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

I agree with Reza and Jack.  This is very disappointing news.  "They" should not
try to make an "example" of a document developed with lots of dedication by a
small group of people; we did take the decision that was the most logical (make
the document readable).  The timing is very bad as well for making an example,
as it is getting harder and harder to get financial support from the member's
organizations for developing standards or guidelines.

I sincerely hope that the issue will get resolved within RevCom.  It would be
too bad to loose the results of so much effort.


-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Garrison []
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 8:11 PM
Cc: 'Roger B. Marks';;;;
Subject: Re: stds-802-16-tg2: Results of P802.16.2a RevCom Early
Consideration review


I am very much in support of Reza's comments. As far as I can recall, about the
only thing that was changed with respect to the original document was to
modify/eliminate the spectrum mask limits. Perhaps the specific changes that
relate to the original document could be noted, but I don't know who has the
energy, time or money to do it.

With respect to your final paragraph re: "starting from scratch", I just don't
see this happening. IEEE gets an awful lot of freebee's from the working group
participants and their supporting organizations. For this standards project, my
conclusion is that this support has been exhausted. I believe that you need to
find a resolution to this issue within the the IEEE bureaucracy, or; - just kill
the standard!


Reza Arefi wrote:

> Roger,
> 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.
> Reza
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> []On Behalf Of Roger B.
> Marks
> Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 5:50 PM
> To:;
> Cc:;
> 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, RevComhasn'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
> >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
> >2003.
> >
> >**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
> >information.**
> >
> >If you have any questions, please let me know.
> >
> >Sincerely,
> >***************************************************************************
> *******
> >
> >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       
> >***************************************************************************
> *******