Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: stds-802-16-tg2: Results of P802.16.2a RevCom Early Consideration review

This is disappointing news. If you remember, we rearranged the whole
document partly for readability and partly due to IEEE editor's comments. In
the process, we had to renumber and consolidate the sections. So, we chose
to replace whole sections since we felt there is no use in including more
than hundred pages of strikethrough text.
I hope this issue is resolved soon.

-----Original Message-----
[]On Behalf Of Roger B.
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 5:50 PM
Subject: stds-802-16-tg2: Results of P802.16.2a RevCom Early
Consideration review

Yesterday, I participated in the RevCom Early Consideration
conference call for the discussion of P802.16.2a/D5.

RevCom did not approve the recommendation of this draft as an IEEE
standard. Instead, they deferred the decision until the formal June
RevCom meeting.

The basis of the deferral was a single issue, discussed at great
length. The was a concern that the document should have been cast as
a Revision ("a document that updates or replaces an existing IEEE
standard in its entirety") rather than as an Amendment ("a document
that has to contain new material to an existing IEEE standard and
that may contain substantive corrections to that standard as well").
This issue arose because the language of the draft basically replaces
the entire content of the base standard (IEEE 802.16.2). That
approach was taken because a detailed change markup was considered to
be essentially unreadable.

Many opinions were voiced on this issue. One specific issue raised
regarded the fact that, since there is no strikeout text shown, it is
difficult to know what elements of the base standard were technically
altered in the amendment. There was a lot of support for approval,
but early consideration is not considered appropriate for
controversial issues. I would say that, in general, RevCom hasn't had
this issue raised before and wants to try to get groups aware of it
for the future. Several members suggested that, though it's important
to get the amendment-versus-revision issue resolved for the future,
it would be unfortunate to penalize this project since it didn't
break any rules. Some members indicated that the Working Group did
the right thing in creating readable text.

There is a possibility that the draft will be approved in June. I'll
be working to see if I can supply additional material or alternative
suggestions beforehand.

If not, we may need to start from scratch on this: a new PAR, a new
ballot group, a new draft, and a new ballot. The schedule would
depend a lot on what kind of arrangements we could reach, but I would
aim for approval at the September RevCom meeting. I'll be working on
the problem.


>Roger Marks,
>P802.16.2a/D5 (C/LM) New "Amendment to IEEE Recommended Practice for Local
>and Metropolitan Area Networks - Coexistence of Fixed Broadband Wireless
>Access Systems - Amendment 1" will be reviewed by RevCom in its Early
>Consideration cycle beginning immediately after the March 2003 Standards
>Board meeting.  If all goes well, final approval will be granted in May.
>RevCom preliminary comments will be sent to you at the beginning of April
>**Please supply the following items to complete the submittal:
>a) FrameMaker files for D5.  Please email these to Savoula Amanatidis,
>Managing Editor, at
>b) Copyright permission releases.  The submittal form (Item 12B) indicates
>copyrighted information is in the draft standard.  {Also, the PAR form
>indicates copyright and trademark issues}.  Please give me more
>If you have any questions, please let me know.
>David L. Ringle
>RevCom Administrator
>IEEE Standards Activities Dept.
>445 Hoes Lane                                         PH: +1 732 562 3806
>PO Box 1331                                             FX: +1 732 562 1571
>Piscataway, NJ  08855-1331