needs. If we keep the project in 802.11, will Bluetooth and HomeRF participate.

O'Hara: The answer he has heard (during tutorial) was No, but we can go participate in Bluetooth.

Heile: Believes minimal participation in a TG within 802.11, better chance of participation in a separate working group.

Mollenauer: Do they need 802 at all?

Heile: There is a long term benefit to have a standing group to maintain document.

O'Hara: With volumes expected for these devices, no, they don't need IEEE to gain market acceptance.

Russell: Has this been a case of 802.11 chasing Bluetooth, or has Bluetooth been coming to 802?

Heile: Have had several meetings.

Carlo: Has been active in discussions with Bluetooth and HomeRF.

Russell: So the model is closer to our involvement with DOCSIS than to NWEST involvement with 802.

Ian Gifford: Bluetooth membership includes many types of members, application, etc.

Grow: Do I correctly infer that the reason why HomeRF and Bluetooth have not gotten together is because of cost?

Heile: HomeRF is working on a different problem from Bluetooth, too early in work.

Grow: Is this all targetting the same frequency spectrum?

O'Hara: Yes

Grow: What is the chance of 802.11 and some new working group suppling a contradictory response to an inquiry to the FCC?

Many: That is what the SEC is for, resolve conflicts.

Thompson: Don't always have sufficient time to resolve conflicts.

Carlo: If within 802.11, 802.11 would have to resolve, if separate WG, then SEC would have to coordinate responses to any external inquiries.

Thompson: Proposes amendment: Require 2 WG's shall collaborate on single submissions to regulatory agencies.

Mollenauer: Accepts as friendly.

Carlson: Accepts as friendly.

Ammendment reads:

Michael Kinnis: In rev 9 PAR, states that study group plans to collocate. Believes that .11 Tga and TGb members will participate in new WG as their work winds down. In a new WG, there would be no preconceptions.

???: Have no doubt that 802.11 MAC can be slimmed down to fit WPAN. That's technically feasible, but not economically feasible. IP licenses fees alone are twice the amount of the cost of the product we need to deliver, so 802.11 wouldn't be economically feasible.

Floyd Ross: Obvious to me that if we want WPAN to thrive, it needs to be in a separate WG.

Russell: If we make this a separate WG, gonna be trying to chase Bluetooth or HomeRF. If we keep it in 802.11, we are adding feature to an existing standard.

Rigsbee: Sees merits to both sides of the argument. We are starting late, if we can't keep up with the industry, we may wind up missing the market, creating a hollow standard. I prefer we not do that. Favor motion to ammend. Recommends as much sharing and cooperatioon as possible.

Thompson: If WPAN moved rapidly, there could be space for both WPAN and Bluetooth. Looks like Bluetooth is going like gangbusters. It appears that we better get on the train, or get out of the business. If we have to drag to large a stone with us, we don't have a chance. Participation in WPAN SG is so low compared to Bluetooth, it is a sign that the real work is going on elsewhere.

Marks: Asks for comparison of companies involved in Bluetooth vs WPAN SG?

Heile: Don't have exact comparison, expects there is overlap.

Love: What does 802 loose if we have a separate WG?

Hayes: Interoperability goes down the drain.

Nikolich: Agrees that if work is in new WG, can move faster, in spite of vote within WG. Recommends creation of new WG.

Carlo: No Objection to calling question. Reads amendment.

Vote on Mollenauer/Carlson ammendment:

Grow calls question on main motion.

Main motion as ammended:

Vic objects to calling the question

Hayes: Don't see how it is possible for two working groups to colaborate on single submissions to regulatory agencies.

Carlo: Could appoint one of the WGs to be point of contact.

Russell: Liaison with an external organization is a high priority.

Love: This is not a unique situation. Other WGs have liaison activities with external parties which overlap, and must be coordinated.

Nikolich: Make decision on PAR/WG first, then sort out liaison issues.

Carlson: Can't imagine that an exceedling high percentage of time is required for liaison.

Carlo: As chair, I have to make sure that coordination happens.

Marks: One of the strong appeals of an 802 WG is the credibility in dealing with regulatory agencies.

Thompson: Don't want 802 to have two conflicting positions represented to the FCC.

Russell: How much does this relate to 802.1, how does it fit into architecture.

Lidinsky: Don't see any tie-in. Believe that there will be a bridge at some point in the future.

Carlo: This is a key value of 802. We have a bridging group.

Carlo: add to motion: Approval of this motion establishes a new working group, 802.15

Carlo: Entertain motion to:

M: Rigsbee

S: Lidinsky

Carlo notes that Bob Heile needs a letter of support from his company.

Carlo: Ian Gifford is the principle liaison to HomeRF and Bluetooth through the end of July plenary.

