[STDS-802-16] Re :Re: [STDS-802-16] +++Voting Process on Approval of P802.16-REVd/D5 Recirculation Comments Now Open; Deadline of 5 June
Hi, all,
I'm not a real contributor of that comment, but anyway we(Samsung) agree that
the comment is not in scope of 16d, so we withdraw that comment.
Thanks.
Seung Joo
------- Original Message -------
Sender : Ken Stanwood<kstanwood@cygnuscom.com>
Date : 2004-06-04 00:13
Title : Re: [STDS-802-16] +++Voting Process on Approval of P802.16-REVd/D5
Recirculation Comments Now Open; Deadline of 5 June
I suggest rejecting the comment and letting the submitter resubmit it to
TGe's process since that's where it may make more sense.
Ken
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Itzik Kitroser
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 6:34 AM
To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] +++Voting Process on Approval of P802.16-REVd/D5
Recirculation Comments Now Open; Deadline of 5 June
Dear All,
I would like to start rising issues with the current comments.
First issue is comment #405.
The commenter is requesting to add the following sentence to the draft
"If the number of bands is less than or equal to 12, it is the same as
the original one. However, if it is 24 (1024 FFT in 10 MHz), two
contiguous bands are paired and 12 logical bands are newly defined.
Hence, band (2n) and band (2n+1) are paired and the paired band is the
n-th band."
I really don't understand this kind of comment with the context of TGd,
since we don't have 1024 FFT in the standard.
I would like to receive clarification on this, or better, a withdrawal
of the comment.
Regards,
Itzik.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
[mailto:owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Roger B. Marks
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 6:17 AM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [STDS-802-16] +++Voting Process on Approval of P802.16-REVd/D5
Recirculation Comments Now Open; Deadline of 5 June
When I posted the P802.16-REVd/D5 Recirculation comments, I said that
I would announce the on-line comment resolution process in a few days
and told you to expect the decision-making process to be quick. I
hope you have had time to read the comments.
The process is described in IEEE 802.16-04/31
<http://ieee802.org/16/docs/04/80216-04_31.pdf>. Members of the IEEE
802.16 Working Group <http://ieee802.org/16/members.html> are the
members of the Ballot Resolution Committee and eligible to vote. They
should read IEEE 802.16-04/31 for details. It explains the need to
make a quick decision on these comments.
The voting deadline is 5 June AOE.
Regards,
Roger
>The P802.16-REVd Recirc #2 balloting period has closed.
>
>The good news is that we are down to one Disapprove voter (Nico van
>Waes). He submitted one Technical Binding comment, which was a
>reiteration of a previous comment.
>
>The bad news is that we received a total of 171 comments.
> http://ieee802.org/16/docs/04/80216-04_30.zip
>
>The following show the members of the Sponsor Ballot Group who
>submitted comments, along with the number of comments:
>
>Tal Kaitz 2
>Itzik Kitroser 11
>Yigal Leiba 44
>Cor van de Water 3
>Nico van Waes 1
>
>I received additional comments from other individuals who do not
>belong to the Sponsor Ballot Group:
>
>Raja Banerjea 3
>Changhoi Koo 68
>Lalit Kotecha 14
>Wonil Roh 25
>
>
>We will now move on to an on-line comment resolution process in
>which the members of the Ballot Resolution Committee will be the
>Members of the IEEE 802.16 Working Group. I will provide details in
>a few days. Expect the decision-making process to be quick.
>
>For those of you who are wondering where this leaves us: we have met
>the RevCom conditions for D5 to be approved as an IEEE standard on
>24 June. If we reject all of these comments, no further
>recirculation will be necessary. However, we also have the option to
>accept comments, produce draft D6, open a third recirculation, and
>remove D5 from the June RevCom agenda.
>
>Roger