Re: [STDS-802-16] +++Voting Process on Approval of P802.16-REVd/D5 Recirculation Comments Now Open; Deadline of 5 June
Please consider the comments of Changhoi Koo as also withdrawn.
By my count, the only comments remaining to vote upon are the following,
Tal Kaitz Comment 412 and Comment 414
Nico van Waes Comment 380
Lalit Kotecha Comment 435
Roger
>Based on statements from Raja Banerjea, Itzik Kitroser, and Yigal
>Leiba, their comments are withdrawn. You need not vote on those,
>because they will be marked as Withdrawn regardless of the totals.
>
>Remaining under consideration are comments from the following:
>
>Tal Kaitz 2
>Cor van de Water 3
>Nico van Waes 1
>Changhoi Koo 68
>Lalit Kotecha 14
>Wonil Roh 25
>
>Seung Joo Maeng suggested the withdrawal of comments 405 and 426,
>and possibly 470, 474, and 543 as well. However, I have not received
>a formal withdrawal from the submitter of those comments. Therefore,
>you should plan to cast a vote on these.
>
>Roger
>
>
>At 11:58 -0600 04/06/04, Gordon Antonello wrote:
>>Thanks to all on this one. There are ways to clean the ERRATA via
>>the TGe process.
>>
>>Gordon
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Ken Stanwood [mailto:kstanwood@cygnuscom.com]
>>Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 10:28 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
>>
>>
>>Thanks Itzik and Yigal,
>>
>>This will help get the document approved in a timely fashion.
>>
>>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: Friday, June 04, 2004 10:12 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 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.
>> >>**********************************************************************
>>*
>> > >*************
>