Chair observes that we are 1:15 behind schedule. Take a break. Resume at 10:05 pm.

Resume at 10:09 pm

see file (80211ard.pdf)

Hayes: Asserts that this is a maintenance PAR

Carlo: Announces that agenda time for each item is cut in half.

O'Hara: Explains PAR, title, scope, purpose. This is a supplement. Extends 802.11 so that can be used in different countries.

Frazier: This looks like more than a maintenance PAR

Mollenauer: Could this be done as a Recommended Practice?

O'Hara: No, takes MIB additions.

Carlson: Could this be finished by next plenary

O'Hara: No

Carlson: Then you can do the work, and get this approved at the next plenary.

Frazier: Can we vote on this by electronic ballot?

Carlo: Not in rules, would require a motion to allow electronic ballot.

M: Hayes

S: Rigsbee

Grow: Would like to table but don't want to preclude electronic ballot.

Carlo: Entertains motion to table until 5 criteria are developed and then conduct electronic ballot.

Rigsbee: Seems to me we are in good shape, don't need 5 criteria.

Mollenauer: Don't need 5 criteria for this motion.

Lidinsky: We're are being too beauraucratic.

no one makes motion that Carlo entertained, Hayes/Rigsbee don't accept as amendment.

see file (8021v.pdf)

Lidinsky: PAR with 5 criteria was submitted in January.

M: Lidinsky

S: Rigsbee

No objection to calling the question

see file (8021w.pdf)

Motion to forward 802.1w PAR to NESCOM

M: Lidinsky

S: Rigsbee

approved as part of consent agenda.

4.10 Agenda item not used

see file (80211a.pdf)

Naftali Chayat: Presents WG ballot results. Asks for conditional approval to go to sponsor ballot.

Motion:

M: Hayes

S: Grow

Carlo: There are no negatives?

Hayes: No negatives

see file (FCCletter.pdf)

M: Hayes

S: Rigsbee

Russell: All these letters flow through the SEC, right?

Carlo: Doesn't ask for a ballot on every single letter, due to time constraints.

Every letter is recorded on archive.

Carlo: Presents Policy motion:

Motion:

• 1) Initiate application from IEEE 802 to be a Cat A Liaison organization to ISO/IEC JTC1 SC6 or other SC as appropriate with possible N&I reorganization. Reasons for Cat-A is to be able to submit NP's and Fast Track documents.
  Jim Carlo - By 1999.

• 2) Initiate the following balloting process within 802:
• A) Send electronic liasions to SC6 on PAR approval, IEEE 802 draft WG ballots, IEEE Sponsor ballots.
• B) Request comments directly to ballot pointer within IEEE ballot time period.
• Tony Jeffree - Process through 802 - July 1999 Plenary
  Robin Tasker - Process through SC6 - June SC6 Meeting

• 3) After standard board approval of the IEEE 802 document:
• A) IEEE publish with IEEE designation.
• B) SC6 publish as an update to a Technical Report. That technical report catologues previously published joint JTC1/IEEE standards and IEEE standards that it has endorsed.
• C) IEEE 802 believes that ANSI designation is not a market requirement for IEEE 802 standards and may be a detriment for Internation Recognition.

• 4) Identify SC6 Technical Liaison from IEEE 802.
• Tony Jeffree recommended for Initial liaison.

M: Thompson

S: Grow

Thompson: We must formally organize a task group within 802 to generate the Technical Report that is involved with this process on an ongoing basis.

Question called with no objection

Nikolich: need to endorse statement in principle. see file (CableLabsprinciple.pdf)

Motion:

M: Nikolich

S: Russell

Nikolich: The 802.14 WG unanimously approved this statement in principle by 25/0/4. Only mod is that we can't state that we will "go for a PAR" since NESCOM must approve a PAR.

Rigsbee: What does a statement in principle do?

Nikolich: It is an invitation to CableLabs.

Russell: It is a statement from 802.14 of what their objectives would be.

Thompson: It is a start.

No objection to calling the question.

The chair ruled that this item is really an information item since it is about a working group ballot,

not a sponsor ballot. Thus, it is moved down on the agenda.

Approved as part of the consent agenda.

see file (802oa.pdf)

Lidinsky: There were no disapprove ballots as a result of WG recirculation. Updates to references requested by Thompson have been made. D27 is to be produced by the editor. Ask for an electronic sponsor ballot.

M: Lidinsky

S: Rigsbee

Thompson: Can't assume that all future sponsor ballots can be done electronically.

Carlo: IEEE has approved conducting 802.0, 802.11a, 802.11b electronically.

4.18 Break

Already took break

4.19 Empty agenda item

M: Thompson

S: Rigsbee

802.3 vote: 45/0/3

interim meeting (to be determined) 6/1-3 Boulder, CO

Mollenauer: Introduces motion.

