From: "Ray Davison" <os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com>
Received: from [192.168.100.201] (HELO mail.2rosenthals.com)
  by 2rosenthals.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.16)
  with ESMTP id 1850570 for os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com; Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:23:53 -0400
Received: from secmgr-va.2rosenthals.com ([162.83.95.194] helo=mail2.2rosenthals.com)
	by secmgr-ny.randr with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
	(Exim 4.43)
	id 1MyCG5-0007FO-Jf
	for os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com; Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:23:52 -0400
Received: from que11.charter.net ([209.225.8.21]:39106)
	by mail2.2rosenthals.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <raydav@charter.net>)
	id 1MyCFy-0000uY-0q
	for os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com; Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:23:42 -0400
Received: from imp11 ([10.20.200.11]) by mta11.charter.net
          (InterMail vM.7.09.01.00 201-2219-108-20080618) with ESMTP
          id <20091014221034.UZHG27604.mta11.charter.net@imp11>
          for <os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com>;
          Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:10:34 -0400
Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([71.9.78.218])
	by imp11 with smtp.charter.net
	id smAZ1c00K4icEEX05mAaFE; Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:10:34 -0400
X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A020201.4AD64F6D.006B,ss=2,fgs=0
X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=rxr1yMUE8qMA:10 a=JPUQt-R5AAAA:8
 a=CgdopxrNrh8tyEUFZFkA:9 a=Vr5QV9k1DHsBtVBnI09MLmpNF4wA:4
Message-ID: <4AD64C5A.1090506@charter.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:10:34 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (OS/2; U; Warp 4.5; en-US; rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090827 SeaMonkey/1.1.18 (PmW)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: OS/2 Wireless Users Mailing List <os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com>
Subject: Re: [OS2Wireless] Re: A bit Off Topic: Which WAP to go for?
References: <list-1850314@2rosenthals.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-1850314@2rosenthals.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 1.9 (+)
X-Spam-Report: 	0.5 DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE     RBL: Envelope sender in abuse.rfc-ignorant.org
	 1.4 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST      RBL: Envelope sender in
	                            postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org

Will Honea wrote:

>> N is due to be ratified very, very soon. N has some very nice things 
>> about it insofar as getting around interference form other channels is 
>> concerned, but I might still wait until ratification to get a device 
>> which you *know* is fully compliant.
> 
> I thought I saw where N was ratified a couple of weeks back.  Did I mis-read
> and take the final draft announcement for the final act?

True.

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/80211N-Officially-Ratified-104443

Ray