Re: [STDS-802-16] +++Voting Process on Approval of P802.16-REVd/D5 Recirculation Comments Now Open; Deadline of 5 June
I don't know anything about a teleconference, but please consider the
comments of Wonil Roh as withdrawn.
Roger
At 09:04 +0900 04/06/05, Wonil Roh wrote:
>Dear all,
>
>As was discussed during the telecon last night, I would like to
>withdraw all my comments.
>Thank you.
>
>Wonil Roh
>wonil.roh@samsung.com
>
>
>------- Original Message -------
>Sender : Itzik Kitroser<itzikk@RUNCOM.CO.IL>
>Date : 2004-06-05 02:11
>Title : 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 also to withdraw all my comments.
>
>Regards,
>Itzik.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>[mailto:owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Yigal Leiba
>Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 7:05 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
>
>Hi Roger, all,
>
>After reading the possibilities below, I am convinced that there are
>ways to correct the errors I identified in rev-D5, such that publication
>is not delayed. I would therefore request the BRC voters to reject all
>my comments.
>
>Regards,
>Yigal
>
>
>-----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: Thursday, June 03, 2004 10:59 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
>
>
>David,
>
>On one hand, I wouldn't worry that the 16e PAR scope prohibits us from
>making corrections that are not directly related to mobility. According
>to IEEE-SA, an amendment is "a document that has to contain new material
>to an existing IEEE standard and that may contain substantive
>corrections to that standard as well." In my experience, IEEE-SA allow
>errata in an amendment, even when it isn't explicit in the PAR scope.
>For example, 802.16a corrected errors in 802.16-2001. Also, we are
>proposing to modify the 16e PAR and could easily add a sentence about
>errata. Let's consider that as alternative (1).
>
>On the other hand, I do see merits in your arguments. I would suggest
>that we consider the following two alternatives:
>
>(2) Add errata to the scope of the upcoming MIB PAR that we agreed on in
>Shenzhen. That would make a lot of sense, especially if we expect that
>MIB work to be complete soon. After all, that PAR is targeted at
>fixed-only.
>
>(3) We could open a PAR for a corrigenda ("Corrigenda: A document that
>only contains substantive corrections to an existing IEEE
>standard.") This kind of PAR does not require 30-day advance notice to
>the SEC.
>
>Even if we don't know of any errors in the final version of REVd, I can
>confidently predict that we will find some. Therefore, for protection,
>we need to identify a specific outlet for the corrections. We can, and
>we should, make the decision at Session #32. At the moment, (2) and (3)
>sound like the best options.
>
>Thanks for your input.
>
>Roger
>
>
>At 17:02 +0100 04/06/03, David Castelow wrote:
>>Roger,
>>
>>I raised this issue at the plenary in Shenzhen, but your comment to
>>Vladimir brings it to mind once more. While the .16e PAR provides the
>>opportunity to make amendments, can you please provide guidance as to
>>how we can distinguish which parts of the contents of the .16e document
>
>>are corrections to .16-2004 and which are the additional features
>>required to implement .16e. Is the PAR really sufficient to provide
>>for errata? I quote from the current PAR
>>document:
>>
>>Scope of Proposed Project:
>>This document provides enhancements to IEEE Std 802.16/802.16a to
>>support subscriber stations moving at vehicular speeds and thereby
>>specifies a system for combined fixed and mobile broadband wireless
>>access. Functions to support higher layer handoff between base stations
>
>>or sectors are specified. Operation is limited to licensed bands
>>suitable for mobility between 2 and 6 GHz. Fixed 802.16a subscriber
>>capabilities shall not be compromised (See Item #18).
>>
>>A strict, narrow, interpretation of this would not seem to allow any
>>errata to be included.
>>
>>Also the errata MUST be made explicit.
>>In the case of .16c, the profiles were not in conflict with any changes
>
>>to the base document. In .16e, large changes are likely to be made, and
>
>>we need to
>distinguish
>>the errata to .16-2004 from the other changes being made in .16e.
>>
>>At the very least, I suggest, and shall raise a comment to this effect,
>
>>that a section of the .16e document be created in which the errata can
>>reside.
>>
>>There is also the issue of timing. While the current plan shows .16e
>>completing around November, given the changes currently being
>>introduced, this seems optimistic. Some of the technical issues being
>>discussed for .16-2004 (aka .16-REVd/D5) need rapid agreement, in order
>
>>for ASICs to be constructed in a timely fashion.
>>
>>However, this does not resolve marketing style issues relating to
>>compliance (to what: " .16-2004 plus the Errata Section of .16e" is a
>>bit of a mouthful).
>>
>>The alternative of creating an Errata document would be preferable.
>>
>>Comments please.
>>
>>Regards
>>
>>David Castelow
>>
>>
>>-----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: 03 June 2004 14:37
>>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
>>
>>Vladimir,
>>
>>We are at the end of the line, and time is too short for reply
>comments.
>>People have had one chance after another to get their comments right.
>If
>>a comment isn't right, then I think you should vote to reject. If you
>>think there is a valid point here, then we should use the amendment
>>mechanism to address it. Fortunately, we have an active amendment
>>project - P802.16e - in which to include any additional changes.
>>
>>Roger
>>
>>
>>At 15:25 +0300 04/06/03, Vladimir Yanover wrote:
>>>Roger,
>>>
>>>There are useful comments in database, in which remedy is incomplete
>or
>>
>>>contains errors.
>>>If we reject them, the problem stays, if accept, the text becomes
>>>inconsistent. Is there a procedural way to modify suggested remedy?
>>>In D4 we had step of reply comments and it was very useful
>>>
>>>Thanks
>>>
>>>Vladimir
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
>>>Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 7:17 AM
>>>To: stds-802-16@ieee.org
>>>Subject: +++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
>>>
>>>
>>>This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com
>>>
>>>**********************************************************************
>*
>>>*****
>>>********
>>>This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
>>>PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals &
>>>computer viruses.
>>>**********************************************************************
>*
>>>*****
>>>********
>>>This mail was sent via mail.alvarion.com
>>>
>>>**********************************************************************
>*
>>>************* This footnote confirms that this email message has been
>>>scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code,
>>>vandals & computer viruses.
>>>**********************************************************************
>*
>> >*************