[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
stds-802-16: Sub11: Functional Requirements Call-for-Comments
* 802.16.3 TASK GROUP SEEKS SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS
* Call for Comments on the Functional Requirements Working Draft
The 802.16.3 Task Group is working on a document that describes functional
requirements that directly affect the development of the 802.16.3 air
interface standard for broadband wireless access systems, as described in the
Project Authorization Request (http://ieee802.org/16/sub11/par). It seeks
input and review by 802.16 members, participants and the industry to ensure
that the 802.16 standards meet industry expectations.
You may recall a similar effort 802.16 undertook to develop functional
requirements for the 802.16.1 air interface. We intend to use the same
procedures in 802.16.3 as was done in 802.16.1 for comment resolution.
The exception is that, at least for this first batch of comments, we will use
a simple majority rule to resolve each comment, even "technical" ones (as we
decided at session #6). As in 802.16.1, all comments will be incorporated
into a database and two documents will be produced prior to session #7: A
database "dump" that is sorted by page #/line #, and a new version of the
functional requirements document, with each comment edited-in and noted by
change bars. Then, at session #7, the 802.16.3 task group will proceed by
considering each and every comment with discussion and vote. Comments marked
"editorial" in nature may be lumped together in one motion and voted-in
The current working draft is based on the 802.16.1 functional requirements
document. To create the first working document, George Fishel made changes to
the 802.16.1 requirements that, in his view, target the requirements for BWA
under 11 GHz. At session #6, the 802.16.3 task group decided to use this
document as a base, and undertake a formal comment/resolution process going
forward. As the first step in the process, this message solicits comments
from industry to turn George's contribution into a "consensus" requirements
The current working document can be found at:
For those familiar with the 802.16.1 functional requirements, the editor
created a document (using the MS-Word "compare documents" feature) that
redlines the differences between the 802.16.3 functional requirements and
802.16.1 functional requirements. This "diffs" document can be found at:
The current working draft is open for comment regarding only specific changes:
insertion, deletion or change of any part of the document. Below are detailed
instructions for submitting comments. The instructions MUST be followed or
comments will be respectfully rejected by the editor and will not be entered
into the comment database. For a rejected comment to be considered, the
commentor receiving a rejection MUST resubmit the comment(s) using the
instructions found below:
***Each comment on the document MUST use the comment submittal form found at:
http://ieee802.org/16/sub11/commentform.txt. The form is
ASCII text-based (DOS text with CR/LF at the end of each line), and
accommodates one "edit request." It is filled-out with a short example.
***Commentors MUST replace the example text with their own information.
***Commentors MUST NOT delete or change the delimiters which are surrounded by
square brackets (), as we need these to automatically import the
submitted comment forms into a database.
***Commentors SHOULD wrap/fold each line at 80 columns or less. The only
exception is for a table or other format that can not be rendered in 80
***Commentors MUST fill out all of the fields, which are:
-Starting page number
-Starting line number
-"T" or "E": Technical (content-related) or Editorial (typos, grammar,
-A detailed description of the proposed edit
-A reason for the edit
***The commentor MUST send the comments directly to the email reflector
(mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org). This allows other participants to see, and
prepare for, all of the comments and avoid overlapping comments.
***The prefix "SUB11 COMMENT:" MUST appear on the subject line of the
message. This allows participants to easily recognize COMMENT in their
in-box, and non-participants to conveniently skip-over COMMENT messages.
***Each email message MUST NOT contain attachments such as MS-Word files, text
files, Visio files, etc.
***Each email message MUST contain at least one comment form in the body of
***An email message MAY contain more than one filled-out comment form in the
body of a message.
***If multiple comment forms are sent in one message, each comment form
MUST contain all of the fields filled out as required (see above), including
the commentor's name.
***Comments regarding graphics, figures, drawings and tables MUST be fully
described in text form. If such graphic-oriented comments can not be rendered
or described in text form, the commentor MAY contact the editor for "special"
consideration. We will accommodate these requests by associating a graphical
figure with the text comment form.
***Commentors SHOULD send each comment message as a "reply" to the editor's
"request for comments" message so that people who browse the reflector archive
on our web page can more conveniently skip over the sysreq comments. Note
that you may have to override the subject line with the "SYSREQ COMMENT:"
prefix (see above).
The editor will gather all of the proposed changes (comments) and integrate
them into the document and publish it as a new draft. Overlapping and
conflicting comments will be clearly recognizable in the new draft.
Submissions will be considered non-confidential and will be posted for public
access on the 802.16.3 area of the 802.16 Web Site.
For consideration for incorporating changes in the next working draft of the
System Requirements Document, valid comments that follow these instructions
MUST be received no later than close of business, Thursday April 27, 2000.
Communications Consulting Services
Shermans Dale, PA
San Diego, CA