M: Mollenauer

S: Lidinsky

Khaled Amer: Thanks for the opportunity.

Grow: Outline of new registration process. $300 onsite/late registration, cancellation fees, early payment incentive.

Motion:

M: Grow

S: Carlson

Frazier: Thinks two-tier cancellation is too complicated.

Rigsbee: Higher cancellation fee for no-shows is justified based on extra expense.

Russell: agrees.

Grow: Another important point is that paper mailing ends after July meeting announcement.

Marks: There is no definition of when cancellation fee changes over

Motion:

M: Rigsbee

S: Grow

Carlo: Has treasurer reviewed agreement

Grow: Yes, but hasn't seen latest draft.

Rigsbee: Amended to remove references to physical mailing, add web site.

Grow: Required that fee structure be pulled out and moved to an annex.

Carlo: Wants note on motion that before executed, Carlo and Grow must review and agree.

Rigsbee and Grow accept this as friendly amendment.

M: Nikolich

S: Benson

Lidinisky: Document as currently constituted makes no sense. Will vote no, and submit new text.

Carlo: Nikolich will send current document out for letter ballot. There is no mailing in the future.

Many: Objection to conducting paper ballot. Need to do electronic ballot.

Thompson: Need to provide balloters with a single PDF that is the equivalent of what we send out in the mail.

Nikolich: Will distribute to the entire constituency.

Lidinsky: Why go through the motions to distribute this rule change, when it will probably go down in flames.

Benson: Call the Question

Carlo: Notes objection to calling the question.

Thompson: How many mailings do we do?

Rigsbee: 1600

Thompson: We could save money by not doing mailing

Carlo: We are going to mail this along with July meeting announcement.

Rigsbee: Call the question

No Objection to calling

Thompson: Notes that we didn't reach the threshold for further study.

Motion to reconsider offered by Lidinsky, who voted on prevailing side. Seconded by Thompson.

Nikolich/Benson motion returns

Bill Lidinsky agreed to conduct further study activity on this rules change

Grow: Raises concern that new fee structure may introduce risk to budget. Lots of people may take advantage of early registration discount. Upcoming Hawaii meeting will probably deplete reserves.

Mollenauer: Don't need such fancy projectors

Carlo: There is a value to all of the projectors being the same

Motion:

M: Rigsbee

S: Grow

Carlo: Dr. Rigsbee has promised that if this purchase is approved, then Dr. Rigsbee will convert our databases to Access by November, 1999.

Marks: Will WG registration databases be integrated with this database?

Thompson: This should be a goal.

Grow: says that we can afford this.

Thompson: The information item from hell. Presents sponsor ballot results. Recap of WG ballot and Sponsor ballot history.

presents discussions and motions from Thursday am 802.3 closing plenary. Bottom line is that 802.3ab does not have conditional approval to be placed on RevCom agenda before September, 1999 meeting

Colin Mick: Presents additional information about the conduct of the closing plenary. Asks SEC to consider ways to place 802.3ab on RevCom agenda before September.

Skipped

Skipped

Skipped

Skipped

Skipped

Buzz asks for straw poll of preferences for future meeting venues. Buzz records tally of straw poll results.

skipped

Skipped

The meeting was adjourned at 12:00pm.

Jim Carlo calls meeting to order 8:00 am

see file (802close.pdf)

Bob Grow reports that meeting was profitable. Addition to operating reserve roughly equal to cost of purchasing another overhead projector.

see file (fritreas.pdf)

Bob Grow presents new fee structure. Preregistration fee will go down in July. Cancellation fees will be imposed starting with November, 1999 plenary. Preregistration with on-site payment will not be allowed.

Q: Will electronic registration be secure?

A: Not by November meeting, probably.

Q: IETF allows use of PGP encryption, why not us?

A: Not all individuals have access to PGP encryption. Can send fax, or use credit card information on file.

Working Group summary reports.

see file (8021close.pdf)

Q: What are expectations for HSSG for July Plenary

A: No expectation of having PAR and 5 Criteria by July. Expect two tutorials in July.

Tony Jeffree: 802.3ad Link Aggregation will meet co-located with HSSG in Boulder, June 3-4.

see file(8025ClosePlen.pdf)

July in Montreal. Reserve early because of Jazz festival, holidays around meeting dates.

November in Kaui, Hawaii.

The mailing for the July meeting will be the last postal (paper) mailing. After July, will distribute meeting notices electronically.

AlphaGraphics is no longer going to be supported. Drafts will be available from the IEEE, or via WWW.

Respectfully Submitted,
Howard M. Frazier, Jr.
Recording Secretary