| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Gordon et al,
Yes, I think the Corrigenda
process would definitely be cleaner and
could actually be faster, especially
if you all know what you want to
do; and I get the impression that this
latest comment round has at least
identified many of the holes in RevD, if
not the solutions.
While I agree the fixes could be done in TGe, I think
you could be
putting yourself at great risk from a schedule
perspective. While we
all want TGe to get done ASAP and we are all
working hard towards that
goal, I still feel we are only just now beginning
to seriously address
many of the real issues associated with mobility.
Mobility is not an
air interface, it is a NETWORK, and as we clearly
identified at the last
meeting, many of the TGe issues fall over into the
NetMAN arena, which
hasn't even started. How do we handle them and
when?? What impact will
NetMAN have on TGe? As I said at the last
meeting, I think our chances
of getting there with TGe have greatly improved,
but there are still a
lot of pitfalls along the way and I, at least, have no
intention of
letting an incomplete, non-implementable standard go
forward. It
doesn't do anybody any good.
One of my other
"issues" with doing RevD fixes in TGe is the same one
that has been expressed
before by some others - What are you "selling"
for fixed: 802.16-2004 plus
normative Annex "X" of 802.16e? If you
recall, the original concept was
that RevD would be the "self-contained"
fixed Standard and 802.16e would be
the mobile amendment - a very clean
distinction. That clean break now
gets very blurry. Where and how do
the system profiles for fixed fit in
and how do they get specified
across the two documents? It just strikes
me as very messy.
If people feel that the latest comment round on RevD
has identified all
the serious holes and that they can work out solutions
quickly, I would
see a Corrigenda effort as almost an Ad-Hoc activity, if you
write the
PAR tight enough. By the time the PAR gets approved, you
could have the
document ready to go. We've effectively done that
before.
Anyway, that's some of my thoughts. We have until July to
think about
it.
Brian
-----Original Message-----
From:
Gordon Antonello [mailto:GAntonello@WI-LAN.com]
Sent:
Friday, June 04, 2004 5:32 PM
To: Kiernan, Brian G.;
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
Brian, although I am relatively new at this, I recall that during
TGa
and TGc that changes to the base standards were sometimes made. Are
you
saying that the the corrigenda process would be
cleaner/better?
Gordon
-----Original Message-----
From:
Kiernan, Brian G. [mailto:Brian.Kiernan@InterDigital.com]
Sent:
Friday, June 04, 2004 3:30 PM
To: Gordon Antonello;
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
I would not automatically assume TGe is the best way to handle
the
errata. Frankly, I think the Corrigenda approach makes more
sense. It
keeps the fixed and mobile distinction very clean and may
actually
happen faster if you all know and can agree as to exactly what
fixes
need to be made and how.
Brian
-----Original
Message-----
From: Gordon Antonello [mailto:GAntonello@WI-LAN.COM]
Sent:
Friday, June 04, 2004 1:59 PM
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
Thanks to all on this
one. There are ways to clean the ERRATA via the
TGe
process.
Gordon